Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 11, 2015.

Top 100 historical figures[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 dabify. Thanks to Si Trew for doing the legwork here, though I'm going to remove the entries that don't list people. I don't think people would search for lists of albums or crime novels under this name, though they are rightlist listed at the Top 100 dab. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather full of ourselves to assume someone looking for the Top 100 historical figures, would be looking for the Wikipedia version. Redirect exists only a remnant of an old rename. Bosstopher (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Time 100. This is probably the most notable use of "100" when referring to "historical figures" (it's recent history, but still...). Tavix | Talk  00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Bosstopher: I would have thought it implicit that if someone looks up something on Wikipedia they get Wikipedia's version of the facts, however WP:NEUTRAL we try to be. However, the article is a summary of research done not by Wikipedians (at least qua Wikipedians) but by researchers at the University of Toulouse, so seems perfectly WP:RS to me. Title seems a little unidomatic to me but I can think of no better (maybe "in" not "of"): the target was moved on 4 July 2014 by @Animalparty: presumably for that reason, creating this redirect: comment "More specific title necessary to distingIuish from other such lists, per WP:PRECISE". It's marked {{R from move}}. The BBC's 100 Greatest Britons (2012 poll) would be a candidate if we wanted to start a list or DAB? (Very anglo-centric of course but that's OK at a DAB: I'm sure we'd others once we got it started.) Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (or convert) to dab. The move was to allign the title with the content, and I brought up issues at the talk page and Afd. I have no problems with a retargeting, perhaps to a dab that includes Time 100, 100 Greatest Britons and other such notable lists. I'm not opposed to outright deletion as well. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be clear, I was not having a go at @Animalparty: rather thanking that user, but didn't say so explicitly. Sorry about that. Si Trew (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the proposals to re-target the redirect on the grounds that all of them are subjective lists even if created by notable sources. The redirect's title is subjection (top 100 most notable, most victorious, most impacting?). This kind of title has no place on Wikipedia as anything. Elassint Hi 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elassint: but then, if I read you right, you are arguing against the target being useless, not the redirect. That's a case for a WP:PROD or something. All we do here is say "if a target exists, what do we do with the redirect?". By your reasoning, if I have it correctly, we need to delete the target first, then the redirect will go with it as procedure. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant at all. What I'm really trying to say is the title implies that there is a single definitive list of top 100 historical figures, which there is not. Articles like Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia and 100 Greatest Britons merit inclusion because they are notable and covered by reliable sources. But we cannot objectively say that either of those are the single definitive list of top 100 historical figures in the same way that earth orbits the sun and 0.999... = 1. This simple title implies there is such a single definitive list that the world's historians follow, which is simply not true, which is why I'm strongly against retargeting this redirect. I say it should be deleted, but a dab page wouldn't be bad either. Elassint Hi 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to misinterpret you @Elassint:, and thanks for clarifying. We have Top 100 but that seems to generic to R to, wouldn't you say? One of the things listed at that DAB is The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, (F. knows why it is persons rather than people, like normal people say), but that might do. Si Trew (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got four so far, doing it Tavix' way, as listing below the R. Try to find more. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five now. I am sure others can add more, but we already have DABs at Top 100 and 100 greatest, so this might be redundant (or R to there), I dunno, but surely lists of 100 things are rather commonplace and not very encylopaedic. I give you List of famous Belgians (Three Famous Belgians is a typical parlour game in England, since all we can ever think of is Tintin and Hercule Poirot). Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2015 (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:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo with no incoming links that has been here for 10 years. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strange. I hadn't even heard of "Non-main namespace pages for deletion". "Non-mainspace pages for deletion" is less wordy, though maybe that terminology hadn't developed yet. I wonder why these weren't retroactively moved to Miscellany for deletion, the same way Votes for deletion discussions were moved to Articles for deletion. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NfD was the original name for WP:MfD, back when it was split off of WP:VfD -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once upon a time, there was also a venue called "Wikipedia:Pages for deletion"; from the chronology, it seems that this was the name of WP:AFD after it was renamed from "Votes for deletion". (So, "Votes", then "Pages", and finally "Articles".) Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This is perhaps off-topic but wasn't it Albert Einstein who said "If my theory is proved right, the Germans will call me a German and the French willl call me a citizen of the world. And if it is proved wrong, the French will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." Si Trew (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'bot did the VFD to AFD move. This was me moving things by hand. And as you can see, accidents like "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:" happened. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To get back on topic, this redirect should be deleted because it has received exactly zero views in at least 90 days (I'd bet in years) until it was nominated for deletion. I would even classify it as housekeeping. Elassint Hi 03:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment I, the same person as the IP, have added one more similar redirect to this discussion. DL9C (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there have never been pages created titled Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world or Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state, so thus these redirects are harmful as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (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/2015_May_11&oldid=1138580537"