Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 11

September 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 11, 2010

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 16



 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Aircraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This also includes: Useless redirects with barely any pages linking to them or any traffic. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 18 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 17 were deleted on similar grounds. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete - useless redirects.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Cunningham syndrome



 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Happy Days (links to redirect • [ history] • )

The section it pointed to was entirely unsourced OR that I removed; note that there are no reliable sources anywhere that use the term "Chuck Cunningham syndrome." The only hits were Wikipedia mirrors/quotes and TV Tropes. As a result of the removal, this redirect now points to a nonexistant section that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - unneeded redirect to deleted article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Articles for deletion/Chuck Cunningham syndrome. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:DISPLAYTITLE



 * 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 N/A. No longer a redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Page name (links to redirect • [ history] • )

What i wrote for Template:Displaytitle is even more relevant for this. When someone wants to use the magic word DISPLAYTITLE, but uses a pipe instead of a colon ( instead of  ), a whole article gets transcluded unexpectedly. ospalh (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the original idea was that people might see the DISPLAYTITLE magic word syntax in the text, assume it was a template, and type in "Template:DISPLAYTITLE" to go there - they would then be redirected to a page that would explain the situation. But I agree it's not the best solution - can't we just create a template that mimics the behaviour of the magic word? Or generates an error message?--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think instead of a redirect it should function as a template itself.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited it so that it generates this when transcluded with a pipe, but has an explanation when viewed:
 * &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good. Since it's no longer a redirect, can we speedily close this discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good. Since it's no longer a redirect, can we speedily close this discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Displaytitle



 * 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 Re-targeted to Template:DISPLAYTITLE. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Page name (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This name is too close for my taste to the magic word DISPLAYTITLE, which is used with double braces. And a redirect from the template namespace to an article page can be terribly confusing. When you add "Displaytitle" to a page, the totaly unexpected thing of transcluding a whole essay into an article happens. ospalh (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I created that so that if people don't use caps lock then they can easily access the same info, why it is a redirect is because DISPLAYTITLE is also a redirect to the same article section.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  22:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirected to DISPLAYTITLE, see comment above. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good solution; can we close this discussion as well? (Assuming so, I'm removing the tag to make the new redirect work properly.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Personendaten



 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Persondata (links to redirect • [ history] • )

German version of Persondata. The main problem is that many articles coming from German wikipedia leave this part untranslated. Check for instance and some more. There were about 150 transclusions before I fix them i.e. not that many but I think this indicated that some instances were incompletely translated to English causing problems. I think the best strategy is to delete so editors are alerted and forced to use the well-established Persondata. Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is the English Wikipedia; we don't need to accommodate for foreign languages. If editing the English Wikipedia, English should be used.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  16:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse - per McLerristarr.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages indicates that this redirect is inappropriate. -- Magioladitis 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not cover this sort of thing. Foreign language redirects are for redirects to articles if a common name or the original name of the thing is in a foreign language. If we had redirects to every template from its German name, a German editor could write a page with all German-language templates, which an English-speaking editor could not understand. Everything in this encyclopaedia should be in English (or American :P).  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  04:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and this essay tries to say the same thing (or that's what I understand at least :P) -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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 Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


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

Delete – unused redirect. It was probably created for redirects to words from a slang spelling of the word but this is not a necessary template and the usage is not clear from the name – R from slang could mean a redirect from a slang abbreviation of a term, which is not a redirect from an alternative spelling.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  11:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this is one of those redirects that one of the bots automatically replaces with the proper template, which is why it is unused. As I've used it in the past (sometime last year), it would have to be the case that someone replaced it. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When I found it, there was only one page in it, Sk8r. I replaced the template with R from alternative spelling. The target of the redirect is incorrect, it should be the aforementioned template. Also, I don't understand your argument. The fact that you've used it does not mean we should keep it. The point is, the name of the template does not have only one usage and so cannot be redirected to one place. It is also not necessary to use it since it is quite easily replaced with another appropriate template. No one would ever use this template unless they found it somewhere else, so if we delete it, no one will miss it.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  03:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept which this redirect embodies seems quite valid. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. ROFL and Sk8r are both slang words and are both redirects but for different reasons. ROFL is a redirect to a related topic and Sk8r is a redirect from an alternative spelling. Neither are redirects from alternative names. R from slang could have multiple targets; its unclear what it's purpose is and so should be deleted to prevent unaware users from categorising redirects incorrectly.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1 

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep This redirect seams valid to me. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Euro-American radical right



 * 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 keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Far-right politics (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Not a plausible search term. Prezbo (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. The term "Euro-American radical right" has been used by a number of scholars who have studied the far right. Furthemore, Jeffrey Kaplan's 1998 book The Emergence of a Euro-American Radical Right is listed in the  Further reading  section of the Far-right politics article. I therefore argue that it is a plausible search term that is even worthy of its own article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find Loremaster's arguments persuasive. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame



 * 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 keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Cult checklist (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Material Removed from article it redirected, as the person was not an expert nor published in a RS on the topic Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - outright deletion would breach our GFDL obligations; whether the merged material is currently in the article is not relevant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bonewits expertise is from being in groups that are frequently seen as cults. His criteria were constructed as a way to objectively differentiate between destructive and non-destructive groups. His list is one of the few that is philosophically, theologically, and politically neutral. It also is one of the few that considers both ends of the pole to be "dangerous".  jonathon (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not proposing it for deletion because we disagree with it, just because it isn't used in the target article. That said, I don't see any reason to delete this redirect, as we don't generally delete redirects that have been around as long as this one has unless they are interfering with search results or something.  And it was an article at one point.  —  Soap  —  19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it appears the content is back in the Cult checklist article now, so perhaps an editing dispute is underway.  — Soap  —  19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - until edit dispute resolved. Even then, outright deletion is off the agenda though other means of preserving the history can be adopted. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklisting



 * 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Wikipedia talk:Spam-blacklisting (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This Mediawiki page is useless and not used anywhere, as far as I know. It was actually documentation for a Wikipedia page (see here) and has since been moved. I don't see the point in having the redirect in place. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  02:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Alternative theory of the European discovery of Brazil



 * 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 Keep.  Lenticel  ( talk ) 23:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → History of Brazil (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Not a meaningful search term. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - as a former article, with content that has been merge,d deletion would breach our GFDL obligations. Long-standing article whose deletion may break links in external sites. Plenty of hits, 200 or 300 most months, show that it is a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No content from the former article is kept that I see. Also, zero hits from external sites, so no external site links will be broken. Hits are likely due to search function. Hundreds a month is not anything we should be concerned over. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Content was merged here. "Also, zero hits from external sites, so no external site links will be broken." - wrong see here. Many external sites use this as an internal reference. It is nonsense to say "Hundreds a month is not anything we should be concerned over." - they show it is a used term. You have not specified any valid deletion criteria. Harmless redirects should not be deleted without good reason. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Historical.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The meaning of this title seems quite clear and so the nomination seems counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)