Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.50.149.56 (talk) at 05:55, 9 October 2012 (→‎Sailing classification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2012

Sailing classification

I've closed RMs on each of these, and the redirects are the results. An IP initiated the RMs and indicated that these redirects should be subsequently deleted. Since the IP hasn't been active in about a month, I thought I'd list them. I am neutral on them all and will not be watching this discussion; please contact me on my talk page if I'm needed here. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion: All are linked to the recent paralympics and the renames are more accurate. I am only directly familiar with para-equestrian, but for that one, there is no confusion and no need for the redirect to exist as far as I know. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article-space redirects as these were the locations of the articles for at least a month they need to be retained both to avoid link rot (they will remain linked from external sites, bookmarks, etc for some time to come) and for attribution reasons. Further they are all likely search terms for their targets - any ambiguity in future can be solved by hatnotes or dab pages as appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all misleading, since it only covers a subset of classifications, those particular to the disabled versions of the sports, and only disabled classes, not gender or age classification at that (or weight classes). -- 70.50.149.56 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile analytics

Mobile web analytics is redirected from mobile analytics, which is a wrong direction, since mobile analytics deals with monitoring and analyzing of mobile applications, which is very different from mobile web analytics. This redirection should be deleted Gorkemcetin74 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Brännström

This person's name does not appear on the target page. The name does appear on several "list of deaths..." pages and should remain a red link indicating a potential article. Senator2029 • talk 15:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was joseph katofa

Original title of article moved to target. I don't think this rediect is of any use now. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The search term for a biographical article is the person's name. Adding "who was" serves no purpose . Senator2029 • talk 16:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds)

Delete, the WikiProject naming preference is not a Wikipedia-wide naming convention. Perennial discussion about the difference (not the redirect) has blossomed again at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal: bird names and following sections. JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target page holds the naming guidelines of bird species are they are currently used in wikipedia articles, so the redirect is not misleading anyone. The goal of redirects is to direct people to the material they are looking for, and this redirect performs this goal correctly. Some editors disagree with a certain provision of the guideline, but this is not a reason for deleting a useful redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The target page hold the naming guidelines for articles within the Birds Project. If they are Wikipedia naming conventions, they should be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What current problems would be solved by this move? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of misidentification of a Birds project guideline as a Wikipedia naming convention. -- -JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "?" was my first thought on reading this. Whatever the outcome of any debate, there should only be one place where the convention is laid out, and what links to it should be a redirect, so if the scope of this debate is whether there should be one locale or two...there should be one plus a redirect. Hence....keep....I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a Wikipedia convention, it shouldn't be owned by the Birds project. If it's in the Birds project, it shouldn't appear to be a Wikipedia convention. I agree that there should be only one place for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current redirect is not a naming convention and contains no content that would give any editor cause to think it was. The naming convention is found in only one place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. We want editors to find naming conventions when they are considering article titles, either at article creation or for article moves--thats the goal. Obscuring the ability to do so because someone feels a particular redirect gives more credibility to a naming convention (which it doesn't) is just silly. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's move the Wikipedia naming convention information out of the Birds project and into the naming convention structure. There's a lot of silly stuff going on over bird naming, but putting the guidance in the correct place isn't one of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by "move out of" if you mean "take out the silly stuff", I am guessing that you would create a guideline that is not used by anyone. The RM to move Siberian Crane failed because "doing them piecemeal will not ...ahem... fly". Doing them all against the protestation of the only people who have a clue what to put into those articles is also not going to fly. What first has to happen is to get the consensus of the people who edit bird articles that bird names should not be capitalized, and I can assure you that is not going to happen unless the IOC itself changed its policy and renamed all birds to lower case, and the chances of a snowball in somewhere hot is more likely than that happening. No one edits any article or chooses any title just because they want it to be silly (excluding vandalism), they choose it because they think it is correct. Just my opinion.
Nobody owns any article, and no project owns any article. All articles are an addition to the common knowledge of the encyclopedia. No articles are a "part of" a project. We identify articles on their talk pages with a project so that editors can tell that a Snowy Owl is a bird and not Pokemon, a rock, or airplane, and there are editors who have grouped themselves into a project to work on that particular type of article, but that does not give them ownership over those articles, nor does the presence of a guideline on a project page give ownership of that guideline to that project. Apteva (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A better example of course is if there was a project owl, or even a project snowy owl, we would use that on the talk page instead of project animals. Apteva (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Birds points out: Apteva (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject is an offshoot of WikiProject Tree of Life.

