Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 25

October 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 25, 2008

Squashed bugs → Wikipedia:Squashed bugs

The result of the debate was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to an inactive wikipedia page, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is the reason I'm still hanging around this place whenever I have writer's block... a six-year-old redirect with virtually no history (it just sat there for almost six years with no change and no incoming links - before edited by a bot). I generally don't like to get rid of very old redirects, but this is a CNR that was created with the comment "Just to make watchlist work." Time to dust off a corner of Wikipedia here. B.Wind (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to...I don't know. Bug squashing party targets Hackathon, but I'm not sure I like it. Maybe to Software bug...and I could have sworn I heard about some sort of insect squashing fetish someplace...Delete if a good target can't be found.--UsaSatsui (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This page was created in 2002 long before the different namespaces worked the way they do today. Even though it is currently orphaned, links to it will exist throughout the project history. If someone ever wants to write actual encyclopedic content at this title, they can overwrite the redirect without needed to delete the pagehistory. In the meantime, none of UsaSatsui's proposed retargets seem appropriate. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. I had to try. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this, but that doesn't matter; I haven't needed it for years. (All the same, MBisanz, thanks for the courtesy notification.) That said, Rossami is right; we don't know whether any links from outside Wikipedia exist, and there's just no need to break them. —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while certain cnrs from main space to project space are useful, this one has no outstanding utility and in the scenario where a reader would reach this page, this discussion would be linked in the deletion log, so the intended target. It's also a case where the expression has a signification outside Wikipedia, so we shouldn't redirect to a Wikipedia-specific page. Cenarium Talk 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Spoken articles → Category:Spoken articles

The result of the debate was retarget to Article (publishing) pending creation of article on Spoken articles.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to a wikiproject tracking category. MBisanz talk 20:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The best option is to write a standalone Spoken article article, but there is a viable option other than deletion: redirect to Article (publishing), in which a discussion of spoken articles can be added, and - more importantly - Wikipedia uses can be placed in a "see also" section. This should address all issues regarding the history (which here is not that much) and the CNR (which would be gone). B.Wind (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If someone wants to rewrite or retarget, that's fine. But redirects to categories are both common and accepted for any number of reasons. Rossami (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a typical redirect to a category. List of X's can be redirected to Category:X's because the category presents roughly the same encyclopedic content. Logically Spoken articles should be an article about spoken articles. The target category in this case does not present encyclopedic information about "spoken articles".140.247.251.27 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per B.Wind. The more useful link would be to a "main article" or to an article that has a list that (at least) is a superset of the items with articles in the category. In addition, the category itself could contain the proposed target (if it doesn't already). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article-fy per B.Wind. GlassCobra 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Spanish European Commissioner → Category:Spanish European Commissioners

The result of the debate was Retarget to List of European Commissioners by nationality#Spanish Commissioners. Tikiwont (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR, not notable on its own for an article. All categories don't need corresponding articles. MBisanz talk 20:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

South Pacific ocean Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale → Template:South Pacific ocean Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale

The result of the debate was Close, retargeted by User:B.Wind. GlassCobra 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR, already covered by template functionality. MBisanz talk 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

El-Manial → Cairo

The result of the debate was Deleted. Cairo does not mention these so redirecting them provides the reader no information. WikiProject Egypt has them as requested articles so red links are more appropriate at this time. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs) blanked the redirect El-Manial writing, "removed redirect (this is not el manial, please leave it as a red link untill filled.)" El-Tagamu El Khames, Garden City (Cairo), Haram (Cairo), and Kerdasa were also blanked because "removed redirect (this is not Cairo, please leave it as a red link untill filled)". The same reason probably holds for El-Marg. I have no opinion on the deletion of the redirects. Cunard (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have notified the user in question about this RFD (probably a good idea to do in the future), and they can explain their reasoning behind it. I'd like to know the connection between Cairo and these links. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All these links are names of districts in Cairo. El-Manial --> المنيل, El-Tagamu El Khames --> التجمع الخامس, Garden City --> جاردن سيتي, Haram --> الهرم, Kerdasa --> كرداسة, El-Marg --> المرج. --Meno25 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As said by Meno25 these are districts in Cairo and aren't Cairo itself. The Pages have been filed as requested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt. The Article Cairo doesn't have anything about these districts that's way there shouldn't be a redirect to there. These Districts aren't even only in Cairo but also in Giza. The Districts are in Greater Cairo which includes Giza and Cairo. So for these reasons I removed these redirects. Sorry for the former short explanation. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepthe ones that are in Cairo, Retarget the ones that are in Giza to Giza, and Delete the two that have "(Cairo)" in them. That's a bit complicated. But someone may be wondering about the district and it should take them to a reasonable place to help them find something about it. If an article is written about them, then it can be done. The ones with "(Cairo)" in them, though, are implausible search terms...people who search for that term already know they're in Cairo. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Phil Fartman → Phil Hartman

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Rmhermen (talk · contribs) as an attack redirect. Cunard (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect serves no point whatsoever. "Phil Fartman" has not been used anywhere to describe Phil Hartman as far as I can tell, and even if it had, it is inherently not-notable. It can be considered personally offensive to Phil Hartman. Gran2 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are very few Google hits for Phil Fartman. This redirect is useless and offensive. Cunard (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G10 criteria as an attack page. Tagged as such. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.


Cake number → Fair division

The result of the debate was article-ize. Wizardman 02:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. The cake numbers (plural) are the integer sequence A000125 and if an article is ever set up about them they'd be plural. They have nothing to do with Fair division commonly called cake cutting. Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - "cake number" (and "cake numbers") appears in the version of the article that appeared in the first position of a Google search of "cake number" just before this post, but not in the current version. If the term (singular or plural) is pertinent to the topic of fair division, it should be kept (unless a standalone article is written, a superior option); if not, it should be deleted. A general reminder: per WP:RfD#KEEP "cake number" would indeed be a valid redirect to Cake numbers as singular-to-plural redirects are considered valid in Wikipedia, regardless of actual meaning of the terms. B.Wind (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and close - new stub article is promising, and it's a far better option that either maintaining or deleting the redirect. Since it's a standalone article now, it seems properly named: the plural form would be a valid redirect should it be formed (but I wouldn't go out of my way to create it). B.Wind (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone has actually set up some content for it now. Looks good to me. I think I might actually go and add something to it. Business above about plural and singular sounds good - I recant my original proposal to delete. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:NGC 92 → Template:Robert's Quartet

The result of the debate was Keep. This template is (a) necessary to document the recent page move and (b) is useful, because NGC 92 is part of the quartet (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading and factually incorrect, as the template is about Robert's Quartet, and not just NGC 92 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Documents a recent page move. Maintaining history is important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as NGC 92 is part of Robert's Quartet; thus this is a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

How to rename a page → Help:Moving a page

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In appropriate CNR. MBisanz talk 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this old redirect. Any reader typing this into the search engine will clearly expect to find our help page. There is no reasonable possibility of confusion with an encyclopedia topic. (The general concept of renaming pages without regard to context is too vague to ever support an article.) This redirect does no harm and has clearly been helpful to some. Rossami (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is good to keep cross namespace redirects like this. For most people they will have no idea of the title for this page, and I always find it helpful when you can type the name of the concept and the wikipedia help page is highlighted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is clearly one "exception to the rule" that ought to be kept, regardless of the history (which itself is another reason to keep the redirect). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_25&oldid=1138576295"