Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 19

September 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2011

Transborder



 * 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 Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * → Mexican American (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The topic of transborder is much more than just Mexican American, which is where this links. My first thought (being Canadian) when I think of transborder are the multiple flights between Canada and the US that are classified as transborder, as they are not "domestic" but are not classified as "international" when it comes to how a typical North American airline would handle international in-flight services (also with with United States border preclearance at several Canadian airports, there is a dedicated section of Canadian airports dedicated to transborder flights).

I am sure the concept of transborder can be extended to any two nations, particularly ones that have strong relations with a large amount of cross-border travel. Not sure what the best target for this redirect is, Canada – United States relations (not likely), a DAB page (perhaps), Wictionary (maybe), something else? kelapstick(bainuu) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also see Articles for deletion/Transborder, previous history deleted.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone thinks this is the best target for this redirect but I dont know that there are any other better options at this time.--RadioFan (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate - there are several related articles that can be usefully disambiguated. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation does seem ideal as a long term solution. If nobody steps up to do that, deletion is better than keeping this around and pointing to the Mexican American article which is only possibly appropriate because of the history of the deleted article with this name. The number of hits (maybe 1-2 a day) aren't enough that we can't live with no article on the topic for some time. — m a k o ๛  21:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added the suggested text of a disambiguation page below the redirect at Transborder. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a great start! Thanks for taking the first step Bridgeplayer! — m a k o ๛  14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent start, I am thinking DAB is the best in the long term. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:04, 20 September 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.

Pleco



 * 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 Loricariidae. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


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

I propose that this redirect is changed to target Loricariidae because pleco is used as a common name for all species in the Loricariidae family, not only for Hypostomus plecostomus. Kat (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Loricariidae. The nomination is correct. See here, for example. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget. I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget - Nice catch! (No pun intended.) The hatnotes on the three articles should be adjusted if and when this retargetting happens. — m a k o ๛  21:54, 19 September 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.

Zombie Jesus Day



 * 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 List of Internet phenomena. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


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

This is a non-notable and somewhat derisive term for Easter. A similar redirect, Zombie Jesus Awareness Day, was deleted as vandalism in 2010. A. Parrot (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Retarget to List of Internet phenomena - though this is a pejorative term for Easter, it has some usage on the Internet, for example here and here, so it's not sufficiently clear out and out vandalism for a G3. Having said that it is not mentioned in the target and hence it should be deleted as confusing . Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Indeed, this seems to be a widespread Internet meme. There are hundreds of videos on Youtube about it, several websites devoted entirely to the topic, Facebook groups containing thousands of members, an in-depth Uncyclopedia article, and an Urban Dictionary entry with more than 600 up-votes. There is complete agreement that the "Zombie Jesus" concept refers to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and that ZJD refers to Easter. Of course, none of that means that ZJ or ZJD is necessarily notable enough for an article but it does suggest that a redirect, at the very least, is appropriate. Older logs suggest that the redirect gets more use around Easter. I imagine most people searching for Zombie Jesus Day already know it means Easter and what it is, but the potential for real harm is low here and there are encyclopedic reasons to keep this redirect in. — m a k o ๛  22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - excellent analysis as always. However, the problem remains that the term 'Zombie Jesus Day' is not mentioned in the article. Someone who knows that it refers to, and wants, 'Easter' is most likely to just search on 'Easter'. There are two groups of readers who might search on 'Zombie Jesus Day'; these are those who want to know what the term means and those who know what it means but want to know about the origins of the phrase. Both those groups would, at present, be disappointed and/or confused by the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of Internet phenomena - You're correct. I dug up a solid reference from a reliable source, added Zombie Jesus and Zombie Jesus Day to the List of Internet phenomena page. As long as that portion of the page survives, retargetting there seems like the best option. — m a k o ๛  19:29, 20 September 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.