Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 1

September 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2009

Geology of the British Isles
The result of the discussion was Retarget per User:Jafeluv. Ruslik_ Zero 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Geology of Great Britain (links to redirect) (stats)


 * → Geology of Great Britain (links to redirect) (stats) Guest9999 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both - whether the term is technically correct or not is irrelevant when it comes to redirects: it's whether or not it's a useful search term. Despite the ongoing Wikipedia controversy regarding the terminology of Great Britain/United Kingdom/Ireland/anything else regarding the islands and the governments on them, the bulk of the English speaking world has people who view "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" as something close to synonymous, with both being viewed by people outside of these entities as part of the British Isles. Thus these should be kept as likely search items, no matter how technically wrong they are. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both -- As per above. If there are better suggestions of where to point these, lets discuss those. Until then, these seem like they will in almost all cases take people to the article that they are looking for, or the closest thing to it. While technically incorrect, so are commonly misspelled names and those redirects are often ok. — m a k o ๛  04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Say Geology of Dublin was an article (in the vein of Geology of London, it would make sense to link to the article Geology of the British Isles but not Geology of Great Britain, the same could be said of Geology of Belfast and Geology of the United Kingdom/Geology of Great Britain. These would be better off as red links until someone actually creates the articles. The redirects were formed as a result of page moves due to a change in article scope, not as intentional navigational aids. Guest9999 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding See Also links to those articles would be better. — m a k o ๛  17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What if Geology of the United Kingdom were to be retargeted to Geography of the United Kingdom and Geology of the British Isles was turned into an article with summaries of Geology of Great Britain, Geology of Ireland, etc. ? Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with that. Presumably, there should be See also links in those articles as well. Nobody is arguing that these terms are unrelated, only that they are imprecise. — m a k o ๛  20:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * keep both as many people use the terms interchangeably, regardless of what is technically correct. If there are other articles covering the geology of other component parts of the UK or British Isles then turn the redirects into dab pages as necesary. PaulJones (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget Geology of the British Isles to British Isles and Geology of the United Kingdom to Geography of the United Kingdom. These are valid search terms, so deletion is out of the question. We might as well make them point to the accurate targets. Jafeluv (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very sensible suggestion and probably what I should have done in the first place, if I withdraw this nomination do you think it could be done uncontroversially at this stage? Guest9999 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so. A case where nobody has argued for deletion and the nominator withdraws is a valid speedy keep situation. Jafeluv (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep both - folks don't always use the technically correct terms when searching and these redirects will take the readers to tolerably relevant pages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Retarget per Jafeluv's suggestion above. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Jafeluv's suggestion above. --Zach425 talk / contribs 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget, seems sensible enough to me. TheGrappler (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Khumas, Libya
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect was tagged for deletion 18 August 2009 by User:Geo Swan, but I don't see any record of a nomination of the redirect being posted on the appropriate subpage. Completing nomination process at this time. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Libya (links to redirect) (stats)


 * Delete --- This seems to be a unique misspelling of Al-Khums which is a town in Libya. I've changed one article that linked to Al-Khumas to point to Al-Khums. This redirect can be safely deleted. — m a k o ๛  04:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Either under R3 or from this discussion. GrooveDog (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per above logic and a lack of hits. --Zach425 talk / contribs 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per R3. No one will go to view this redirect. Pmlineditor    Talk  09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Artifact (observational)
The result of the discussion was Delete and histmerge (revisions before 17 July 2007). Ruslik_ Zero 19:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Not a plausible search term. uKER (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Artifact (error) (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Neutral -- Doesn't seem to likely but also doesn't seem likely to hurt anyone. — m a k o ๛  04:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not going to be searched by anyone. GrooveDog (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Histmerge, then delete - this was the result of a page move; so the history must be kept. A history merge with the target would reduce or eliminate the need of keeping this redirect, which is improperly named with a very unlikely search term. B.Wind (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Histmerge and delete Not necessary but history must be kept per above. Pmlineditor    Talk  09:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Refractions (Protoculture album)
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) The band whose album this is a redirect for does not have an article. The redirect goes to an unrelated article. This article was temporarily hijacked but that content was moved to Protoculture (music group) where it was deleted as A7. Current redirect makes no sense so should be deleted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Protoculture (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Speedy delete - this redirect was clearly dependent on a now-deleted article, and the current target makes no sense (furthermore, there is no valid alternative target). It seems that this would fit CSD G8 (and had this been an article, it would most likely fall under CSD A9 (no assertion of notability; act has no Wikipedia article). Either way, this redirect is an inappropriate one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --- The redirect is clearly pointing to the wrong place at the moment and there's no right place to point it. — m a k o ๛  05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this should have been speedily deleted when the original target of the redirect was deleted. The current target has nothing to do with the band or the band's album. B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

