Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 7

September 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 7, 2011

Wikipedia:Windows Live Hotmail

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 --Taelus (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Windows Live Hotmail → Hotmail (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirecting from the project to the main namespace is very similar to a normal CSD. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only way anyone would visit this is by visiting one poorly conceived userbox. I just removed that so I think this can safely go. —mako๛ 02:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no hits above background noise. Pointless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (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.

Get tough on crime

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. Ruslik_Zero 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the target article doesn't have anything to do with being tough on crime, and there's no better page to which to send it. No significant history: the three edits are its creation, a bot changing its target to avoid a double redirect, and me nominating it for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is an oft used phrase on which we should have something. The present target is simply misleading and no better target presents itself. Possible WP:RED application. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we should have something to redirect this to. I don't think there is enough encyclopaedic about the phrase for an article, but the underlying philosophy would make a good article I think. I can't find we have an article about this, but I'll see if the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime have any suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but otherwise this should be deleted as totally misleading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Property is theft" comes from a French philosopher, I forget whom, but says basically if owning a piece of land and not letting others walk on it, why should I not say property is theft? It has nothing to do with this topic, it should if anything be redirected to that philosopher, which I will look up shortly. I have read it but only in French and since the landlady has just offered to sell the house to me for a reasonable price my views on property on theft may be somewhat coloured. But certainly doesn't deserve this target. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change redirect. Hmm. THe article sits at Property is theft!, with the exclamation mark. Suggest the redirect should go to there (and perhaps reverse the title and the redirect after). Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My misunderstanding, I got it all the wrong way around. I still think Property is Theft is better as an article title without the exclamation mark, and the one with it should redirect to it. But I misuderstood, and Get Tough On Crime I don't know where it should go. It was a slogan of Tony Blair's before the Labour 1997 landslide, Get Tough On Crime, Get Tough On The Causes Of Crime (my caps) so perhaps it could go somewhere in that direction but I would be hard pressed to know exactly where. Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That slogan I think was written by Alistair Campbell not sure but definitely in his style. Not sure so need refs and so on but would put a bet on it. Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested redirect: McGruff the Crime Dog, using the slogan “Take a bite out of crime”. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - McGruff the Crime Dog is just pulling at straws. This doesn't need to point anywhere. If we think an article on the phrase would be good addition, then lets turn the link WP:RED in order to highlight that need. —mako๛ 02:26, 11 September 2011 (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.

Sloe eyes

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 Closed. Ruslik_Zero 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target.

Delete; the redirect makes no sense, as is discussed on the talk page for the target. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the sloes; delete the slows. The 'sloes' have some utility; the 'slows' are confusing. See Talk:Prunus spinosa#Sloe-eyed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, Keep the sloes; delete the slows. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, Keep the sloes; delete the slows, as per Nadiatalent. BTW now is the perfect time if you are in the UK to go around the hedges collecting sloes to make your sloe gin for christmas. I am not against being slow, but I think it would act as unhelpful search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any way to speed up brewing? Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 12:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sloes - As per the discussion above. It's mentioned in the article and it's an actual phrase. Until or unless there's a better target, this seems like a good situation. Keep the slows - This seems like a common misspelling for somebody who has heard the term but not seen it written down. Sloe is not a common term (at least where I'm from) and I wouldn't have known how to spell it at all until recently. —mako๛ 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion at Talk:Prunus spinosa. Perhaps a better target for slow-eyes, etc. would be Non-rapid eye movement sleep. That page could then have a distinguish template at the start for sloe-eyes, etc. That suggestion has so far not been supported except by me. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed in accordance with that last suggestion. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2011 (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.

Incorrect "disambiguation" redirects

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 'Abdul Rahiem (disambiguation). Retarget +968 (disambiguation) to 968 (disambiguation). Delete remaining two. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each of these redirects, although it has "disambiguation" in the title, in fact redirects to an article, not a disambiguation page. These redirects are misleading, not useful to readers, and not plausible search terms. None of these redirects has any incoming links. Also, there are no other existing disambiguation pages that are obvious targets for the redirects (unlike some other cases that I have fixed, such as targeting +95 (disambiguation) to 95 (disambiguation) and .oz (disambiguation) to Oz). In addition to seeking consensus to delete, I am also inquiring whether there is a consensus that other redirects meeting these criteria (of which there are many, see here) may be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G6. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why should +961 (disambiguation) redirect to an article about a year? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I agree about 968, and will change the redirect target and remove the RFD request. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (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.

