Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2011

European Installation Bus[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 Instabus. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Target does not contain any information about the predecessor standard. The article KNX (standard) itself has a link to its own redirect European Installation Bus at the intro. I noticed this by splitting the interwiki groups: de:KNX-Standard/en:KNX (standard)/fr:KNX (standard)/it:KNX (standard)/ja:KNX/nl:KNX (standaard)/pl:KNX/sv:KNX and cs:EIBA/de:Europäischer_Installationsbus/es:Bus de Instalación Europeo/fr:Bus EIB/it:European Installation Bus/ru:EIB/sq:EIB sistemet Merlissimo 17:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Instabus. The present target includes the text "European Installation Bus (EIB or Instabus)..." which underscores the merit of the retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kadingirra[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Google has never heard of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its the way it would be pronounced in English, from the way it is written in the Sumerian language. Don't think that makes it a particularly helpful redirect, but neither is it harmful so hmm... --Taelus (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-The Babylon article identifies "KÁ.DINGIR.RAKI" as a logogram of the Sumerian name for Babylon. That said, I can't find any evidence of the formulation used for this redirect being used outside of Wikipedia (or mirrors thereof), so I think we're safe deleting this one.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Twelve Days of Christmas[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 current target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be retargeted to The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) after which we can just drop the designator entirely. The concept of Twelve Days of Christmas is rarely celebrated anymore. Marcus Qwertyus 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the song is indeed the primary topic, it should be moved to the current target, and the current target moved and given a disambiguation term in brackets. This however is within the scope of a Requested Move, not an RfD. From a purely redirect examining standpoint, I would say Weak Keep as it points to a good target which includes relevant disambiguation links at the top already. --Taelus (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misinterpreted. The current target of the redirect: Twelve Days of Christmas doesn't need to get moved anywhere because it is not in conflict with The Twelve Days of Christmas. Marcus Qwertyus 21:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes I missed that, my apologies. Either way though I think either target works fine thanks to the disambiguation links at the top. --Taelus (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
song: 11988 holiday: 4268. How can the obsolete concept be primary? Marcus Qwertyus 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The song is derived from the festival hence the festival is primary. Whether the festival is obsolete, and my opinion is that it is not, is very distinctly POV. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the festival is in my opinion the better taget. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Backyard Monsters[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 Withdrawn --Taelus (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that helpful. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing it. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shigihara[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) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#DELETE #2. This is a redirect from a last name to an article about a person with that last name. It is not such a rare last name that there might be others with the same last name. Maybe a disambig page, but definitely not a redirect. Singularity42 (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Laura Shigihara is the only article Wikipedia has on a person with a last name of Shigihara, and there for #2 does not apply, as it deals with when it is confusing with another article. Tideflat (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. We can come up with a solution if another person with this name gets a page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect creator. ColderPalace1925 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Website[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. Ruslik_Zero 09:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we delete this one but I am open to suggestions. Right now it redirects to {{Infobox website}} but I 've seen cases where it is confused with cite web ({{cite web}}) or with official website ({{official website}}) Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom I would have thought it should be official website... 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we disambiguate templates, then we should do so in this case (I have a vague feeling we do, but I can't find for sure as my search-foo is weak and I can't get beyond templates used on disambiguation pages or hatnote templates and the like). If we don't then deletion is best. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have seen some templatespace pages that are disambiguated... but it doesn't seem to be common. Templates seem to take the most confusing name first... I've tried renaming templates to match their main article, and failed because the undisambiguated or short name was available and everyone opposed it based on that... 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only criterion is DOES THIS HELP OR HINDER A SEARCH. This hinders, s o delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a message similar to Template:Expand or the reference error messages, as this would be more useful than a red link. The names of the relevant templates could be included in the message. Code similar to Template:Expand would allow it to work correctly with old versions of articles. Peter E. James (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wayne Ronald Bennett (Canadian Politician)[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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary redirect. No page on Wayne Bennett even exists and Wayne Bennett (politician), Wayne R. Bennett, and Wayne Ronald Bennett all redirect to the same place. The added capitalization of the letter P in politician is not at all necessary here. Aaaccc (talk), 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What harm is the redirect doing? It's not misleading or getting in the way of anything. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thrylduff. The first criterion of the Hippocratic Oath is "First, do no harm". What harm is this doing? None. What good is it doing? Probably not much, but doing more good than harm, it is doing no harm. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Note that WP:HARMLESS points out that just because it is harmless doesn't mean it should be automatically kept. Also note that a similar redirect to this one about the same subject was previously deleted. Aaaccc (talk), 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment. Sorry, WP:HARMLESS, which is only an essay in any case, isn't really applicable to redirects. The approach that we adopt is that redirects are kept unless they meet one of the deletion criteria which, in effect, means that they are in some way harmful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The deleted redirects included one identical to this but with the correct capitalisation (RFD 2011 June 19) - it's unclear why they were not relisted, as the only comments were by the nominator. If the redirect here is kept, the deleted ones (which were almost identical) should be restored. Peter E. James (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would probably respectfully differ on that. Though this will probably be kept that is because it is the default mode. It doesn't mean that other (better} redirects need to be made. It would be good practice to restore the deleted redirects only if it is considered that they are needed as search aids. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for a redirect to be deleted it needs to be causing a problem and meet one of the deletion criteria. This one isn't causing a problem so we default to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (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/2011_July_15&oldid=1151007358"