4338
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. The only link between Microsoft and this number is Microsoft's ID at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Microsoft (links to redirect) (stats)
 * → Microsoft (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Note: The page 4338 has now been moved to HKEX symbols. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question What is HKEX symbols a reference to? I don't understand what is going on here. I tend to think a delete is a good idea. Maybe a delete would make sense as long as it's clear that it's possible to recreate this if someone can step up to explain why this makes sense. HKEX symbols sure seems like a bad redirect for Microsoft. — m a k o ๛  05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete both - whatever an HKEX symbol is, it is not a term that anyone would reasonably expect to take them to an article about Microsoft, and neither is "4338". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both. HKEX or more properly HKEx is, of course, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, and as noted at Ticker symbol, many Asian countries use numerical ticker symbols.   4338 is the HKEx "stock code" (the term HKEx uses in favor of "symbol") for Microsoft.  List of companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange stops before 4000 because that is as far as its source reaches.  It would not be unreasonable to redirect HKEX symbols to List of companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, however given its history of creation, its inaccurate capitalization, its use of the less preferred term "symbol", and the lack of similar but more correct redirects such as HKEx symbols, HKEX stock codes, or HKEx stock codes, I suggest we delete it as well.  Also note that these redirects were just created in the last couple of days, so there is no concern for incoming links. -- ToET 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken-Hearted Girl (Beyoncé Knowles song)
The result of the discussion was keep and retarget to Broken-Hearted Girl. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → I Am… Sasha Fierce (links to redirect) (stats)
 * → I Am… Sasha Fierce (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Added Broken-Hearted Girl (Beyoncé song) with identical reasoning.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete or protect as redirect. Article was created specifically to bypass the protection on Broken-Hearted Girl, which was protected as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Broken-Hearted Girl. Unlikely that anyone will need the fully disambiguated form when the short form is available.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've placed a semi-protect on it for now (1 month or until a confirmation is made about a single release). - eo (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it is released and charts, the article would go under Broken-Hearted Girl.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still no reason that this redirect couldn't point there, even if it's not a hugely likely search term. — m a k o ๛  04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Protect as a redirect if that seems to be necessary. I don't see any reason to delete it. — m a k o ๛  04:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I've now placed full protection on it, as well as another attempt to avert the redirect, at Broken-Hearted Girl (Beyoncé song). - eo (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Broken-Hearted Girl has already been officially released. The iTunes store has the single available to download and it looks like it is going forward. Ratizi  One  contribs 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I would like to make sure that someone notices my actual point here. Certainly, "Broken-Hearted Girl" will chart soon, and, at that time, an article should be placed at Broken-Hearted Girl. However, we don't use redirects to point from fully explicit titles to shorter forms: if there's an article at Broken-Hearted Girl, there's no need for redirects at Broken-Hearted Girl (Beyoncé Knowles song) and Broken-Hearted Girl (Beyoncé song).&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Broken-Hearted Girl" has charted in Australia; so the article of that title is up and running. While the disambiguation is clearly not necessary, it is not harmful, either, and the extra redirects actually prevent accidental linking and creation of duplicate articles. For that reason, Retarget nominated redirects to Broken-Hearted Girl. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

What are the external parts of the stem
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Not strictly a misnomer, but an extremely unlikely search term. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Plant stem (links to redirect) (stats)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, as we have had several discussions of "What is/are..." redirects, all of them resulting in "delete." There is no justifiable reason to keep this. B.Wind (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral -- Little benefit, but little harm either. — m a k o ๛  04:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Wikipedia is not Wolfram Alpha. This was nominated the same day as creation, so there are no incoming link concerns. -- ToET 12:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article names aren't supposed to be worded as questions. --uKER (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Words not in dictionaries
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 19:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Neither of these words can be found in normal English dictionaries. They seem to be words that are imagined to be English words by people who don't check dictionaries possibly when translating from other languages. Are such non-English words allowed?

To the extent that they may have meaning (See militarian and Militarianism), they do not seem very related to the article to which they are redirected DCDuring (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * militarian => Military rank
 * Militarianism => Political spectrum


 * Comment: Based on the Wiktionary definition, it seems like militarian should redirect to military instead. I've changed that here. Militarianism doesn't seem to be a word but I've changed it in the same way. — m a k o ๛  04:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another Comment: I poked around in these articles a little more. Militarianism is just a misspelling or misstatement of militarism (which is a word). I've changed the militarianism to point to militarism which seems about right. They should correct -- or at least correct as they'll ever be --- now. — m a k o ๛  05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Based on the change that I made to militarian, I would vote to keep militarian in its new form. I feel neutral about militarianism in its new form since it's not a word but might be confused as one. I suggest keep on militarianism now that it redirects to militarism as well.  — m a k o  ๛  05:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Party of the Democratic Left
The result of the discussion was retargeted to Democratic Left. Jafeluv (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I suggest to remove link to "Democratic Left (Ecuador)". There is not only one "Party of the Democratic Left" in the whole world. For example, there is a Party of the Democratic Left in Slovakia. There should be a redirect to another article - e.g. Democratic Left. 89.173.68.106 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Democratic Left (Ecuador) (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Retarget to Democratic Left, the dab that covers all potential intended search targets.  young  american  (wtf?) 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Democratic Left. The redirect is clearly pointing to the wrong place at the moment but there no reason it needs to go. It's a very plausible search term. — m a k o ๛  05:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Boldly retargeted per discussion above. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)