Cannabis Ruderalis

August 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 9, 2014.

Jazzi Peak[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. As a normal editorial action I will add a mention of this term to the lead of the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 13:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and mention: translation of the native name to English. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (I made this redirect a long time ago but I don't remember why and I wouldn't do it now). "Jazzi peak" is not a real name, just my literal translation from Italian. And it could be also "Jazzi summit", "Jazzi mountain" etc.. So I don't think we should keep this redirect, but I don't really mind it either. ZachG (Talk) 15:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this is why redirects should sometimes have documentation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be pretty direct translation (A form like "Peak of Jazzi" would be very uncommon in English). I don't think it's at all harmful or misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 20 September 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.

Preventive medicine in islam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 21#Preventive medicine in islam

Witches' milk[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about this - does it make sense to keep such spelling variations as redirects? Richiez (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: pretty valid {{R from misspelling}}, and probably even {{R from plural}} (I don't know whether plural form is common). While wording of nomination implies deletion, no deletion rationale is presented or is obvious from situation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spelling variations are why redirects exist -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible plural form -Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 12 August 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.

Ukraine map[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 Maps of Ukraine. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 07:37, 9 August 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.

South-East Ukraine[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 Novorossiya. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what I should do with these. - TheChampionMan1234 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Novorossiya: both current targets are inappropriate. The term "Юго-Восточная Украина" is a disambiguated reference to the geopolitical region "Eastern Ukraine" (the latter name is claimed by more prominent economical region "Eastern Ukraine"). Despite its name and maps in Russian Wikipedia article this region does not match territory of South Ukraine and East Ukraine. The division mostly refers the prevelence of political views rising from historical split of modern-day Ukraine between Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire, so retargetting these pages to the section about modern use of the name of historical entity that gave birth to this item of aforementioned geopolitical division makes most sense to me.
    Still, I would strongly prefer a different target, because currently the term "Novorossiya" is pushed by Russia, and Wikipedia should not take sides in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
    Whatever happens to these redirects, Southeastern Ukraine should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. While it qualifies for WP:RED, I strongly oppose deletion, because the red link will quickly turn into an outrageously biased article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore / retarget to Novorossiya: In the Russian language the word Юго-Восточная Украина is used interchangeable with Novorossiya, often in reference to a proposed political entity. This combines South Ukraine and East Ukraine but excludes Central Ukraine and West Ukraine. South-East Ukraine is a word-for-word translation and does not in itself have any other meaning in the English language. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget South-East, keep Southeastern. We generally have articles with this kind of title, and they almost always cover generic regions of a country; unless someone should write an article about the southeastern parts of Ukraine, including history well before the recent conflict, we'd do best to have them as redirects to the eastern part of the country. Having them go to something on the current conflict will be surprising and not particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 15 August 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.

M'sia[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means an abbreviation for Malaysia - TheChampionMan1234 07:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: an IP attempted to add this note yesterday but was stopped by the abuse filter. See [1] for details. I have no comment myself. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 10 August 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.

Current events[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 News. This was close voting-wise, so a rationale is warranted. First of all, this is a cross-namespace redirect. While there are editors who think mainspace to portalspace redirects shouldn't be considered as such, it does meet the definition. Second, I found John Blackburne's arguments very convincing: that unlike, say, Speedy Delete, this is likely to be used as a link in articles, increasing the importance that it have a mainspace target. It's also worth considering that were we to have this as a CNR, WP:ITN might be a better target. (For what it's worth, the portal just looks like a recent archive of ITN.)
I suspect that converting this redirect away from being a CNR will make this less of an issue in the future. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to news -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: IMO this is the rare case of appropriate CNR, as the search term "current events" is most likely used in attempt to find out the list of articles about current events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects to Portal space should not be considered cross-space redirects. The whole point of this is that we don't take readers to a non-reader portion of the site - but Portals are written for readers. Thus, Article -> Portal should never be considered a cross-space redirect and such targets should be kept as appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to news: there is a link to the Portal on News (disambiguation), and the portal isn't hard to find for the basic user considering we have a big link to it on the Main Page labeled "more current events" in the ITN section. —Akrabbimtalk 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW not everyone uses Main Page. (I don't even remember last time I saw it.) And news is very bad target for this redirect, as news are reports of current events, not the events themselves. It is just like retargetting orange to juice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • the portal is not about the topic of "current events" either, it is news stories about current events. however "current events" is sometimes used as a synonym for "news" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to news. I stumbled across this in the body of an article and should not be taken out of article space if I clicked on it. Portal links belong in the relevant sections not looking to all the world like article links. The portal can be added to any article that benefits from it in the proper place.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People searching for this are best served by a link to the current events portal per the previous RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not people looking for it that's the problem; it's that it's used inline in articles so it looks like a link to another article. Even those searching for it, many if not most will be looking for a topic on to current events, not for WP's coverage of current events (which anyway is at WP:ITN).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the links should be fixed and hatnotes used. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • By fixing the link do you mean retarget it, then put a hatnote at the top of the target page for anyone who ends up there erroneously ? As that's the only easy fix. I hope you don't mean checking all the pages the link is used in and manually fixing them; that would be a massive amount of work, and wouldn't actually fix the problem as editors would keep adding it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:40, 18 September 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.

Leave a Reply