Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 2

March 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2015.

Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS



 * 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) 13:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Main Page/CSS → Main Page (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/CSS&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect is odd. Per its history, it was originally and only used for testing the css of the Main Page. However, as a title, it's a bit misleading since one would probably think that this page contains the css of the main page, which it doesn't; it's a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete . I'm generally not in favor of deleting 10+yearold non-mainspace pages unless they have major problems, but this one appears to have been useless for most of its history; it's not something that really needs to be retained.  Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually (now that I've had some time to look at the edit histories), I suspect that the contents of this page were, at some point, cut-and-pasted to Main Page. The proof I see is with this edit. The main portion of Main Page/CSS's edit history takes place during the dates listed in the aforementioned edit: 2004 November 23 and 2004 November 25. However, if that is the case, I'm not sure if any one is brave enough to attempt a history merge on Main Page, given that Wikipedia will be temporarily broken during the history merge's execution. Steel1943  (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, rough. If that's the case I think that's an issue to be brought up at WP:AN. The village stocks are full of admins who have tried in good faith to do constructive things with the Main Page. (See also: Don't delete the main page) Ivanvector (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not something for WP:AN. Histmerges require deletion, and it's impossible to delete the main page with normal admin rights; the only place to go is meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous.  But be sure to get consensus for this first; it would be dangerous to go and do it without chatting first, especially as I'm not clear on whether it's needed or not.  Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep for attribution purposes, since the "this edit" link demonstrates that the attribution history of the Main Page depends partly on this page. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored Main Page/CSS as a redirect to this page as this is what was used for attribution. So if the above redirect needs deleting, then chop this too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing there; the history was moved along with the merge, so I deleted it again. The move log is visible. Let's not make it any more complicated then necessary.  11:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Returning to my original "delete" position; see below. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend & Ivanvector, I reverified the edit histories of the two pages, and it looks as though a history merge is probably necessary. I posted a request for the history merge on the steward's board. Steel1943  (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see Talk:Main Page/Archive 182 for the currently ongoing discussion in regards to forming consensus for or against the aforementioned history merge. Steel1943  (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if the discussion results in a histmerge, I will again be in favor of deletion: post-merger, this page would indeed be an implausible redirect without significant history. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think history merges leave redirects, but I would agree with deletion in that case. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd better not merge all revisions of this page, or we'd have a Main Page diff like this. We always have some extraneous diffs consisting either of the move diffs or of things that didn't get moved.  When I perform a history merge, I'll normally leave those deleted, but when the redirect's at RFD, I would be quite hesitant to leave them deleted unless the RFD participants agreed.  Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my statement on the steward's board, I specifically stated the only revisions that should be merged into Main Page in the event that the histories are merged. I agree, Nyttend; not all of the revisions in Main Page/CSS should be merged into Main Page because ... yeah, all of the edits done by someone other than Tom- do not make any sense as part of Main Page's edit history. (In other words, some of the two pages' histories are parallel histories.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon my lack of clarity. I was attempting to say basically that we had to have a redirect left behind, because the only significant alternative is merging stuff that definitely shouldn't be merged.  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Random thought: If by chance the consensus regarding the history merge is "do not merge", how about moving the attributions to a more useful redirect title so that this redirect can be deleted? Steel1943  (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like Talk:Main Page/CSS revisions perhaps? That would make sense to me, and again I'd thoroughly support deleting this title if we performed that move.  Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to the historical archive per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=649803741&oldid=649803552 my comments at Talk:Main Page]; we also have to keep in mind that "Wikipedia:Main Page/CSS" has a talk page with non-trivial history. As a second choice, I'd move both those pages to the historical archive, but I honestly think their current location is fine. Graham 87 06:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This page was the sandbox for the main page. When its original content was eventually copied to the main page (presumably by himself), then attribution has been fullfilled.   11:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edokter. I don't see the need to retain a sandbox for historical archive purposes, and my comments above (in my stricken Delete vote) I still agree with.  As far as attribution is concerned, Edokter is quite right: we don't need this page for attribution purposes, because all edits (aside from a self-reverted mistake) were by the editor who also moved it to the Main Page.  Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think Nyttend and Edokter are right here, and history merging the main page seems unnecessarily prickly since attribution is already satisfied. Ivanvector (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2015 (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.

MAIN PAGE!



 * 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. *(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * MAIN PAGE! → Main Page (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MAIN_PAGE!&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Seems inappropriate and unnecessary. JZCL 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless, so why delete? Steel1943  (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP! Harmless! Gets readers where they want to go! Ivanvector (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)!
 * Keep! per above. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep patently. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Does no harm, though really informal. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Gets new users/readers off track. This page should have been speedily deleted long ago. It serves no purpose. Green547 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. How does it get users off track? Do you think someone who types this is likely to be looking for a page other than the main page? Ivanvector (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2015 (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.

AUKMIN
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 11%23AUKMIN

How does your heart pump



 * 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) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How does your heart pump → Heart (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_does_your_heart_pump&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Looking at the history, the page seemed to be created as a joke and was then redirected with the edit summary "lol". Unncessary. JZCL 11:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Retarget to Cardiac physiology which dedicates an entire article to the study of this. I don't know if there is somewhere better. --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per a combination of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE. Steel1943  (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTHOW -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:21, 3 March 2015 (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.

Doolb



 * 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) 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Doolb → Blood (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doolb&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Seems to just be a palindrome of blood. Not mentioned in article, unnecessary. JZCL 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - surprisingly, there are a number of things on the 'net that this could refer to. None are particularly notable. Delete to prevent confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There's a lot of "Doolb's" online but it's mostly just a fancy way of typing "blood". -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then you don't know what a palindrome is. But delete anyway, I think in Hamlet Shakespeare says ignorance is bliss. Palindromos is from the greek, by the way, and means the same backwards as forwards, roughly speaking, which this patently isn't. Mirror writing, roughly speaking. Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean Lenticel there. It is not a palindrome, and I don't need to be lectured on Greek or English. It is not, but shold be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Any of the topics that this term could refer to aren't notable or we don't have an article about. - TheChampionMan1234 04:41, 6 March 2015 (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.

Orsino (novel)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 9%23Orsino (novel)

Pickels



 * 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. (I'm still not convinced that this redirect should remain since it targets a disambiguation page, but as seen below, it is obvious that it's not changing.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pickels → Pickles (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pickels&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This was created as a misspelling, but its target is a disambiguation page that has no entries that match the spelling. Since this is the case, I question its usefulness. I could see this as being a helpful redirect as a plural to a page such as Pickel, but that is currently a surname list (so retargeting there wouldn't be very helpful. Steel1943  (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you forget that the word's spelled "pickles", you might type this.  Redirecting an alternate title to a disambiguation page is good for valid spellings of different names, e.g. if it weren't a separate page, Henri would be a good redirect to Henry only if the latter page included people named "Henri".  This, however, is a routine R from misspelling — as long as it's a plausible typo, the contents of the target are completely irrelevant to the redirect.  Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a normal misspelling redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a possible misspelling. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2015 (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.

UC San Diego National Bureau of Economic Research



 * 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) 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * UC San Diego National Bureau of Economic Research → University of Southern California (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UC_San_Diego_National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

UC San Diego doesn't have a National Bureau of Economic Research, and the actual National Bureau of Economic Research is neither affiliated with UC San Diego nor the University of Southern California. Tritons Rising (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – I repaired the confusion that used it here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - misleading/confusing. Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2015 (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.