Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2016.

Secretary of the General People's Committee[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. Deryck C. 17:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title; corrected title is at General Secretary of the General People's Committee. --Neve–selbert 09:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Both have been used. Sites such as rulers.org, which seem to be regarded as authoritative on other matters here (whether acknowledged or not) use "Secretary of the General People's Committee." Unless there is another country that uses this title somewhere, there is no reason to change. —Sesel (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag as {{R from incorrect name}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't really make sense: it's not an incorrect name for the list. (Or, it is waaaay incorrect.) Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first, per Sesel; second, because even if it weren't in actual use, it's a plausible error; and third, because no one has presented any argument that the redirect is confusing or ambiguous. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2016 (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.

dynamic instability[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 8#dynamic instability

Easter basket[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 8#Easter basket

Reintroduction[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) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

"To put among or between others again" isn't exclusive to species (e.g. a product can be reintroduced). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if any of these were appropriate redirects that target would be named after one of them. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ... Well reintroduction can mean anything....., Anywho pointless redirects that should've wiped the first time!. –Davey2010Talk 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per previous discussion. Reintroduction was the title of this article since about 2006 and still gets a whole lot of traffic. We owe it a hatnote at least if there is a more appropriate target. The others have hits above noise level as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ya but are people finding what they are looking for with those hits? Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As far as I can tell, there are two definitions of the term "reintroduction." First, you have the common-sense dictionary definition (i.e. "to introduce something again"), but per WP:NOTDIC, we don't have an entry in the encyclopedia for the dictionary definition. Second, there is the definition that refers to the reintroduction of animal species. Because we don't include dictionary definitions in this encyclopedia, I don't think it will be a surprise to direct readers to Species reintroduction. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reintroduction as the original name redirect from a page move, a large number of legitimate incoming links, many page views, and a good match to the target article name.
Delete From best to worst: Reintroduce (3 legit incoming links) Reintroduced (4 legit incoming links) Reintroducing (2 legit incoming links) and Reintroductions (1 legit incoming link, and half the page views). The first three average ~1 hit per day, and the last one has a half-a-view per day. Changing the incoming links to point to Species reintroduction will probably drop the page views to about zero. (In fact I'll make those edits right now.) And as Legacypac comments, if someone types those terms in directly then I am not so confident they are even sending people where they want to go. Alsee (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't change links that are WP:NOTBROKEN. Si Trew (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all- at least until we have appropriated all the knowledge from these documents into the "Reintroduction of Species" article, if the articles other than Reintroduction pertain to this form of conservation. It seems blasphemous to the very notion of 'shared knowledge' if we do not accrue as much as possible and add it to this one article, before teh articles' deletion. I am very sure, having edited Reintroduction, that there is a substantial amount to save- which subsequently I cannot access if the current action of 'redirection' is put in place. SuperTah (talk) 7:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
SuperTah, everything at Reintroduction was moved to Species reintroduction, and there is no content at the other titles. They were created as redirects. Alsee (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all until we have some evidence upsetting the notion that these point to the primary topic of the terms. bd2412 T 12:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible search term. The only way Wikipedia could help people who use these terms but aren't looking for species reintroduction is to point them to Wiktionary, but that kind of thing is frowned upon. Siuenti (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per Notecardforfree. Unless someone can find a different encyclopedic concept/extant article these could go to? I don't see anything other than conservation biology/species reintroduction in this google scholar search [1] (there are a few uses of the regular English word). SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I think in the past some of the links have been from things not meaning species reintroduction, but that's the fault of the editor in not checking the target of a link. The only other meaning of it that we cover is Reintroduction of episcopacy which targets Restoration (Scotland). Si Trew (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2016 (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/2016_March_25&oldid=1138581144"