Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 17, 2014.

John Smith (Ohio Senator)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Note that a hatnote was added during this discussion. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title "John Smith (Ohio Senator)" could refer to either John Smith (United States Senator from Ohio) or John Quincy Smith, member of the Ohio Senate. Americans are likely to think that the title refers to the former (because of the national colloquialism), while non-Americans are likely to assume the latter (because "Ohio Senator" and "Ohio Senate" seem more likely to correspond than "Ohio Senator" and "United States Senator from Ohio"). There has been some resistence to having this title redirect to the John Smith disambiguation page, so, as this title is ambiguous, isn't a likely search term, and isn't really necessary anyway, I recommend that it be deleted. Any incoming links can simply be retargeted to the applicable article title. Neelix (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add hatnote. Pace Neelix, as a non-American, I would expect John Smith (Ohio Senator) to be the member of the U.S. Senate who comes from Ohio, i.e. exactly what it is; I didn't even know Ohio had an institution called a Senate. Since John Quincy Smith seems always to be called that in article and references (or John Q. Smith but never plain John Smith) then the distinction seems clear. All that is needed is a hatnote on the first article:
This page is about a Member of the U.S. Senate. For the 19th-Century Member of the Ohio Senate, see John Quincy Smith.
Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I couldn't find any "resistence to having this title redirect...", or indeed any discussion at all, on any of the linked pages' talk pages, nor with a general Wikipedia search. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add hatnote per Si Trew. As another non-American, albeit one who did vaguely know that Ohio had a senate, I would expect "John Smith (Ohio Senator)" to refer to a US Senator from Ohio as US Senators are elected to represent their state. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The text I gave above for the hatnote was only a suggestion (as is this), but since it's at the target (and not at the redirect itself, of course) this would be better:
"John Smith (Ohio Senator)" redirects here. For the member of the 19th-Century Ohio Senate, see John Quincy Smith.
Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "19th Century member of the Ohio Senate" would be better as the Senate is the same body that exists today. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, although I had wondered whether "19th Century" was necessary at all for the purposes of DAB. Si Trew (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The weather in London[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn (implicitly by the nominator now recommending it be kept). Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on climate in London is extremely small, and I believe that a full and complete article on the subject could be created and would be beneficial to the encyclopedia, I would create the article myself but it is fully protected. I short I would like to be able to write a good\complete article on the subject and perhaps transclude it into the London article Isaac Oscar (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. This particular redirect has a long and storied history — take a look at Talk:The weather in London and be amazed. I would suggest that you write your article first, as "Climate of London", which is a better title anyway. At such point it would be appropriate to change the destination of this redirect. — Scott • talk 14:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, create your article in another better title or in your user namespace. Then you can request for redirect to your article. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok sure is'll do that then, sorry I'm new here, I'll think of a better title, and write it then (I just didn't want to spend time creating and the not able to post it). Isaac Oscar (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Main Page/Firdausi Qadri[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. — Scott • talk 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd redirect due to a page being created in the wrong place, only a few months old, and no pages linking to it. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:SUBPAGE should not exist in mainspace. Also speedy delete housekeeping; as an artifact of a misplaced article page. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WPMRR[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused shortcut for a dead WikiProject. The project has another shortcut, WP:MRR, which did see some use, so this is completely unnecessary to keep. — Scott • talk 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's also completely unnecessary to delete. Stop wasting time breaking things for no reason. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What complete and utter bullshit. That's a new low even for you. — Scott • talk 21:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the personal attack, now would you like to explain why deletion would benefit anybody or anything? Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the obligation is upon you to explain why keeping completely useless junk "would benefit anybody or anything" besides hoarders. — Scott • talk 20:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the onus is always on the person wanting to change the status quo. If you'd read the background to RfD though you would understand that this is not useless junk because people who: have it bookmarked, in their memories, find it in old page revision, linked on an external website, etc, who want to find out what it was and/or want to revive it will find it useful. See WP:RFD#HARMFUL and WP:RFD#KEEP points 4 and 5. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have weighed up the probability of all of those things. It is roughly zip divided by diddly-squat, as even the briefest logical analysis of this particular redirect obviously indicates. This redirect is crap. That's why you're unable to find a genuine justification for its existence, having to resort to imaginary friends instead. — Scott • talk 23:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • You can accuse me of all sorts of things if you want, but your opinion that this redirect is "crap" isn't a reason to delete it. If you have performed a logical analysis you should be able to demonstrably rebut all the reasons to keep and show that it meets at least one of the reasons to delete a redirect. I await your reasoning with interest. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this. The existence of other redirects is not a reason to delete. Being "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete. Is there a reason? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target is dead, not a shortcut prefix. Supporting (keeping) non shortcut/pseudo namespace prefixes is unhelpful for any reader, because one does not expect the long namespace name. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth are you on about!? This isn't in a pseudo namespace and is a shortcut (WP:WPMRR is exactly the same page as Wikipedia:WPMRR, as explained at least twice previously). A target page being presently inactive is no reason to delete a shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that WP:WPMRR is a better shortcut than WP:MRR, since it indicates a wikiproject destination; But the target is dead, so it's not very useful in any case. "WP:MRR" might be considered for reuse for something else, since there should be some currently active topics that can use a short shortcut like "MRR" (possibly move review requests WP:MRV) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no obvious benefit of deletion. If you want to repurpose it for something else, by all means do it, though. —Kusma (t·c) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jordon Freda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. — Scott • talk 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed to delete the redirect. No page link to this redirect and it was moved because of a typo. It is not likely for webpages outside Wikipedia to link to the redirect (as written in R3 of CSD), as it is not an article but an Afc submission not long ago. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 15:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as G8 - page dependent on deleted or non-existent page. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The target exists and so G8 is not applicable. In mainspace I'd regard Jordon Freda → Jordan Freda as a reasonable typo and argue to keep it, but at AfC stage I'm not certain such redirects are needed when (as in this case) there is no significant history at the former title), and it certainly should be deleted rather than point to a live article. I wouldn't object to someone speedying this as G6 (page accidentally created at the wrong title), but I'm not convinced enough that there is a need for deletion to do it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_17&oldid=1039435670"