Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2013

Kane is his common name



 * 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 per G7 and R3. Non-admin closure. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Unlikely article name created when an editor was moving an article - moved again immediately. noq (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this unfortunate redirect, I want it to be deleted immediately. It was an accident and a redirect does no good for the actual article.LM2000 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 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.

Cure for ataxia



 * 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 * The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Author has converted it into a very short article. Will nominate at AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Redirect implies that the target is a "cure" for ataxia when all of the content indicates that it is only a treatment to ameliorate symptoms. "Cure" has a specific medical definition and this redirect is therefore misleading. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:54, 18 June 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.

Cure for cerebellar ataxia



 * 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 withdrawn. Author has converted it into a very short article. Will nominate at AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Redirect implies that the target is a "cure" for ataxia when all of the content indicates that it is only a treatment to ameliorate symptoms. "Cure" has a specific medical definition and this redirect is therefore misleading. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:53, 18 June 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.

ATAXIA CURE



 * 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 withdrawn. Author has converted it into a very short article. Will nominate at AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Redirect implies that the target is a "cure" for ataxia when all of the content indicates that it is only a treatment to ameliorate symptoms. "Cure" has a specific medical definition and this redirect is therefore misleading. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will specifically state there is no cure in the article. Cheers. Fletcherbrian 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherbrian (talk • contribs)
 * 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.

Spud gun (version 2)



 * 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 moved without redirect to Talk:Spud gun/Spud gun (version 2) and redirect replaced with an explanatory note (feel free to copyedit that). This retains the attribution history without the need to history merge anything or overwrite an existing redirect. I have linked this discussion in the move log and will link to it at talk:Spud gun to help anyone who wants the history to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Highly improbable redirect name. uKER (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The pagehistory behind this redirect includes the attribution of content which was apparently merged to better pages.  Preserving attribution history is a requirement of GFDL and CC-BY-SA.  This particular title is an artifact of a series of old page moves.  The redirect now does no harm and possibly helps future editors who are trying to trace those moves and attribution history.  However, it should be tagged as unprintworthy.  I'll do that now.  Rossami (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Move the edit history to which has no significant history, but is a plausible title, so a better place to keep edit history -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a plausible solution if anyone really wants to go to all that trouble. I dislike history-mergers because the process is intensively manual and inherently error-prone.  Unless a redirect is harmful, we achieve essentially the same end with less risk by leaving the history where it was originally created.  In my opinion, anyway...  Rossami (talk)
 * In this case, the edit history was not created at this location. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The history page shows a significant number of content edits. Those contributions do not show on any history page that I can find.  Granted, the page was not then at this title but that wasn't my point.  These contributions must be preserved and are reasonably accessible where they are through the renaming references in the history.  Rossami (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not require that this page remain at this title, it can be placed at a reasonable title, such as one of the previous locations it used to occupy. or to Potato gun which was only ever a redirect, and only has redirect retargeting for history, so has no significant history, and can be replaced with the history of this page. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good evening, 65... I think we're talking past each other.  Yes, the contribution history can be moved (and your suggested alternatives are plausible).  The question is whether it's worth it to move the history.  All those other pages already have their own contribution history so you would have to execute a History Merge - a process that is notoriously difficult and very easy for even highly experienced admins to get wrong. Looking into it more, I see your point about the page history of "potato gun" - that target wouldn't necessarily require a full-blown history merger and I wouldn't object if someone boldly made that move but even that seems like more work than it's really worth.  This redirect is unprintworthy but still not harmful enough to waste time deleting, in my opinion.  Rossami (talk) 14:22, 3 July 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.

File:Bass.jpg



 * 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 and salt. I have not replaced this with an image placeholder as I am not sure about the current consensus regarding these. Any admin who knows the score can upload one if it is permitted though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → File:Strings of a bass being played.jpg (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is a 'generic' name that should be salted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt with image placeholder, so that no random image from Commons shows though either, as this is a likely name to be randomly overwritten -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:18, 20 June 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.

