Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 9

January 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2013

−999



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * → 999 (number) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The target page contains no information about −999. In addition, −999 is not a probably typo for 999 (number). Redirect should be deleted. Dree12 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the absolute value of negative-999 is "999". So 999 number deals with this magnitude. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - to encourage article creation. Wily D 08:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really want an article on every number? Many number articles have been combined or deleted as non-notable. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be strictly impossible to do so. There are less than 10^100 electrons within the horizon. Wily D  14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unlikely search term; indeed we would have every integer have its own article. The argument for "keep" must follow the classic line: there is no such thing as a boring integer. For if so, one of them must be the smallest boring integer, signer or unsigned. And so it is interesting, not boring, that it is the smallest, so the smallest boring integer cannot be boring, and so cannot be the smallest boring.


 * If there is nothing interesting to be said for -999 in particular, it should be deleted exactly so as not to make precedent as per 76.65.128.43; although I admit that argument is weak as there is little harm in keeping it. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I may have been confused a little, though my argument holds in general. -999 is a double redirect through -999 (number) to 999 (number); the first was moved to the second, for no good reason I can see as this comes under WT:DAB and [Primary Topic; there was no other contender for it to be contended. The move was uncontentious but unnecessary. But both are redundant but harmless. Si Trew (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, there is no specific information on this number and Wikipedia shouldn't pretend otherwise (which just wastes people's time and disappoints them). Siuenti (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2013 (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.

Template:MoneyCardScan



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * → Template:Ir-MoneyCard (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Only incoming links are reports or bot configuration. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep; not in article space, so rules for incoming external links do not apply anyway. Template redirects are a pain for template maintainers, and it is best to clean them out when possible. But before doing so a request should be made for a bot to check for transclusions. Si Trew (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2013 (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.

Louis Armstrong discography



 * 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 per nom. Ruslik_ Zero 19:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Per WP:R reason 10. Neo139 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Write the article but delete if this hasn't been done by the end of the discussion period. A classic case of where we need an article, good find. Thryduulf (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - to encourage article creation. Wily D 08:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, with mild Delete: Vaguely randomly, I put first "Paul McCartney Discography" into the Wikipedia search on Firefox, and it indeed has its own article. So I tried again with "Max Bygraves discography" and the search results were all references to sections (Discography) in various articles (including I am pleased to note the bandleader Ted Heath). It also icluded in that same search results (at 18th place) John Lennon (section Discography). I tried Google with site:en.wikipedia.org discography, and although there are far more for references to section, separate articles are also quite common (5 out of the first 20 on my search).


 * So there is nothing against there being an article as such, but there seems little point in there having a redirect when there is not a separate article (pretty much a list article) deliberately to keep it out of the main article. I don't agree with Wily's reason for deletion: you could create the article yourself if you cared that much; otherwise let it be. But I imagine there are WikiProjects that have better say in these things, and I imagine that they would say have a section for discography and do not link it. If McCartney gets a discography article but Lennon doesn't, there is obviously not a black and white answer here. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that whether a discography gets an article or section is entirely down to size issues. Where a discography is a separate article it is at Foo discography unless that is ambiguous. Where a discography is a section, Foo discography should redirect to that section (unless it is ambiguous). The issue here is that nobody has yet written a discography article or section for Louis Armstrong, there are only categories. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (do we need to know reasons by number? the future?: "delete #2783", "keep #894"....) - Nabla (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Some people refer to things like "WP:R reason 10" (which you can easily look up) as a short hand way of saying "this redirect should be deleted to encourage the creation of an article at this title", but doing so is and will always be entirely optional. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a shorthand for the writer, forcing every reader to either click away and search for a meaning or to know them by heart. One editor saves his time, at everyone else's time expense. Very urbane. This should be closed as "not providing any reason to delete" - Nabla (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well put. It is also rather cliquey, I think, to use the abbrevations. But like any jargon, if it is between people in their own little corner, no harm in it. It is probably exacerbated by the widget thing that lets you CSD or AFD or RFD and says "A7: User requested delete or author blanked page", or whatever it says for CSD A7. Wikipedia is not, and has never been, a private members' club, but it can look like that sometimes (and when it does, I take a long wikibreak. So please excuse me if I am out of order, but just easing my toes in the water after a long absence, and I hope I am not out of order to start looking at redirects before I am ready to make more substantial edits to articles). Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2013 (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.

German Colored Tail Owl



 * 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 both. Ruslik_ Zero 19:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The redirects are misleading. Owl pigeons and Tumbler pigeons are two totally different groups of pigeon breeds. The redirect German Colored Tail Owl results from a very bad translation. I am not able to find a better fitting one. The breed of the Old German Owl has varieties with colored tail feathers, but I have never heard of a Old German Colored Tail Owl (or a (Alt-)Deutsches farbenschwänziges Mövchen). In fact the German Colourtail Owl (D/709) is a separate breed that may be named German Colored Tail Owl/German Coloured Tail Owl'', too. (see EE-List of the breeds of fancy pigeons, No. 709). As for the Konigsberg colored tail owl: There is no Konigsberg owl pigeon only tumbler pigeons. Best regards, PigeonIP (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * → Königsberg Coloured Head Tumbler (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Königsberg Coloured Head Tumbler (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * The Konigsberg colored tail owl is a redirect because of a move to German Colored Tail Owl, so both are results from a very bad translation. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The russian wp pigeon list too does only refer to Кёнигсбергский (maybe Koenigsberg Reinaugen Tumbler, an all white tumbler) and Кёнигсбергский цветнохвостый (the Königsberg Coloured Head Tumbler). --PigeonIP (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (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.