Trichome

thcscience_admin

December 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2013.

G.U.Y.[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 retargeted to Guy. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is not a deletion request, just a redirection request. From Artpop to Guy. For several months I've been trying to add the {{redirect}} to Artpop as there are other uses of the term, for example Air Guyane Express, whose code is GUY[1]. I originally included the "G.U.Y. redirects here, for other uses see Guy", which lasted for a few weeks until someone removed it because "other songs redirect here as well and didn't need tags"--simply because there aren't other songs titled Swine (song) or Sexxx Dreams. I improved the tag and it was removed again. I don't know why this redirect goes to Artpop and not Guy, but considering other redirects like No Angel (song) redirected to Beyoncé (album) when No Angel (Birdy song) existed for weeks before Knowles song was announced. G.U.Y. should go to Guy as, at least, the airport shares ambiguity. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, Tbhotch. Apologies if my removal of the hatnote on the Artpop article was problematic for any reason. To me, the hatnote just looked so bizarre, perhaps because I did not understand why one redirect would be included but not others. Are you proposing that the current G.U.Y. page be moved to G.U.Y. (song), then G.U.Y. can be recreated/re-purposed to direct readers to the Guy disambig page? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guy - redirecting such a common word, in any form, to an article with a completely different name is ridiculous. I don't see any need to rename to G.U.Y. (song) and create a new redirect as Another Believer suggested, I'd just retarget. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2013 (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.

Law, crime, and punishment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 5#Law, crime, and punishment

File:MerryChristmastoYou.jpg[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled file- No significant incoming links at former location. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is harmless and breaking links from old revisions, etc. will give no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2013 (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) 18:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Siuenti (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, keeping 'garbage' redirects can't be good in the long run. (it requires a 'infinite' database to keep all and every bit of history) - Nabla (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't propose keeping "garbage" redirects, but this is not an example of that set. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly will be broken by deleting this? Some old revision of an article will show a redlink "File:MerryChristmastoYou.jpg" instead of an image? I can not see a meaningful loss in that event. - Nabla (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted redirects are kept in the data anyways, they're just only visible to admins, so there's no actual benefit in that respect. WilyD 15:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marbach (Lauda-Königshofen),[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 speedily deleted after misunderstanding was cleared up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk)

Recently created redirect with a trailing comma. The page creator claims this is a common term, but I never seen anything like it before, and it seems it's wrong. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is from me. This is correct, because you must differentiate, because there are more Marbach's and my edit is correct, too. This Marbach is incorporated to [[Lauda-Königshofen)! Greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not about the redirect at "Marbach (Lauda-Königshofen)", but the one at "Marbach (Lauda-Königshofen)," (including the trailing comma) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's no need for the comma at the end, and that's what this discussion is about. It's not about the "(Lauda-Königshofen)" part. Huon (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (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.

Traverse City, Leelanau, and Manistique Railroad[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 Leelanau Transit Company and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNRs to transcriptions as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations. Redirect created in September 2013; receives only a few pageviews per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (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.

Portals/contents[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 5#Portals/contents

The snakes bearers[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 Deleted. In future you can tag pages like this with {{G8}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect leads to a deleted page. Z. Patterson (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2013 (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.

C;sd[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) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual WP:CNR that doesnt follow naming conventions. It is the only one on Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects that uses a ';'. Talk:C;sd cites precedents is the 'keep all' at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_17#Wp;, however these were all deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_3#Wp;drv. It receives a low number of pageviews: 11 times in October 2013 John Vandenberg (chat) 12:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XNR ; also it should be CAT:CSD which already exists. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 3 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.

List of lakes in Cape Verde[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 no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target page does not mention lakes; indeed, Geography of Cape Verde#Data states that the area covered by water is 0%. There are no longer any incoming links from articles; List of lakes used to link to this, but the template has been changed to "list of lakes of" rather than "in". – Fayenatic London 09:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Any chance there is a reliable source which says there are no lakes in Cape Verde, or 0% water. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pedra de Lume#Geography, which describes a salt lake on Sal Island. —rybec 05:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. "List of <common geographical feature> in <country>" is a very likely search term and exactly the sort of fomulaic title that an encyclopaedia should have. If there are no lakes in Cape Verde then we should direct readers to an appropriate article that educates them about this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The retargeting suggestion is not terrible, but it seems ASTONISHing. Compare to Andorran Navy (RfD) and other redirects from nonexistent topics that could plausibly be searched for nonetheless. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Wikipedia and the Web, but didn't find anything about lakes in Cape Verde, other than the salt lake on Sal Island. However, I didn't find a source which says that's the only lake. Someone who follows a link to List of lakes in Cape Verde can be expected to be interested in reading about the lake(s) there; directing them to the only proper content we have about the topic is the least astonishing thing to do. I'm going to tag the "Water: 0 km²" statement as disputed. —rybec 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better to mention the Pedra de Lume lake at the Geography of Cape Verde page. It's hardly surprising that there are a dearth of sources on Cape Verdean geography; I'm uncomfortable asserting or implying that this is the only lake there if we don't know that that's the case. --BDD (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source which says there are no lakes, and one which says there are none worth mentioning, and posted about them at Talk:Geography_of_Cape_Verde. Of course, I dispute them because of the salt lake. —rybec 09:58, 5 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.

Msgnw:[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) 22:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only cross name redirect for one of the many MediaWiki mw:Help:Magic_words, described in more detail at meta:Help:Template#msgnw. It is rare that someone needs to use this functionality on English Wikipedia, and if they do stats show they are not looking for an English Wikipedia article to help them; they will be using the internal documentation and APIs. The redirect creator user:Lenore is from Italian Wikipedia, so I checked that they dont have either: it:msgnw or it:msgnw:. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 27 December 2013 (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.

Darren Douglas[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible search term; the linked article is to a relatively undistinguished college football coach, and the subject (at least according to the article) is one of his children, now deceased. As it happens, I'm an alumna of the university in question, and while I recall the coach's name, the odds the average student of that school would have known his children's names are somewhere between zero and zero. Part of a string of bizarre and implausible redirects created by the author in recent weeks. Ravenswing 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Ravenswing 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No WP:RFD#DELETE; discussed at target. Dolovis (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target, doesn't seem to be a case of worthwhile redlinking to encourage creation. Since no rationale has been presented for deletion, seems straightforward. WilyD 09:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLP. target subject is living; having his non-notable childrens names created as redirects to his bio is unnecessary and inappropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you suggest any possible problem with such a redirect? Is there some possibility for harm? Certainly no one has given a basis for why it would be inappropriate, and I'm at a complete and utter loss on trying to imagine why it might be so. WilyD 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WilyD, The target article is unreferenced, and includes details unrelated to the persons notability (thats a violation of WP:BLPNAME, and unless reliably sourced is also a violation of WP:GOSSIP). Endorsing redirects to such an article is crazy IMO, esp. when the article is in such poor shape. Did you check that the details of these redirects are all able to be reliably sourced? John Vandenberg (chat) 16:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're saying there's nothing, in fact, wrong with the redirect, but something wrong with the article, which should be fixed by deleting the redirect? No, that doesn't make any sense. If your problem is with the article, address the article (although sourcing the details of the family is quite easy - e.g. [2] [3]) WilyD 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is entirely normal to redirect a nn person to a relative's page if they have a reliably sourced mention there. If there is an issue with the target then we should fix the target and, in this case, I have started the process by adding two cites though this is clearly still a very poor article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:17, 1 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_27

Leave a Reply