Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 15

August 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 15, 2011

List of World Heritage Sites in danger



 * 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 - Consensus that this is a useful search term, and aids navigation for users of the encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → List of World Heritage in Danger (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion. This redirect's name is a wikipedia invention and does not appear in realiable sources. UNESCO (the relevant agency) always calls this List of World Heritage in Danger. bamse (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible search term, harmless. Redirects do not have to use technically correct terms; it is the job of the article to explain the correct usage. As it happens, RS do use this formulation -   - and many others which underscores its forseeability as a search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When writing on this topic, I would consider newspapers, etc. as less reliable and indeed they did not care to check what they are writing about. UNESCO is very careful not to use the phrase with "Sites", most likely to emphasize that the heritage and not the site (which is an artificial UNESCO creation) is in danger. Anyway. Does "Redirects do not have to use technically correct terms" mean that we can have redirect pages for anything that somebody might enter in the search box, e.g. should Highest mountain of Japan redirect to Mount Fuji? bamse (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap and helpful. When, as here, a phrase is used widely in RS, whether strictly accurate or not, it is likely to be used as a search term and since we can take the reader to the information that they are seeking, then there is no reason why we should not. On your last point, we have Highest mountain in Africa and others and I see no reason not to have Highest mountain in Japan. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Not only is this a very useful search term (8887 hits in July, enormous for a redirect) but it is also the original location of the information now at List of World Heritage in Danger (via a series of page moves), so the redirect is important for maintaining attribution history. As for Highest mountain in Japan, I've created that as a redirect to Mount Fuji based on your suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many/most of those hits were probably not entered in the search box but came from Infobox World Heritage Site. Maybe the Highest mountain in Japan example was not good. This case is more like Volcano highest Japan Shizuoka Yamanashi hiking. Anyway, it seems there is not much support for a deletion so I leave it at that. Just one more question: Should or shouldn't "danger" be capitalized? bamse (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Danger' should not be capitalised. It would only be capitalised if it was consistently used by the organisation as a proper name but in this case it is not. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per reasons given by Thryduulf and Bridgeplayer. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-We frequently keep redirects with less than one percent of this one's hits. This formulation is technically incorrect, which is why it isn't the articles title. Nevertheless, it is a logical formulation that someone might well search for, as the enormous number of hits clearly demonstrates.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of those hits are likely not from a search but from Infobox World Heritage Site. bamse (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Marriage in Islam/redirects



 * 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 by user:Nyttend per criterion R3


 * → Islamic marital practices (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Please remove the redirect and delete this page - discussion has taken place here. The original article, Marriage in Islam already exists, and this can be safely removed. Shaad lko (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete redirect that was a by-product of a series of page moves. No meaningful history that is not with the target. Tagged for G6 deletion as housekeeping. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.