Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 26

November 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2010

Wikipedia:Strawpoll



 * 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 Straw polls. (non-admin closure) →Gƒoley  Four   (GSV)  20:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Requests for comment (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I can see no valid reason for this to redirect here. It's wholly misleading, to start with ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Straw polls. Though a failed proposal it contains useful discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Straw polls, per Bridgeplayer. Another possible target is Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but I'm inclined to agree that Straw polls is a better target, particularly since it is suitably hatnoted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Straw polls, per Bridgeplayer and Black Falcon.  Reh  man 14:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:R from slang



 * 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, arguments for deletion are strong as there are indeed two separate categories in existance, thus there is a difference between alternative names and alternative spellings. Being a plausible search term isn't particularly relevant here because of the nature of template usage. --Taelus (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:R from alternative name (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete – implausible redirect with no links or transclusions. A redirect from a slang term is not necessarily a redirect from an alternative name. ROFL redirects to LOL but ROFL is not an alternative name to LOL. Sk8r redirects to Sk8ter but Sk8r is not an alternative name to Sk8ter. Many slang terms are redirects but they are not all redirects for the same reason so no one target works for R from slang.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment but your examples are the same things. ROFL is a hyponym of LOL, Sk8r is an alternative spelling of sk8ter (as stated on the page itself). 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. As you just stated, neither ROFL not Sk8r are redirects from alternative names. ROFL is a redirect from a related word and Sk8r is a redirect from an alternative spelling.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternate spelling is an alternate name. And some people treat LOL and ROFL as synonyms. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative spelling is not an alternative name. They are two separate categories: Category:Redirects from alternative names and Category:Redirects from alternative spellings.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You lot seem to be missing the point. R from slang will currently categorise a redirect into Category:Redirects from alternative names but as my examples have shown, this is not always accurate and by keeping this template, we risk miscategorisation.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Instead of trying to decide whether a particular term is sufficiently non-mainstream (or insufficiently mainstream) to qualify as "slang", I think it is better to use the more descriptive classification scheme we have in place: alternative name, alternative spelling, modification of the target name, and so on. The redirect is not currently being used, so nothing is lost by deleting it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Last North American veterans by war



 * 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) 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Last surviving United States war veterans (links to redirect • [ history] • )

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate The United States is not all of North America, there's already another list for Canada (List of last surviving Canadian war veterans); this should be rolled back to oldid=396087478. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Disambiguate Canada, Mexico, Guatemala are all part of North America. Canada in particular declined to join the USA when it was formed and fought 2 wars (1 2) to maintain its freedom so it would be absurd to either merge Canada into the US article or to ignore it. Kiore (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Update Kiore (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Disambiguate - I believe an author in the past tried to consolidate the North American lists but now that the community has nixed that idea I think we can disambiguate it. --Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete useless. The reader would look up the individual countries anyhow and this is too loose of a way to organize.  Royal broil  13:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not really a proper case of diambiguation because we're not dealing with ambiguous article names here. It's really a list.  Frankly, the best solution would be to delete it, as it is completely unnecessary - it only exists because the editor who originally wanted to merge the Canadian and U.S. lists didn't understand the proper process and initiated simultaneous AfD, merge and RM discussions, and then further muddied the waters by moving the U.S. list to this name in anticipation of a consensus that never came.  This redirect only pointed to the U.S. list until the merge discussion was resolved (which it now has).  It wouldn't be the end of the world if it survives as a list, or even some overkill DAB page, but it's completely unnecessary and the best case scenario would be to delete it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per earlier version - potentially helpful page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Skeezix100 that the earlier version was not a proper disambiguation page but rather a very short list of lists of last surviving war veterans of North America. The page also is not useful as a redirect, particularly as it was recently created (so there is little likelihood of breaking significant incoming links). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Skeezix. Watched the situation unfold and agree that phrases that have zero point in existing qua phrases should not be redirects. I am usually broad-minded about letting live with redirects, but the nonsynonymy is decisive: the idea that a N.A. list by war should exist is OR unsupported by the community. JJB 05:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Skeezix. David in DC (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Academia’s history.



 * 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 vs. re-targeted due to the trailing period. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Academia Secondary School (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Wonky redirect; you'd think the most obvious target would be Academia rather than a secondary school, but it's not really a well enough formed redirect for that either. Created in October by a page move, nothing links here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete – useless redirect and no links means it is safe to delete.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  06:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Academia as plausible typo. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The move history is preserved in the page history of the target page, and the page existed as an article for a short time only (8 minutes). I would agree with Bridgeplayer were it not for the hard-to-spot non-standard punctuation: a "curly" apostrophe and a period. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)