Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 10

August 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2010

Extended Unit Death



 * 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. There is no GFDL issue as no content from the redirect was merged into the target. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No hits, previously incomprehensible article, very unlikely search term.
 * → StarCraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → StarCraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → StarCraft (links to redirect • [ history] • ) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete&mdash;appears to be a very obscure aspect of the game, not mentioned in the main article. Not really significant enough for a redirect. –Grondemar 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete obscure feature of starcraft map editor.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Extended Unit Death and Extended Unit Deaths as confusing. These phrases do not appear in the target and anyone searching would be none the wiser why they were taken to the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Move Extended unit death to a sub-page of Talk:StarCraft and deleted the resulting redirect. This was formerly an article and the history needs to be preserved for GFDL reasons. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Spawn More Overlords



 * 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, the argument presented that there is no relevant content in the article is more convincing than the arguments about plausibility, especially as it is not clarified how it would be useful based off it being an internet meme. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → StarCraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Although it is annoyingly stated in the game, it's not a plausible search term at all. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep&mdash;plausible-enough search term for me. I believe this became something of an Internet meme and it would be useful and appropriate for it to point at the game. Harmless. –Grondemar 03:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing. This phrase does not appear in the target and this is, in any case, rarely used as a redirect. Redirected phrases need to be explained in the target. Anyone searching on 'Spawn More Overlords' would be none the wiser why they were taken to StarCraft and would be left confused. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Global Meeting



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Bishwa Ijtema (links to redirect • [ history] • )

A speedy over a year ago by another editor was rejected. I noticed this redirect when an AFD I had raised on an article was accepted and the article deleted (Articles_for_deletion/Global_Meetings). The current redirect is an implausible redirect to the current target. Adding the current generalisation, I would request a delete of this RfD. Regards.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - redirecting the general to the specific is rarely a good idea. This would be confusing since searchers for other examples of meetings would wonder why they were brought there. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

UFC 129 up to UFC 150



 * 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 all (sigh). JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This focuses on redirects for UFC 129 all the way through to UFC 150 (every single number in between). They are inappropriate and needless redirects that just open up the opportunity for IPs to create poor/attack articles based on the ease with which they can edit a redirect. These events won't happen for another 2 years anyway.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all as confusing. Nothing, yet, at the target. They can be recreated when the events are scheduled. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins.....oh, admins! It's been over a week now.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * August 5 is still open so this is some way down the list. Backlogs up to three weeks are not uncommon on RFD; sorry but patience is need in this backwater:-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I know. It was just a tongue-in-cheek comment to hopefully kickstart some administrative action. I'm used to the regular AFD, so waiting OVER a week is fairly uncommon.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Saffron Coomber



 * 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. The actress may not meet our notability guidelines, but redirecting to a single role when mentioned in multiple articles is not the right way to solve that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Tracy Beaker Returns (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Inappropriate redirect. Coomber has appeared in a number of roles, not merely on Tracy Beaker Returns, so it is misleading for it to point there. If she is not notable enough for an article, that is fine, but a redirect should not exist in its place. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - redirecting an actor to one of their roles is a bad idea unless it is the only role with which they are associated. Better to have a red link to encourage article creation (if notable). Note; this redirect was protected when it was created following Articles for deletion/Saffron Coomber (2nd nomination). Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Source



 * 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Citation needed (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This template redirect was originally nominated for deletion at WP:TfD. That debate has been closed and the nomination moved here. The original deletion argument was:
 * I don't see the usefulness of this template, and often see misuse of this template. example. If I am overlooking something, I hope someone politely points it out to me. If not, it should be deleted. :) Avic enna sis @ 22:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am netural right now on this redirect. –Grondemar 04:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete&mdash;the redirect is confusing and prone to misuse. –Grondemar 03:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per my comment at the TFD. Airplaneman   ✈  04:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment — (beyond this "comment") I probably had an intention in mind with the original redirect but right now cannot recall what it was. I will not be heartbroken by deletion. Adavis444 (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as prone to misuse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the original template was deleted following Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2. Redundant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Template:Citation needed. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean; that is the current target of the page. Airplaneman   ✈  23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't click on the link to the redirect, and you said that it redirected to a Wikipedia namespace page, not a template namespace page. Keep, because it seems to me to be a reasonably useful redirect, and it doesn't seem to me to be confusing.  Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I've reread everything, I'm back to my original retarget idea. The link currently redirects to a page in the Wikipedia namespace; I'd like to see it go to a template.  Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for creating unneeded confusion :(. Must've misread it. Airplaneman   ✈  00:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)