Anti-choice
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10%23Anti-choice

Talk:Pro-choice



 * 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 unredirect and tag with relevant project banners. For future reference this is normally seen as uncontroversial and does not require deletion or an RfD. 11:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Talk:United States pro-choice movement (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Redirects about hot topics that are likely to be discussed should have their own talk pages. Pro-choice has a redirecting talk page which I think should be deleted. Moreover the talk page redirect is inconsistent. Pro-choice redirects to Abortion-rights movements (as it should) but Talk:Pro-choice redirects to Talk:United States pro-choice movement, not Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Please delete the redirect, or at least make it consistent if you think that deletion is not appropriate. Connor Behan (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a huge discussion about this issue and the matter was settled after a month of debate which you can see at Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. This is not a trivial matter to be revisited by one editor initiating an RfD. It will take much more community input in a central location for any change to occur. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unrelated. The discussion was about the names of abortion articles, not talk pages of redirects to abortion articles. It is a nuisance when articles lack talk pages and this includes redirects. Connor Behan (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is useful to host a talk page of a redirect, ever. Such a talk page gets lost to wider views, and only those who have the old article or talk page on their watchlist will see any discussion. I think in every case a redirected article name should be accompanied by a redirected talk page. "Hot" topics don't get different treatment. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Convert into a real talk page, with an information box at the top indicating places to go to discuss the related topics. Add a big red banner to say that the talk page is only to be used to discuss the redirect itself. Then tag with the various project banners as "|class=redirect" ; there have been lively debates on redirect talk pages about the redirects themselves, and they should stay at those pages, since placing those discussions at the target talk page would be misleading, and when redirects are changed to be about something else, then the talk page redirect mistakenly redirects people to the wrong page, where all sorts of misplaced discussions occur all the time, because people click on talk and the new discussion without checking where they ended up. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 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.

Talk:Pro-life



 * 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 unredirect and tag with project banners. For future reference this is normally considered uncontroversial and does not require deletion or RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Talk:United States pro-life movement (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unlike with most other redirects I have seen, the talk page for Pro-life points to the talk page for the article it redirects to. This impedes a user's ability to talk about the redirect itself as I recently had cause to do. Please delete this redirect. Connor Behan (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a huge discussion about this issue and the matter was settled after a month of debate which you can see at Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. This is not a trivial matter to be revisited by one editor initiating an RfD. It will take much more community input in a central location for any change to occur. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unrelated. The discussion was about the names of abortion articles, not talk pages of redirects to abortion articles. It is a nuisance when articles lack talk pages and this includes redirects. Connor Behan (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Convert into a real talk page, with an information box at the top indicating places to go to discuss the related topics. Add a big red banner to say that the talk page is only to be used to discuss the redirect itself. Then tag with the various project banners as "|class=redirect" ; there have been lively debates on redirect talk pages about the redirects themselves, and they should stay at those pages, since placing those discussions at the target talk page would be misleading, and when redirects are changed to be about something else, then the talk page redirect mistakenly redirects people to the wrong page, where all sorts of misplaced discussions occur all the time, because people click on talk and the new discussion without checking where they ended up. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 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.

Pro-life
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10%23Pro-life

Hefemale
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10%23Hefemale

Eastern Virginia



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


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

The primary topic would be the Eastern part of Virginia (Tidewater region of Virginia) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there's also Eastern District of Virginia -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a United States district courts, not a geographic region. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Eastern Virginia can certainly mean Eastern Shore of Virginia, so the redirect should be to a diambig page. tahc chat 03:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Eastern Shore is just a tiny part of Virginia. It's those two counties south of Delaware. I've never herd it called "Eastern Virginia" and calling that "Eastern Virginia" would be like like calling Florida the "Southeastern United States". The primary topic would be the Eastern part of Virginia, the disambig page East Virginia can be linked to in a hatnote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Eastern Virginia, except the Eastern Shore, is usually called "The Tidewater" or "Virginia Tidewater". And, yes, I have heard Florida called the "Southeastern United States". --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per tahc. I'm Virginia born and bred, and if someone was talking to me about "Eastern Virginia," I'd assume they'd mean the Eastern Shore. Tidewater can be "Hampton Roads," and it's eastern Virginia in a literal sense, but the usage isn't common enough to merit retargeting. The search term is sufficiently awkward that a reader using it is likely to be confused or exploring, so redirecting to a dab is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 8 July 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.