Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11

April 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2014.

Template:Excessive



 * 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. Involved close given the backlog and with unanimous consensus after two weeks. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


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

This template redirect is too vague to be very helpful, and has no current transclusions. It was initially created as a redirect to Template:Fancruft (now Template:Overly detailed) before being deleted at the request of its author. It could still plausibly refer to excessive detail, or to other issues, such as excessive images of any sort (Template:Too many photos), excessive references to popular culture (Template:In popular culture), etc. BDD (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's usefull. --Unknown contributers (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Unknown contributers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep --Unknown wiki editors (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Unknown wiki editors (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep --Unknown userz (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Unknown userz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Struck out those sock votes. Steel1943  (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is Template:NFIO which redirects to here. The documentation page is present but empty. It doesn't seem used much. I think it is intended to mark pages as those with images that are non-free use (I get pulled up with this a lot if you look at my talk page but usually after explanation they are accepted, but occasionally deleted, that is quite right if it is WP:COPYVIO but I don't do it deliberately but I don't know the whole law of the State of Florida). Most of the incoming links are from user's pages, not articles, although there is a WP:ANI incident linked from that article to here but I can find nothing about it. If it is about non-free images, surely we have a better target somewhere, Non-free content has redirects at WP:F and WP:FAIRUSE and several others, so I am not sure this is necessary. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with Template:NFIO (non-free image overload?). --BDD (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this is just the Shaming of the Trew. My mistake in being brief and vague rather than carrying on forever like I usually do. Nothing wrong with Template:NFIO. I was more suggesting that if that exists, there's no need for Template:Excessive, which seems an attempt at the same purpose. Si Trew (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2014 (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.

Matthew Gaudreau
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 25%23Matthew Gaudreau

Fair majority voting
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 5%23Fair majority voting

Political status of Crimea



 * 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 procedural close. It looks like RfD got bypassed a while ago. There's now a Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol article, with an ongoing RM to move it to this title. While it still exists as a redirect, essentially all of this discussion has been superseded. --BDD (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Political status of Crimea → Republic of Crimea (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Should redirect to Crimean Peninsula or to 2014 Crimean crisis. The current redirection is a huge violation of WP:NPOV, because it essentially says "Current political status of Crimea? It's Russia now.", while this is quite obviously in dispute internationally. CodeCat (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, Redirect to Russia, or Redirect to Republic of Crimea. per nomen, but I think these are better solutions than Crimean Peninsula or 2014 Crimean Crisis because it focuses on Politics. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC) 
 * Don't retarget to 2014 Crimean crisis. I think that would be recentism. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * but a title like "political status of Crimea" in itself implies the current political status. All the other examples of Wikipedia using the "political status of ..." formulation pertain to currently active international disputes. I doubt anyone would type this if they wanted to know about the political status of Crimea in the 1850s, they'd look at History of Crimea. 59.89.134.184 (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't redirect to Republic of Crimea for WP:NPOV reasons. The Republic of Crimea is not the only party to claim Crimea, and redirecting there would imply that Wikipedia prefers/validates their claim in favour of others. CodeCat (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Crimea. Mr. Guye and CodeCat, can you take a second look at this? Some of the involved articles have moved since this nomination. Crimea is now about the peninsula, so I think retargeted to the Politics section of that article is the best, most neutral way of handling this. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Crimea doesn't exist (I presume it did when BDD suggested it). Trying to discuss this is like walking on quicksand. Just close it with no consensus. Si Trew (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2014 (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.

Pratapgarh (princely state)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 5%23Pratapgarh (princely state)

Shopdropping
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 29%23Shopdropping

Haas Racing Developments



 * 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, as the redirect has been converted to an article. Nice work! - 06:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC) The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Haas Racing Developments → Stewart-Haas Racing (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Haas Racing Developments is unrelated to Stewart-Haas Racing except through common partial ownership of the latter; HRD's Truck Series team is distinct, and HRD's F1 bid is wholly seperate from SHR. This is a misleading redirect; the subject is notable, but it requires its own article. The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Either Convert to an article (if there's enough information specifically about HRD to warrant that) or Retarget to Gene Haas. DH85868993 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wait? User:DH85868993 retargetting suggestion makes perfect sense. Just do it. It can always be converted to an article later. --Falcadore (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the HRD article be around as enough information about the project has been released, more info then US F1 Team did. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should, yes, especially as their Camping World Truck Series team is currently active and competing. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is not a lot of point saying "convert to article" unless you are offering to do it. Are you offering? Si Trew (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (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.