Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 11

December 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 11, 2009

Positive action
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Positive Action ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Affirmative Action (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Positive action should be a disambiguation page until a suitable article is written to describe its various meanings. It currently points to a page about social equality measures in America fostering the belief that Affirmative Action is the only positive action there is. I gathered a few refs about other forms of positive action and posted them on Talk:Positive action. Some entries which could be included in the disambiguation page are Affirmative Action, Positive Action, Positive Discipline, Positive affectivity, Positive liberty, Positive Deviance, Positive, Positive environmentalism, Positive Eustasy, Positive Force, Gravitropism, Positive incentive, Positive and negative (NLP), Inductive effect, Lynchet, Positive mental attitude, Positive non-interventionism, Positive Neuroscience, Positive punishment, Positive parenting, Positive politeness, Positive reinforcement, Positive SETI, Positive science, Positive statement, Positive thought, Positive youth development. This is only a short list. Most of these have relation to some sort of action considered positive in one way or another. ~ R.T.G 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabify - be bold, but I'm concerned that your list is a little broad for a dab page. I suggest you seek assistance from WP:WikiProject Disambiguation.  At the moment this page has (next to) no internal links. Josh Parris 10:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Positive Action Josh Parris 11:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget as per Parris. — The Man in Question (in question)  11:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

comment Granted Positive Action is probably quite notable (if poorly described by the article ATM) but I am thinking still a dab page for Positive action (disambiguation). I know that list is quite large but is a dab worth it and if so any suggestions what to leave out or put in? ~ R.T.G 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think though that pointing it to Positive Action would be the same as pointing it to Affirmative Action. ~ R.T.G 12:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I started the disambig page. Too short and too long in places but better than nothing. I think Positive action should point to it. ~ R.T.G 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: RTG seems to have the habit of putting things up for discussion and then ignoring the outcome. Just yesterday, the user didn't get his way on Talk:Affirmative action, edit-warred the closing of a Move-discussion away (See talk page history), and now starts his favorite dab before this discussion is over. I think it's pretty useless for anyone to comment here. It is likely that RTG will ignore any result that is not in his favor. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a big ugly creationist. Could be worse. ~ R.T.G 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to alternate capitalisation. If a page needs converting to a DAB, then the alternate capitalisation will also need moving and then deleting, although that task would be better carried out by proposing a move rather than at RfD I imagine. I added a hatnote to the alternative capitalisation, so users can find the disambiguation page for now anyway. --Taelus (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Positive Action, and include in that article hatnotes linking to Positive Action Group and Affirmative action. I don't think any of the other articles on the disambiguation page are likely to be what people are looking for under the title "positive action."VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian Caritas-the Archdiocese of Semarang
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Caritas Indonesia (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete based on reason #7: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." This grew out of Articles for deletion/Indonesian Caritas-the Archdiocese of Semarang. Since I'm not an admin I had to leave a redirect behind after moving the article to Caritas Indonesia. (it's therefore now a double redirect, which I probably should fix, but... meh) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 09:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

ISBN: 0863565190
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Postcards from the Grave (links to redirect • [ history] • )


 * → Homo Ludens (book) (links to redirect • [ history] • )


 * → King & King (links to redirect • [ history] • )

See Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4. — The Man in Question (in question)  07:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — The Man in Question  (in question)  07:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - hardly useful redirects Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most likely these were created by an editor who was not familiar with our system. Nobody is likely to type one of these into the Wikipedia search box. I suggest that the outcome of this debate, if it is delete, might justify the closing admin in removing any other naked-ISBN redirects that may still exist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment, and the relevant discussion on previous related RfD. Consensus is to not have redirects such as this. --Taelus (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → United Kingdom general election, 2010 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There is no "next" general election for the United kingdom. The article will have to be constantly redirected every election. warrior 4321  02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a "next" general election: the one that will take place in 2010. After that election "Next United Kingdom general election" will become the home of the one must take place by mid-2015. Once we know what year, it will become a redirect again. Elections don't take place "constantly", so I'm not sure I understand the problem. -Rrius (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can you expand your rationale please? Like Rrius, I am having difficulty understanding the basis for this nomination. Road Wizard (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a plausible search term (because of "next"), and because it's inherently a dynamic redirect that somebody has to remember to change every few years. I could see reasons for this to fall under rfd deletion guidelines 2, 4, or 6.MSJapan (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment there are over five hundred pages linking to this redirect. What are you proposing to do with them, and when will you do it? Josh Parris 06:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Move There is no time left for a 2009 election. In reply to Josh Parris, all editors will do what we have to do - change the links! If needs be, request a bot. I have spare time to do it in some pages, I am sure the change can be done if enough editors do enough articles between now and polling day. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Move where? How would creating a double-redirect help things? Josh Parris 10:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment' - the article is already now at United Kingdom general election, 2010. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Having looked at the guidelines, I don't see where this particularly fails. In response to MSJapan, I don't see how this redirect causes confusion, it makes sense as the 'next' UKGE is the article that it links to, and I don't understand how it fails itself. In the meantime, due to the recent article move, a deletion would leave a lot of red links on articles. Finally, as well, an article under this title will be restarted after the 2010 election - so why waste time deleting an article title that is to be recreated? --Pretty Green (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Google shows there are external sites linking to this redirect, including The Independent. Josh Parris 10:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, continuing to hold this redirect breaks nothing, and according to Doktorbuk all the articles currently pointing to it must point to United Kingdom general election, 2010 by polling day anyway. It would only take a few hours to run a bot over this lot (I suspect it will need to be a bot assisted human), and as Road Wizard Rrius points out, unless the UK falls into some other form of government there's always going to be a next election.  In addition, discovering when the next election is expected to be becomes possible with this redirect.  I'm having trouble understanding why the continued existence of this redirect is a problem for Wikipedia, and see nothing but downside to deleting it.  Josh Parris 10:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be meaning Rrius. I don't think I have said anything quite that insightful on this page at least. ^_^ Road Wizard (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. Pay attention.  (whoops) Josh Parris 11:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep until election 2010 is complete, then create a page with this title for the general election after 2010. There is an ongoing Bot request here to change all the links to United Kingdom general election, 2010, so that won't be a problem. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Defaulting to keep as the nominator has not yet expanded their rationale on why this is necessary. Under current law there will be a "next" general election in 2010 and then another within 5 years of that one. The page will always be useful as either a redirect to the upcoming election or an article about the next one when the date is unclear. Even if we stop having general elections for some reason it would probably be useful to redirect "next United Kingdom general election" to an article explaining why there won't be one. Road Wizard (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The UK has no fixed terms. As such, it is totally reasonable that that 'next election' is a plausible search term, and until the year becomes plausible, a link term aswell. 5 year maximum terms does not in any way make it 'impossible' to keep up, when this needs changing after each election. The only issue with this redirect, is now that for reasons I still cannot fathom apart from making work, people have insisted that '2010' is any more accurate than 'next' and have moved the article, the only issue is to make sure that all links from 'next' are fixed before it actually has to be redirected, which will be just after the actual night of the next election. (And if the bot is done correctly, it shouldn't be an issue.) MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page was only moved very recently and many people will still look for the article under its old name. Once the 2010 general election has happened, a new article can start here about the next one - I don't see a problem there. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete implausible search term that makes matters worse by having to be updated every few years. Just save the maintenance trouble by deleting it. Tavix | Talk  01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As readers have been going to that page to see the article for the past four and a half years it isn't quite as implausible a search term as you might expect. Also it does not need to be updated every few years as it normally exists as an article. It will probably only be a redirect for about 6 months out of every 4 to 5 year election cycle after which it will return to being an article. Road Wizard (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong keep. It was, I believe, the old title of the articleit points to. Besides, it's only in the last couple of weeks that we have been able to say for sure that the next election will be in 2010 – if Brown had dissolved Parliament on, say, 27 November, the election could well have been within 2009. 188.221.240.150 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - may as well pile on here. If the stats for this redirect aren't enough to convince people that this redirect is worth maintaining, I don't know what would be. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a bot request going to change all instances of 'Next United Kingdom general election' as links to 'United Kingdom general election, 2010'. See the BRFA here. Tim1357 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's rather premature to make that bot considering the discussion here. We can keep up with major political events like this.    DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)