Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2017.

Sockpuppet investigation[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 retarget to Sockpuppet (Internet)#Investigation of sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. GMGtalk 17:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • R2 does not apply to redirects to Wikipedia space. If you're going to link to R2, please actually read what you're linking. -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have speedily retargeted this to the Wikipedia article Sockpuppet (Internet), which would probably benefit from some content about the means by which such sockpuppetry is, in fact, investigated. bd2412 T 14:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeeah. I kindof skipped R2 in the case that there was a valid target someone preferred. I'm... not totally convinced that extensive content on sockpuppet investigations per se (which would probably slant heavily toward coverage of Wikipedia itself), wouldn't be mostly UNDUE. But given that there is a hat note to SOCK, it works for me, and is less confusing than a non-obvious XNR. GMGtalk 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily "extensive" coverage, but some mention of it would be warranted. For example, this article. bd2412 T 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Derp. And. I mean. Of course I realized at the time that R2 didn't apply to WP XNRs. I obviously only appeared to overlook that because... I worded my comment in exactly the way that someone who had completely overlooked it would have. :P GMGtalk 20:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, sorry about the bad deletion and closing. I think the retarget is good too. Thanks, ansh666 19:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore previous target Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Sockpuppets are ubiquitous on the wider web, and other sites probably do have their own ways of investigating them, but none of the relatively abundant google search results for the phrase "sockpuppet investigations" have to do with anything other than wikipedia. Of course, it's preferable to cover that topic within an article (and there's enough sources for whoever wants to write one [1], [2], [3], [4]), but until that happens all we're left with is choosing the most appropriate projectspace page to point to. The most literally correct one would be WP:SPI, but this is veritably not a front-facing part of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on the other hand has enough broad context to be accessible to the general reader and has a dedicated section about sockpuppet investigations. – Uanfala (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is enough material to write an article, write the article. I have added a section and a sourced line of information at Sockpuppet (Internet)#Investigation of sockpuppetry. That can be expanded. bd2412 T 18:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
    Now that a bit of material has been added to the article then redirecting there is an eligible option as well. I still contend that aiming at the most relevant content should trump any considerations against crossing namespace boundaries. – Uanfala (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per bd2412. I think that such a discussion is somewhat likely to be WP:NAVELGAZING but as long as there's content, that's what we should redirect to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:77.103.88.137[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 Restore. IAR involved close - unanimous, and could as well have been done BOLDly without discussion. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senseless redirect from IP userpage to a project page. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore You could just boldly do it I think. A guy called Wikispan removed messages and put redirects, just revert those edits. (and on the talk pages too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore all (including the talk pages of both IPs which were also redirected) - neither Wikispan nor the IPs have edited within the past few years, but there's no reason for redirects like this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Infracaninophile[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 29#Infracaninophile

Politics and government of the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 29#Politics and government of the United States

Template:Not here[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to a recently closed move request, "Template:Not here" has been moved to "Template:Not around", due to the potential confusion with the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTHERE. The template indicates that an editor is merely away, while the policy indicates that an editor is here, but for an improper purpose (literally, "not here to build an encyclopedia"). This nomination is to close the loop on this revision, eliminating the redirects altogether (most instances have already been substituted) so that there can be no future confusion. bd2412 T 17:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • If deleted, aren't these likely to get recreated? How about turning them each into an error message, and linking to Template:not around from the documentation? – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thinking was that people would get the hint from it being a red-linked template, but an error message is just as good. I've never made one, so I am not familiar with the magic words to set one up. bd2412 T 22:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about changing all the cases in which it is used, so it doesn't get recreated. Both combined have a total of 6 transclusions.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Or if needed, protect it. Don't see how they'll get recreated that much Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of uses is small because I updated most of them after closing the move request. I would prefer not to create a perpetual maintenance task here. bd2412 T 22:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran and ToThAc: Since you participated in the move discussion, do you have any opinions on what should become of the resulting redirects? bd2412 T 18:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we should delete the redirects. But I am not sure, would it cause a lot of work? It is not substituted so it might be easy to replace the currently used {{not here}} to {{not around}}. Regarding recreation, I don't think the user who is trying to use it would create it directly without consulting the admin who deleted it. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replaced almost all instances, after I executed the page move. I think that the rest would depend on the outcome of the discussion. bd2412 T 16:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both for now as I'm not sure where else to redirect them other than {{uw-nothereblock}}. ToThAc (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

TsRNA[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 disambiguate. Killiondude (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tsRNA can also stand for transfer-RNA-derived small RNA. Delete or change it into a disambiguation page. Ref: (link to possible copyvio removed) --dqwyy (talk) from zhwiki 01:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate I removed the link as scihub is possibly violating copyright, and so we shouldn't link to it (WP:ELNEVER). Anyhow, a google search reveals this paper as one of the first results when searching for "tsRNA", that uses it for tRNA derived small RNAs. Don't see the need to delete though. Currently there isn't an article on tRNA-derived small RNA (only redirect I created now), but it does go to a place that has some useful stuff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_December_19&oldid=1037918610"