Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 8

August 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 8, 2010

MOS:DISCOG



 * 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 as these are not officially part of the Manual of Style. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an inappropriately prefixed cross namespace redirect. The "MOS:" implies that this is a part of the Manual Of Style, which it is not. It is, in fact, rather in conflict with the MOS and this name gives the false impression that the target page has MOS/Guideline status. It has a sibling, too; MOS:DISCOGS. Jack Merridew 23:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * → WikiProject Discographies/style (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * I'm tending towards oppose while this is marked as an active proposal, although I would support deletion if there is a good use for it elsewhere. The access issue looks like it's being dealt with on the talk page, and (admittedly as someone who avoids discographies) I can't see any other conflicts with the MoS. --WFC-- 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both - these are shortcuts to a guideline under discussion. It is not for us to dictate the form of such shortcuts; this is for the appropriate talk page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - "MOS" is well established as the prefix for documents that make up our central styleguide, Manual of Style. It should not be used for anything that does not form part of the MoS. PL290 (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a fair representation of the situation though; it's an active MoS proposal. I have no idea how likely it is to succeed, (and if it doesn't succeed, it should be speedied), but it's utterly implausible that this would succeed as a guideline yet not be part of the MoS. Regards, --WFC-- 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's worth noting that this "proposal" has been marked as such since it was created in April 2008, and there seems to have been no discussion to formalize it since then. That said, WikiProject Discographies/style has been treated as a de facto extension of Wikipedia's MOS, and music editors have treated it as one for a long time. Based on this recognition, I would recommend that editors discuss inclusion this page in the MOS at the main talk page, so that we can move on from this indefinite limbo. As to the redirect, I would support suspending this RfD until the status of the style guide is decided. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the history. The /style page is not much changed since the end of 2008, and I didn't see any move to get MOS/Guideline status. And it won't in anything like the current form; it's wrong in a lot of ways, at odds with the real MOS. This prefix has the effect of backdooring MOS-status, which is probably why some look to the target for guidance when it is, in fact, advocating a lot of poor notions. It's more than accessibility, too; they advocate extensive embedded markup, which is at odds with WP:Deviations; this is also a maintainability issue, as endless baked-in markup amounts to cement in pages. Stylesheets are about central control of both the specific look of styling, as well as the implementation of that look. Jack Merridew 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the WikiProject members have all the more reason to propose it at WT:MOS. Such issues need to be considered and addressed even if the guideline doesn't end up becoming part of the MoS. A WikiProject guideline should be complementary to the MoS, not an alternative. It should harmonize with the MoS, elaborating on the application of detailed aspects particular to the project, and we should assume that is ultimately the intent here. As to the basic question though, I still think the shortcut should be speedily deleted and only created again once the guideline does become part of the MoS. PL290 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, i think intially it was a good idea. I think over time the project has slipped from being about 'confirming to MoS' to 'confirming to project discography'. Once the WP:ACCESS issues have been fixed and an agreed way of moving forward is established then this page will replicate MoS more clearly. I am personally involved in the discussion about how project discography will implement the accessibility changes and I would like to play a part in developing MOS:DISCOG into a page which collates all of the revelevant information from the other bits of MoS that are applicable to discographies and collate them in one central page. The page should also have useful information about other recently premoted/demoted FLs and GAs etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  02:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete in the spirit of CSD T2 until the target page actually becomes part of the MOS. As has already been said above, the "MOS" prefix suggests the target is part of the MOS, and thus an actual guideline. It is not. Ucucha 12:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Romeland



 * 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. Disambiguation not necessary as Cheshunt Great House does not mention Romeland so it's not a valid destination and no evidence that Romelândia is known as Romeland. If some wants to create a redirect to St Albans, feel free but the coverage isn't that detailed and seems better suited to the search function. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Cheshunt Great House (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Redirect to an article was about a supposed palace called "Romeland", which was PRODded. The PROD was contested by the creator, who then renamed the article as Cheshunt Great House and recast it to be about a building of that name a few miles away. Neither of the refs in the article suggest that the Cheshunt Great House was ever known as "Romeland" Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Convert to disambiguation page - I have provided a model. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not useful or referenced. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cosmosis



 * 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 speedy closed as wrong forum. We are not able to fix cut'n'paste moves here. The nominator should follow the instructions at How to fix cut-and-paste moves. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Cosmosis (band) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Move target to current location of redirect, graft edit histories together. Band article was copy-and-pasted to the current location for a split which seemed necessary at the time. It was found that the split was not necessary, as the other article that emerged from the split turned out to be unverifiable (Articles for deletion/Cosmosis (figure of speech)). Even if the article needed to be split, the band article could have been spared the copy-and-paste action, however now that it has happened, a re-grafting of edit histories may be necessary. Bxj (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Template:Explanation of the tables