WikiProject Biology
WikiProject Tree of Life
WikiProject Animals
(WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, and then
WikiProject Dinosaurs, if you're a cladist)
WikiProject Birds
Domestic pigeon task force
  • Strong keep, regardless of anything else this is the title where anyone not familiar with WikiProject Birds will look for the naming conventions for bird articles, and so deletion would imply we don't have any. Imo, naming conventions for every subject should either be at or accessible from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (foo) via a redirect or disambiguation page if necessary - it's a de facto naming convention for naming conventions. The hierarchy of WP:BIRDS is utterly irrelevant, as are claims of ownership - no person or project owns any page on Wikipedia (with the arguable singular exception of user talk pages). WikiProjects are groupings of editors interested and/or knowledgeable in a particular topic, the project banners simply inform editors of the existence of one or more projects relevant to that article. Thryduulf (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful redirect to important style guideline. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change redirect or create guideline at this location. WP:NCFauna includes the naming convention for birds, so the redirect should either point there, or the guideline should be broken out to a separate guideline here. The guideline should not be in two places, and as JHunterJ points out, it should not be in a wikiproject space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:NCFauna covers it adequately, and this "guideline" at the project page, seems to be a back-door attempt to ignore the capitalisation rules therein. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NCFAUNA lists the same capitalization rules as the wikiproject page, so I'm not sure of what is being ignored. WP:NCFAUNA lists the general rules, then it refers to the wikiproject for topic-specific details, like the capitalization of hyphenated bird names. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Collins

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 Taken care of, reverted to Lonestar. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. This seems like a common enough name that it shouldn't redirect there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my original and only contribution on this was a redirect to country band Lonestar, where he was a member. Also note that Cody Collins was formerly in yet another country group called McAlyster. But when Richie McDonald the then lead singer of Lonestar left, Collins became lead vocalist for many years, prior to leaving. About his authenticity as a member of Lonestar for 4 years, see http://lasvegasmagazine.com/2012/04/20/cody-collins/ I can understand a redirect to McAlyster, but Lonestar was more recent for him. I still can't figure out Cody Collins' relation to Matchbox Twenty though. The editor 75.21.100.149 who effected the change is a highly unreliable and not serious contributor. He made 5 edits in 1 day of Wikipedia in a span of 5 hours at most. That's all the track record he/she can claim. In one of his edits, he put Daniel Powter in the "associated acts" to Daniel Powter. This doesn't make sense either. See his edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Powter&diff=prev&oldid=515237619 He was also playing around with the Cody Collins redirect by amending my redirect by a new redirect of his back to.... Cody Collins.. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cody_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=515208045 . Yet in a third edit, he wikified Britt as Britt although the guy's real name is Michael Britt!! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lonestar&diff=prev&oldid=515207826 I have name reinstated the redirect as Cody Collins → Lonestar , pending final decision. I am ready to revert back if proven wrong. Even better, Cody Collins could have his own page with expansion of his career with McAlyster, with Lonestar and his solo career. I also strongly suggest checking all 75.21.100.149's edits here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.21.100.149 All of them seem suspicious to me actually and done just to keep us busy... Look how much time I spent on this already... LOL werldwayd (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2012 (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.

Geography of the Palestinian territories

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_4&oldid=516771547"