Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 21

August 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 21, 2011

Wikipedia:Annoying users



 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Requests for comment/User conduct (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I should have thought that "annoying users" sounds more like an essay. In any case, as a redirect to RFC it doesn't really work. Maybe we can redirect to somewhere else... Otherwise, delete. Or so I think :) Egg Centric 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or retarget. This is a very early title for what evolved into RfC/U via a series of page moves. It's difficult to piece together the history but it's possible this was the original location - it certainly fits the naming philosophy of the very early days. As an important piece of history we should not delete the page. I can see the value in either the current location or an essay, perhaps Accepting other users? Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave as redirect. It is a bit of Wikipedia history from our early years. Infrogmation (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - still occasionally used and no particularly good reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Wikipedia History... I don't really see that as a reason to keep pages but you've given me an idea, which I'll take to the village pump tonight (have to dash now: would be delighted if someone else wrote it out first!) - essentially, how about adding a "browse wikipeddia as it was on dd/mm/yyyy" feature? I'm aware of the nostalgia wiki and nostalgia skin, but this seems more flexible and I can see plenty of use to it. Egg Centric 14:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the idea on village pump Egg Centric 19:42, 22 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.

User:Paul Drye/old



 * 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 all.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → User:Paul Drye (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

and more... (Feel free to add more)
 * 1) User:Paul Drye/old
 * 2) User:Tim Chambers/old
 * 3) User:SteveSmith/old
 * 4) User:RjLesch/old
 * 5) User:MichaelTinkler/Old
 * 6) User:NathanBeach/old
 * 7) User:NathanBeach/old2
 * 8) User:WojPob/old
 * 9) User:Tuxisuau/old
 * 10) User:Ansible/old
 * 11) User:Uriyan/old
 * 12) User:Olof/Old
 * 13) User:Szopen/Old
 * 14) User:Espen/Old
 * 15) User:Tbackstr/old
 * 16) User:RoseParks/old
 * 17) User:Piotr Gasiorowski/old
 * 18) User:Tim Chambers/old
 * 19) User:Alex/old

Serves no purpose. Full list on top. Ebe 123 talkContribs 19:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question what benefit will deleting these userspace redirects bring to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all, no reason for deletion has been given. Also, some of them contain ancient fistory that may be interesting to someone. —Kusma (t·c) 20:56, 22 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.

The Civil 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 retarget to Civil war (disambiguation).   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → English Civil War (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Where should this redirect? Does any country outside of the United States of America refer to a certain civil war as "The Civil War". If not, I believe this should redirect to American Civil War. If so, I believe this should either redirect to List of Civil Wars, or become a disambiguation page listing all the wars which have been widely referred to as "The Civil War". Ryan Vesey Review me!  14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Civil war. I see that there has been a mini civil war over this page! The page was created for The Civil War (TV series) which reached its current title through an intermediate move. In answer to the nominator's question, in the UK the English Civil War is referred to as 'The Civil War'. There is actually no good retarget. Pointing at a specific war is clearly wrong. Civil war (disambiguation) makes it clumsy for someone wanting to find an actual war whereas List of civil wars makes it equally awkward to get to the TV series. I think that Civil war is the best of some poor options; partly because searchers my be looking for the generic term and, if not, the hatnotes make navigation reasonably easy. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Civil war (disambiguation) and protect. The content now at The Civil War (TV series) (which is a TV series/documentary about the American War) was begun at this title, since that was moved there has been almost continual disagreement about whether this redirect should point to the American or English civil wars or Civil war (disambiguation). As both the American and English civil wars are referred to as "the civil war" in their respective countries (probably other countries that have had a civil war do the same) neither of these are neutral nor the primary topic, and the TV series certainly isn't primary. This leaves a choice between Civil war (a generic article about civil wars in general), List of civil wars (does exactly what it says on the tin) and Civil war (disambiguation). The generic and dab pages both link to each other and to the list article meaning that anyone redirected to either is at most two clicks to the article they want to read, but someone redirected to the list looking for the TV series, The Civil Wars (a band), The Civil Wars: A Tree Is Best Measured When It Is Down (an opera) or other uses is three clicks away from the article they want. This could be corrected with a hatnote " "The Civil War" redirects here, for other uses see Civil war (disambiguation)" but I still think this is less than ideal, so the choice is between the general and the dab. Were it not for "The Civil War" being the natural proper title for the TV series then I think the general article would win out, but giving one click access to the TV series from the general article would mean extending the hatnote to a third item - something that shouldn't (imho) be done if there is a better way. That better way is normally to move extended hatnotes to a dab page, but we already have a dab page here so best to direct people straight there. Finally, given the evidence of disagreement and reversion over the target, I think that once a target is agreed here then it should be protected to stop such edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Civil war (disambiguation) per Thryduulf. Another full time Brit and part time Englishman chiming in to say we indeed call it "The Civil War" and ours came first . I don't really buy that the disambig is clumbsy, but if it is then surely we should have separate "The Civil War" and "Civil War" disambig pages... but a moment of thought suggests that would be even clumiser! Protection I explicitly express no view on, I see that as an admin issue Egg Centric 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, retarget to disambig per above. Infrogmation (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Civil war (disambiguation) per everyone who already suggested this. Rymatz (talk) 19:23, 25 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.

First Sino–Japanese 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 speedy closed as wrong forum. Simply speedy tag using  - see WP:RM. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → First Sino-Japanese War (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

First Sino–Japanese War must be deleted, so First Sino-Japanese War can be renamed with an – (n-dash). Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This could be taken to WP:RM or just speedied per G6, but are you sure an en dash is correct? I thought a hyphen was correct in this context. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:07, 21 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.