 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Layout engine nomenclature (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This redirect is not needed, it is not linked or transcluded anywhere. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - housekeeping. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;not a plausible redirect. –Grondemar 12:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nylanderia species near pubens



 * 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 speedy deleted as WP:CSD R3 by Malik Shabazz. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Crazy Rasberry ant (links to redirect • [ history] • )

A malformed title using single quotes in an attempt to format the redirect with italics. More plausible redirects such as Nylanderia species near pubens and "Nylanderia" species near "pubens" already exist. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - way too many incoming links for deletion to be considered. Even if those are fixed, this is a long-standing title and deletion may well break links in external sites. Harmless, and no good reason for deletion, so just leave it be. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a longstanding title; it was originally created on August 6, 2010 . Most of the incoming links are redirects that were changed when the page was moved and will now be changed again since the page has been moved again. Those links are no reason to keep this. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! I shouldn't have missed that. I have fixed the last remaining incoming link. The point remains, though, that links/redirects should be fixed before a page is bought here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Caribbean crazy ant - Dr. Jason Myers, Texas A&M studied this ant for his 2008 doctoral dissertation. The following is from the UF/IFAS Caribbean crazy ant publication at http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/ants/caribbean_crazy_ant.htm.

"In his 2008 dissertation, Dr. Jason M. Meyers (Texas A&M) performed morphometric and phylogenetic identifications on the Texas ant and found that "Despite a previous, inadequate species description for the original concept of N. pubens (Forel 1893), morphological evidence alone does not suggest that a new species classification is warranted for the Texas populations" (Meyers 2008). It is therefore likely that the "Rasberry crazy ant" is the same as the "Caribbean crazy ant" being only an "intraspecific variation of N. pubens, frequently observed in insect species." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the complicated taxonomy here; my issue is the nonstandard usage of single quotes in an attempt to produce italic formatting in the redirect title. That tends to cause unwitting breakage when editors attempt to use the redirect as an actual link. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as R3 and tagged as such. Implausible and created on 7 August 2010. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditional counties



 * 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 Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * → Association of British Counties (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Replace with dab page pointing to Traditional counties of England, Traditional counties of Ireland, Traditional counties of Scotland and Traditional counties of Wales. The page currently redirects to a pressure group which uses the term in its argument that that the ancient counties of England and other parts of the United Kingdom still exist. Users searching for the term are more likely to be looking for the ancient counties themselves, even if the use of the term "traditional counties" is somewhat controversial. Traditional counties of England already redirects to Ancient counties of England. See the discussion here for evidence of the use of the term. --Mhockey (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As it doesn't specify the country, should simply redirect to County article. MRSC (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert to disambiguation page per nomination. We should point this title at where it is most likely to help searchers. Redirecting to County is significantly less helpful. I am not aware of the phrase 'Traditional counties' being used in the titles of articles for other countries but if it is they can also be added to the disamb page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Traditional county" is not used in Ireland or Scotland, both locations have only ever had "counties". MRSC (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine; then just disambiguate between the Wales and England pages. Whatever we do, redirecting to County is simply unhelpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, "traditional counties" does seem to be used for Scotland, e.g. this genealogical website and another genealogical website and this Scottish tourism site (quite apart from the website of the ABC, which uses the term for the whole of Great Britain). It may be a bit superfluous, because all Scottish counties are/were traditional/historic, but it does seem to be one of the terms (not the only term) that genealogists in particular use for the pre-1975 areas.-Mhockey (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just another word for county and should redirect there. MRSC (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Traditional counties of Scotland already does redirect to Counties of Scotland. The issue is whether it is helpful for Traditional counties to redirect to County. I agree with Bridgeplayer that that is unhelpful.--Mhockey (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment don't forget about places where counties have changed over time, and "traditional counties" would be a system of division no longer in use, supplanted by a new system of counties, or new system of other things. 74.216.194.130 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment for instance Counties in New Zealand - about counties pre-1989; List of Quebec counties where the county system was abolished... etc. 74.216.194.130 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It could apply to counties in any country and as such should redirect simply to the county article. Otherwise this will just become as list of countries that have ever used counties as a subnational unit. MRSC (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It could apply to any country but it doesn't and only a few countries have articles on their previous counties. There is absolutely no need to obscure information from the readers by taking them to a page they don't want (anyone searching on 'Traditional counties' will be able to work out to search on 'County' if they want the general picture. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have now created a model disamb page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this as the discussion is ongoing. Do not make unilateral changes where there is no consensus for it. My revert should not be seen as an endorsement of the status quo. A redirect to county is my preference, where a proper, referenced, explanation of which countries have "traditional counties" can be detailed, using source material. MRSC (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Undone the revert - this is a model to aid discussion and doesn't prejudge anything. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert to dab page as proposed by Bridgeplayer. It seems that "traditional counties" is a term limited to some places where "counties" are used; as such, it is helpful to point readers to those specific uses, not to the general county article. Ucucha 12:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)