Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 26
July 26[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 26, 2012
Green Party of Saudi Arabia[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.
- Green Party of Saudi Arabia → Politics of Saudi Arabia (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
A 2009 deletion discussion decided to merge the former content of this page with Politics of Saudi Arabia. However, whatever information was merged has apparently long since been removed from the target, which now contains no text at all relating to the Green Party of Saudi Arabia. Psychonaut (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- The page history still contains that information, which needs attribution from somewhere. Also, I don't see this redirect doing any harm, so keep. —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "harm" is the numerous incoming links, which mislead people into expecting that the target page contains information on the Green Party of Saudi Arabia, resulting in confusion and wasted time. Removing those links is not an optimal solution; it's better for them to become redlinks to encourage someone to create a (properly sourced) article. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the consensus was to merge the articles the correct course of action is to add content to the current target. Attribution isn't something that can be lightly dismissed. keep. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could the attribution not be made on the target's talk page? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but it's far from ideal - keeping it in the original form and namespace will always be preferable. Given that consensus was that the topic doesn't merit an article of its own, deleting the redirect to encourage one would be a peculiar course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- If we're concerned with re-creation, we could consider salting the title after moving the redirect to preserve history. I don't like the idea of keeping a redirect that has no mention at the target. That's confusing and frustrating for anyone looking for Saudi Arabia Green Party information. Just because it's easier to keep the redirect where it is doesn't mean that's the right decision. BigNate37(T) 06:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but it's far from ideal - keeping it in the original form and namespace will always be preferable. Given that consensus was that the topic doesn't merit an article of its own, deleting the redirect to encourage one would be a peculiar course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Could the attribution not be made on the target's talk page? —Psychonaut (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the consensus was to merge the articles the correct course of action is to add content to the current target. Attribution isn't something that can be lightly dismissed. keep. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "harm" is the numerous incoming links, which mislead people into expecting that the target page contains information on the Green Party of Saudi Arabia, resulting in confusion and wasted time. Removing those links is not an optimal solution; it's better for them to become redlinks to encourage someone to create a (properly sourced) article. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
Trematochromis[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 fixed by Dysmorodrepanis. —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Trematochromis → Trematocranus (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Was up for speedy deletion as "wrong redirect, see Trematochromis benthicola in William Eschmeyer's CoF". As Trematocranus claims "Trematochromis" is a synonym, I would prefer to have others check this. —Kusma (t·c) 07:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I made the original redir, but it is in error. Trematochromis was established by Poll in 1987 for T. schreyeni, which subsequently turned out to be a junior synonym of Haplochromis benthicola. The correct genus of this fish is not entirely clear, but we place it in Ctenochromis at present, in line with the usual treatment. Trematochromis may be valid after all though.
- So, to fix this:
- change Trematochromis redirect to point to Ctenochromis
- delete Trematochromis from Trematocranus synonymy
- add Trematochromis to Ctenochromis synonymy with remark "(disputed)"
- add note to "C." benthicola (in genus article and species article) that it may be separated in Trematochromis.
- If you want me to do this, just leave a note here and I'll fix the stuff. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you know how to fix this, please do. I have zero knowledge of biology; my involvement in this matter is purely administrative. I'd rather not make edits that I don't understand. —Kusma (t·c) 15:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Done Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you know how to fix this, please do. I have zero knowledge of biology; my involvement in this matter is purely administrative. I'd rather not make edits that I don't understand. —Kusma (t·c) 15:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
