Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2009

Albanian genocide[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has gone back and forth. I'm really not aware of an appopriate target, if any. Grsz11 00:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no context in the target article. If only this had been speedied as a hoax when created, but it got WP:ZAPped... mass suicide? Pyramid scheme? I seem to remember something about a pyramid scheme sucking in vast amounts of the population somewhere, but genocide? Josh Parris 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anything, History of post-Communist Albania would probably be the most applicable target. Grsz11 00:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original article was a hoax. None of the suggested targets are appropriate.--Ptolion (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I don't think we have to delete it. Maybe we can write something about the Kodra and other massacres, where women and children from Korça were massacred by Cretan irrgulars. What about the massacres in Kossovo? What about the starving Chams, children and old people in the Greek-Albanian border? If you need any refs, I can help. Guildenrich (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you actually have refs that it was genocide, there's northing stopping you from creating an article on it. This discussion is about the redirect that leads to articles that don't mention anything about genocide.--Ptolion (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The term is misleading, no need for that redirection.Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albanian Genocide, at [1]
That proves nothing. Still the current redirection is misleading.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Icke pied[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete both. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these originate as an attempt to add content on a protest of David Icke in February 2004, redirected the same month. The material in question was also added to the David Icke article by the same editor, so there is no attribution issue; in any case, the material has been gone from that article since February 2004 as well. Neither represents a useful searching or linking term for the target. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Negligible pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not helpful Josh Parris 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as implausible search terms. Neither have relevant information in the target page either to explain why such search term may be considered. --Taelus (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:WikiProject Bannershell[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete both. The keep arguments are purely theoretical, while the nomination and delete !votes have given valid reasons as to why these redirects are potentially confusing and counterproductive. The relative obscurity of the template's name to someone who doesn't already know of its existence makes it a highly unlikely search term anyway. ~ mazca talk 22:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no need to have Every Combination of capitalization for this (as many different versions makes it harder for WikiProject tagging bots to recognize the shells). Keep it simple. –xenotalk 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, useful per Template:Multiple WikiProjects below. They were used until you bypassed them. --NE2 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep second. Camel-case pages should always have a spaced redirect (which this one already has in Template:WikiProject Banner Shell), but also capitalizing the first part of a phrase and not the second makes enough sense that someone might search it. Neutral on first. I don't see why anyone would type the second part as one word instead of typing it all as one word or as three separate words. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were these really used? Very few links probably added by a single user once. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the title suggests that the template is itself a WikiProject banner for the Bannershell (or Banner shell) WikiProject. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good reason to delete. Wikiproject foo suggest that the template is a Wikiproject about foo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. I am sympathetic to TMiQ's reasoning in terms of the second one, but in truth they DO both look like a WikiProject link and so those sorts of arguments carry less weight in my mind in this case. Since it's not a project but a tool, I think less is more, especially the simpler, less confusing ones. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hammer thingy[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not properly descriptive of its target. A reader searching for "Hammer thingy" might well be looking for any sort of hammer (...thingy), and a link through this is essentially an easter egg. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unhelpful nonsense. No particular connection to Gavel. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with The Man in Question. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: would a redirect to Category:Hammers be appropriate? Anyways, gets no traffic, has no history; whatever happens to this will have a trivial effect on the 'pedia. Josh Parris 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is looking for a random hammer probably would start by loading our Hammer article and navigating from there; I can't imagine that more than a negligible number of people would ever search on "Hammer thingy", especially without trying "Hammer" first. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they could just as easily be looking for a mace or a mallet 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, multiple targets it could be redirected to, but not a suitable term for a disambiguation page, and not really a plausible search term for an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would judge hammer thingy be an appropriate redirect? :) --NE2 14:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please no. Anyway, judge hammer → gavel already exists. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Brooklyn District Attorney[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 Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G8, targets gone. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created these redirects and pointed them to New York County District Attorney. This was a mistake on my part but the appropriate targets for these redirects are redlinks and therefore I propose the redirects should be deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Multiple WikiProjects[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of redirects to the same target. This one a) is unused, b) has not similar name with all the others Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible "search term" (which I'm using here mainly in the sense that someone who can't remember what the template is called might type it). --NE2 11:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search term for templates? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I explained. If I'm only a casual tagger with WikiProject templates, I might forget the exact name of the "banner shell". "Multiple WikiProjects" is a plausible thing to try. --NE2 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NE2. You can use things such as this for search terms, as doing an advanced search in non-mainspace areas is possible. Seems harmless enough, and I can see it being searched by someone at somepoint, who then finds their way to the main template. --Taelus (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused, many different names makes it harder for WikiProject tagging bots to recognize the shells. Keep it simple. –xenotalk 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only because Xeno bypassed it. --NE2 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, by "unused" I mean no one views the page. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would people view a template redirect? --NE2 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there were only very few uses and all made by a single editors. I can't be bothered to check exactly right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NE2. Tavix |  Talk  01:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is a widely-used and -recognised template, so this seems to me to be a case where a redirect with such a different title is more likely to be confusing than helpful. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of articles about Colorado[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. I linked to the target page in the deletion log so that editors who have bookmarked the article can continue to find the page in project-space and update their links. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cross-namespace redirect created when User:Thejadefalcon moved a page during this now-closed AfD. I propose we delete this redirect per WP:RfD#DELETE reason #5, as it is a cross-namespace redirect from the article namespace to the project namespace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, I believe this would be eligible under CSD G6 if the AfD is linked to? I will try tagging it anyway, since there is no way it will survive here as a cross-namespace redirect. --Taelus (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, CSD R2 suggests leaving the link there for a few days, probably so that people can update their links. I won't tag it then, the RfD will give people time. --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_9&oldid=1138576618"