Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 22

July 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2010

Obecalp



 * 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 Placebo in history. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


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

The redirect is deceptive. Obecalp is not an alternative spelling of placebo, rather it is the brand name of a commercial placebo drug, and it is not mentioned in the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Placebo in history, where there is a sourced explanation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Placebo in history per Bridgeplayer. Good find. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Desert Valley



 * 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 to a disambiguation page so this discussion is now moot. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → Peoria Unified School District (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This should be renamed "Desert Valley Elementary School", or something similar, as "Desert Valley" is apparently a placename in Nevada (without an article?), linked in Nevada State Route 140. There are probably similarly problematic redirects for the numerous other schools listed on the School District's page, although I haven't checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.49.208 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 July 2010 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Convert to disambiguation page - there a number of promising candidates for such a page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Close I've already converted it to a dab page.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rule 34



 * 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 34 (number). JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (links to redirect • [ history] • )

As a result of the AFD for the Article "Rule 34", the redirect Rule 34 currently point to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The idea here, I guess, is that we might as well point Rule 34 to something that includes a Rule 34, and the FRCP is as good as any. But it's not clear why it points here, rather than any other set of numbered rules. Rule 34 is not a particularly prominent FRCP rule.

I find no fault with the decision to delete the Rule 34 article (apparently there's a joke that Rule 34 is "if it exists, there is porn about it," stemming from an XKCD comic (see ; also (faking the URL, since that's a blacklisted site) and ), which was the basis for the deleted article.  However, the redirect solution makes no sense.  Anyone searching on "Rule 34" is not likely to be interested in the FRCP.  It's also caused some confusion (see here) as readers looking for the joke Rule 34 are dumped into the FRCP article.

I propose: 1) preferably, delete the redirect. It is misdirective, confusing, and the opposite of helpful.  If this is unsatisfactory, 2) change the redirect to point to Request for production, which is the subject that FRCP Rule 34 deals with, and that at least mentions Rule 34 so that an unwitting reader will have some understanding of why he or she is sent to the article.

Incidentally, because of the edit-protection on Rule 34, I'm unable to place the rfd template on the redirect page. I've asked for it to be updated via editprotected. Template has now been added. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction Okay, looking more closely at the redirect's history and the AFD, I see that the article was actually a stub about FRCP Rule 34 at the time of its nomination, and was a frequent vandalism target due to the Internet joke. This explains why redirecting to the FRCP article may have Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time.  Nonetheless, I think it was the wrong disposition, and deletion or changing the redirect is a better disposition. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 34 (number) - I have added Request for production to that page. Since the retarget also describes the Internet meme this seems a good solution. The nominator is to be complimented on a very thoughtful and helpful nomination. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a better resolution than my proposed retarget. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment Whatever solution is decided upon, it needs to take into account the following: Users are coming to Wikipedia to look up the meaning of the Internet meme "Rule 34," and are being redirected to an unhelpful page about "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." This is not serving our readers. kevyn (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment xkcd, whilst being a marvelous webcomic, has nothing to do with the origin of this meme. See http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rule-34 for a good summation of the actual background, including the original image that started it. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 34 (number) as the most practical solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget-per Bridgeplayer, above. The current target, while done, I'm sure, in good faith, makes little sense. There are plenty of things with at least 34 rules. Heck, this could just as correctly point to Rules of Acquisition. (Oddly enough, that article does mention the 34th rule, and there was even a Star Trek novel called "The 34th Rule".) 34 (number) isn't perfect, but it looks to be the best solution.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 34 (number), per other comments above. Not sufficiently important as an FRCP provision to justify the redirect there. No need for a disambig page, as the number page basically covers that need. bd2412  T 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was suprised that this suggestion wasn't made in the AFD (which is probably why I have redirected to the FRCP page instead), but retarget as above as both the meme and FRCP are mentionned there. JForget 21:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Bridgeplayer Looks to be the ideal destination. Reach Out to the Truth 01:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)