Dutch cheese

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 new page List of Dutch cheeses. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects both point to an article about Dutch cheese markets. This is misleading, as the article on the markets doesn't have much to say about Dutch cheese itself. For this reason I think both should be deleted. Augurar (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, Dutch cheese was a redirect created by a mis-move which I corrected.
Currently the best choices are either Dutch cheese market or Dutch cuisine. There are several Dutch cheeses, mentioned in the cheese nav box {{Dutch cheeses}} such as Edam, Gouda, Leerdammer, Leyden, Limburger, Maaslander, Maasdam, Mimolette, Old Amsterdam, Parrano, and Roomano.
Are you advocating article-izing Dutch cheese (with redirects "Dutch cheeses" and "Dutch-type cheeses"), with stub prose and {{main}} links to the various individual cheese articles? --Lexein (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with the sentiment that (quite rightly) the Dutch cheese markets article concentrates on the markets not the cheeses, so that the redirects to it are perhaps a bit misleading. I wonder if a solution might be to create a list article List of Dutch cheeses then, at least for now, redirect Dutch cheese to there?. But I can't see the point of Dutch-type cheese, it seems an unlikely search term to me. (I presume if it means anything, Dutch-type cheese is cheese that is NOT Dutch but made in some style e.g. Edam or Gouda that is typically Dutch; but does anyone actually ever say Dutch-type cheese?) Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a quick check of redirect access frequency. "Dutch-type cheese" gets 6x less traffic than "Dutch cheese", but it's not zero traffic.
http://stats.grok.se/en/2010/Dutch-type_cheese : 2010:67, 2011:208
http://stats.grok.se/en/2010/Dutch_cheese : 2010:952, 2011:1369
It seems, from a search for "Dutch-type cheese", that the phrase does not mean not Dutch, but instead seems to constitute a process class: "Dutch-type semi-hard cheese produced from pasteurized milk", or tools related to the process.
A list would have to be named "List... ", and would be too short to survive an AfD, where a stub "Dutch cheeses" with {{main}}s would serve readers and searchers better, IMHO. Seeking consensus before converting redirect to article. Changed my mind. Redirecting the above to a list like List of Dutch cheeses should work fine. Awaiting consensus before moving to main space and changing redirects. --Lexein (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dutch-type cheese" is used in the article about eyes in cheese in a manner similar to "Swiss-type cheese", meaning (I think) cheese which is of a type made in the Netherlands, but not necessarily produced there itself. For this reason a stub or redlink may be best. Redirecting to the list would also be fine; a dedicated article could be created later if desired. Augurar (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Dutch cheese to List of Dutch cheeses, as a very likely search term. There should be a link from that article to wherever the Dutch-type cheeses are discussed, probably as a hatnote or see also. Write a (stub) article about Dutch-type cheese (no opinion on the best location for this), or (2nd preference) delete per WP:REDLINK. If a redlink is chosen, then a note should be placed at talk:List of Dutch cheeses so a link can be added to that article when one on the type is written. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, Augurar: Yes, Eyes (cheese) seems to be the source of the trouble. It discusses "types" only with regard to cavitied cheeses, not smooth cheeses. There is no instantiation of "Dutch cheese" as in "how much is that block of Dutch cheese" and there never will be. There are only a variety of Dutch cheeses, all fiercely defended as unique. According to Eyes (cheese), only a difference in bacteria separates "Swiss-type" from (some!) "Dutch-type". So I'm leaning towards retargeting "Dutch cheese" and "Dutch-type cheese" to the List of Dutch cheeses. --Lexein (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2011 (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 death metal bands from Nordic countries

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 all. Ruslik_Zero 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I have moved List of death metal bands from Nordic countries to List of Swedish death metal artists due to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of death metal bands from Nordic countries, which concluded that the genre Swedish death metal exists, but the geographical lumping was WP:OR, or arbitrary. Curb Chain (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to maintain the full edit history. All of these redirects are former titles of the article, and as they've been around for a while it's likely that they'll remain useful search targets, particularly given the recency of the move. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria has changed so such redirects are useless.Curb Chain (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for people who knew the content at the previous title and those who are following outdated links from external sites, mirrors or bookmarks, etc. They also serve to maintain attribution history as is required by Wikipedia's license. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be following links from external sites and mirrors, and bookmarks are irrelevant.Curb Chain (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think they should or should not, people do. We should be making things easier for people to find our content, not harder. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the nature of wiki, everything changes. It is too much to ask for people to expect that our project is static.Curb Chain (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our project is not static, which is exactly why we keep redirects following page moves - to help people find the content they are looking for in the new location. We should not be encouraging link rot but doing what we can to reduce it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article here has totally different inclusion criteria from before. Essentially, the article has been deleted. I see no reason why these redirects should exist to perpetuate misinformation.Curb Chain (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that they are misleading. The presence of a redirect does not endorse a title, and the target is the closest thing we have to what is being looked for, so helping the reader as much as possible. If we wanted an article on the exact subject of the redirect, that would be different, but we explicitly don't. Note also that the consensus of the AfD was to rename, which because of Wikipedia's licensing requirements implicitly includes a redirect from the old title (to maintain attribution history and to aid people in finding the new location) - there needs to be a good reason for removing this redirect, which I'm not seeing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you are confusing something here: Swedish death metal is a genre, where before previously at the old title, it was not a genre, but a list of artists in a specific geographical region of the current's genre supergenre.Curb Chain (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non notable, under WP:N. Not notable as articles, and not notable even less under redirects. 10:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree witgith Thuzkduff that they are not misleading search terms but they do mislead in the way they all lead to one article, which the contrinutor seems to me set out to make as mamny redirects as he could. They are misleading, and our job here is to make them less so. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that notability applies only to articles, not redirects. Indeed we have thousands of redirects where an article was judged not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - These redirects are seeing consistent traffic. These redirects are not completely correct but not incorrect enough to call them completely misleading. Keeping the redirect around to maintain history seems useful. The current situation is kludgy and ugly but seems about as good as we can get and better and less surprising for readers than alternatives that take the form of a big ugly blank page. —mako๛ 00:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The old article was simply a nonnotable intersection. Should I make redirects such as List of death metal bands from Southasian countries and List of death metal bands from Oceanic countries? Previously, the article had no references to warrant a reason to group these artists by geographical region. IIt wasn't a genre of music. This is perpetuating a fact that is not true.Curb Chain (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creating such redirects would potentially be a very pointy course of action. This is a useful search term almost entirely because of it's history as an article, and because that same history needs to be preserved for licensing reasons. This would not be the case for spurious new redirects, unless those terms point to relevant encyclopaedic content (I've not looked). Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any point i'm making other than the fact that these redirects are not related to the target article.Curb Chain (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2011 (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/2011_September_7&oldid=1136448362"