Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 12

April 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2014.

Nac1
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 7%23Nac1

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 7%23Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)

April 31
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22%23April 31

Outlook Web Access



 * 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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Outlook Web Access → Outlook Web App (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

All redirects have been fixed now! Microsoft has rebranded Outlook Web Access as Outlook Web App. So this page has been moved successfully. Compfreak7 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, old product names are good redirects. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Vandenberg. q.v. Windows Live, Windows Messenger, et cetera ad nauseam. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly valid redirect from a former name of this product. In fact, I went ahead and tagged the redirect with a R from former name template. Steel1943  (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Steel1943 .-- Lenticel  ( talk ) 04:50, 14 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.

JB-2 Loon



 * 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, and tag as incorrect names. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * JB-2 Loon → Republic-Ford JB-2 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Republic-Ford JB-2 Loon → Republic-Ford JB-2 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is an erronious title, as there was never any such thing as a "JB-2 Loon". "Loon" referred only to the Navy variant of the V-1 copy, which was (at various times) "KGW-1 Loon", "KUW-1 Loon", and "LTV-N-2 Loon"; the JB-2 was never given the name Loon. Wikipedia shouldn't be promulgating an erroneous, never-existed designation. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Andy_Dingley  This seems to be more about an attempt to hide the name 'Loon' from the categorization. Once again the aircraft project goes its own sweet way, in this case inventing a new pseudo-policy that redirects (and redirects from valid and distinct alternate names) can't appear in the same categories as their article targets. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith instead of making unsubstantiated (and, in fact, entirely untrue) allegations. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then cite the WP:POLICY that states redirects aren't permitted in the same category as their target articles, rather than merely hand-waving to rely on it when removing such categorisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Loon is an aquatic bird, and is on the back of the Canadian one dollar coin (they are known colloquially as loonies and the two dollar coins as twonies) (although the article for loonies is a stub for a Dutch film and there is no article for twonies). A "Loony" is in U.K. English slang for a lunatic, although of course medical professionals do not call people that these days, instead using the term NFN ("Normal for Norfolk"). Stats show that this gets 20–30 hits per day. It's not a question of it being right, it's a question of whether it helps people to find the information they are looking for; and I think it does. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually I might change my mind. Although the redirect gets that many hits, the article itself gets far fewer (a max of five in the last ninety days). Which is a bit odd, has it been moved or something or was it just that stats.grok.se fell a few weeks ago? It seems odd that the R has more hits than the target since surely you are usually taken through the R to the target. I can understand the stats go up when something is under discussion but there have been consistent hits on the R for ages, but not on the article itself, which seems odd. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Readers already browsing the cruise missiles category are unlikely to be looking for birds, but 'Loon' was the common name for this missile. We should present this through that categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why LTV-N-2 Loon, a designation that actually existed, is in the category now. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, even if it is wrong, there are ~70,000 hits for "JB-2 Loon", and the first hit is http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=510 with page title "Factsheets : Republic/Ford JB-2 Loon (V-1 Buzz Bomb)". There are also a lot of google book hits, some of which are self published, but others are published by Harwood Academic Publishers, Cambridge University Press, Libraries Unlimited, etc.  The horse has bolted.  There should be a R from which marks this redirect as an incorrect name. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. As always you have hit the nail on the thumb. That is exactly what we should do. Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 17 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.

TEMP:INFOSINGL



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * TEMP:INFOSINGL → Template:Infobox single (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Non standard WP:CNR which uses prefix TEMP: (only one member) not listed on the WP:SHORTCUT guideline. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-intuitive abbreviation for shortcut. Mainspace pollution. Non-existatnt pseudo-namespace. -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per DePiep. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Template:INFOSINGL doesn't exist, and neither should this redirect: it's rather confusing. Steel1943  (talk) 12:50, 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.