Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 20

July 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 20, 2014.

Which Star Is Your State
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 4%23Which Star Is Your State

Green Energy and Green Economy Act



 * 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 retarget. I have boldly retargeted to Green Energy Act 2009. This is such a clear action that I see no reason to consume further community resources. Obviously, as a non-admin close, this is subject to any admin reopening if I have missed something significant. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Green Energy and Green Economy Act → Ontario (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

As there are other feasible targets for this (Renewable energy in Canada, Green Energy Act 2009) this redirect should be deleted or retargeted.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Green Energy Act 2009 and tag with R from long name: according to the article, official name of the act is "Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009". Obviously, official title with missing date is a plausible search term for the act. Don't think this RfD nomination was needed at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:28, 20 July 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.

Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila → Chavacano language (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible and frankly inflammatory. Laun chba  ller  13:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question While I am tending to delete, which is my default position if this question is not answered, I feel the need to understand if "Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila" is an expression in common parlance. If it is, whether inflammatory as the nom has stated, or not, common parlance should win the day. I delegate interpretation of any answer to this question to the closing admin if I have not revisited this. I;d appreciate use of Ping to notify me of an answer so I can comment further. Fiddle   Faddle  13:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing: Chavacano language is not dead (according to the article). Otherwise this redirect is completely OK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Move without redirect to language, spoken in Ermita, Manila: while my rationale still stands, Hasirpad proves that this redirect can't be deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw recently a case where an article history was moved to a talk page's subpage. Move it there, preferably without the crass title.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of such practice, and I find it inherently bad. We should not be littering without necessity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've been misunderstood me; the merged article's history, needed for attribution, is at Ermiteño creole—so why can't Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila be deleted, if you feel the title is offensive? הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 22:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I indeed misunderstood you. It can and should be deleted: although I don't see nothing offensive in this title, I find this redirect confusing – "dead language" title should not point to language currently in use. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please see, formerly "Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila", now merged with and redirected to Chavacano language. The original article, in agreement with Chavacano language, claimed that Chavacano is extinct in Ermita, but unlike the current article, claimed that that Ermiteño creole was a distinct dialect, now extinct. (See , )  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete since Chavacano language is still alive. However, if someone more skilled in linguistics can set an article for Ermiteño creole then that would be great.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete sounds like a crossword clue. TheChampionMan1234 04:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now Outline of the Philippines claims it's a dead language. --NE2 10:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the creole formerly spoken in Ermita is indeed identified as extinct by several sources . Dead language is a perfectly ordinary linguistic term and is not offensive or inflammatory. However, Chavacano itself is not dead (i.e. there are other Spanish-based creoles classed under the "Chavacano" umbrella which are still spoken), so this redirect causes confusion. Also, it's an unlikely-enough search that wouldn't be worth keeping even if we had a separate article on the Ermita creole itself. quant18 (talk) 11:40, 22 July 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.

State Route 713 (Virginia 1922-1933)



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * State Route 713 (Virginia 1922-1933) → Virginia State Route 9 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. This is an implausible typo for State Route 713 (Virginia 1928-1933). NE2 01:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: causes confusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:44, 21 July 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.