Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 3, 2012

Rocker (lifestyle)[edit]

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion for remains of old move (3 May 2006‎) with no talk, no incoming links, no history, no relevance... Trofobi (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible search term that gets hits. No benefit in deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 11:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rocker (Style)[edit]

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.] Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion for unuseful, unused, misspelled very old redirect without any incoming links and no relevant history or talk. Trofobi (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a likely search term given that it is consistently getting 10-20 hits/month. No benefit in deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful, probably used, not misspell. Being very old is also a plus. WilyD 11:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rockers(film)[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion for unuseful, unused, misspelled very old redirect without any incoming links and no relevant history or talk. Trofobi (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Rockers (movie)... I didn't expect so many fans of misspellings, in other wikis they are deleted & replaced because it helps readers, contributors and searchengines to learn better orthography and to go faster to full articles instead of redirects. But feel free to keep them all :) this is not important for me at all, I just expected them to be cleanups beyond dispute. --Trofobi (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As something of an FYI, this is one of the key reasons that redirects are not subject to PROD deletion, IMHO. Accepted deletion criteria for redirects tend to differ from accepted deletion criteria for other things. I do not myself fully understand the ins and outs of why redirect do or do not qualify for deletion. But the folks who hang out here at RFD do understand them. So rather than allowing redirects to be quietly deleted under the radar by PROD, they are generally supposed to be put up for debate here so that there can be some scrutiny by eyes that understand the expected deletion criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Kangdong (village)[edit]

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 Retarget to Gangdong. Regardless of what Gangdong means it is an incomplete disambiguation from the point of view of an English speaker. Ruslik_Zero 16:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appeared while User:Anthony Appleyard was performing some editions. This is a garbage like Kangdong/version 2. Kangdong or Gangdong means five places. Which one is Kangdong (village)? I request that Kangdong (village) is deleted. Sawol (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Gangdong dab page it means "East of the river"? There are two townships and a district listed on that page, so I suggest a retarget to Gangdong and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two Gangdong-dong in Busan, Ulsan, and one Gangdong-ri in Yeongju, South Korea. The status of Kangdong-dong, Kangdong-ri in North Korea is not correctly confirmed. -dong, -ri mean villages. That is, Gangdong-dong, -ri or Kangdong-dong, -ri are Kangdong (village). Gangdong-dong is called Gangdongdong, not Gangdong. WP:COMMONNAME. So is Gangdong-ri. On the other hand, Kandong-gun and Gangdong-myeon are called Gangdong. It is improper to retarget Kangdong (village) to Gangdong. Sawol (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't completely understand what you're saying there, but it seems to me your saying that "Kangdong" is an incomplete name for several places that are/could reasonably be described as being a village in English? If so that sounds exactly the sort of thing disambiguation pages are designed for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kangdong village is not among places in the disambiguation page Gangdong. If the disambiguation page Gangdong-dong is established, it is proper to redirect Kangdong (village) to Gangdong-dong. But now Gangdong-dong is not established, Kangdong (village) is orphan. Sawol (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you completely understand our shared concern. There is more than one place named Kangdong/Gangdong, etc. Just because you spell it with a K, and most others spell it with a G does not justify redirecting this page to a randomly-chosen Gangdong. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • See the page Gangdong. Which of them is a village? There is no village in the page. Kangdong-dong or Gangdong-ri is a village. But now the disambiguation page Kangdong-dong or Gangdong-ri is not established. Sawol (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I mentioned above there are two townships that could be called "village". If there are entries missing from the disambiguation page then add them, but Kangdong-dong and Gangdong-ri are redlinks, so you also need to add a bit of context. Thryduulf (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • ′Kangdong (village)′ is a garbage like ′Kangdong/version 2′, which is made while User:Anthony Appleyard was performing some movings. Sawol (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • There isn't a single clear definition of village in many parts of the world. In the USA, for example, every one of the 50 states has its own definition of city, town and village and in some states, a village is any city that decides to call itself that. So, someone outside Korea could reasonably think that at least some of those places are villages, especially since the term "township" is not used in large parts of the world and the people living there generally have no idea what it means. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

B.o.B/redirects[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused about the meaning of this redirect, the history is nothing but improper cut and past moves and redirects from, not to mention the bad title. I want to see consensus on these type of redirects here, delete until convinced otherwise on the importance of keeping its history. Secret account 05:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My guess is that this is either a left over temporary page or fix to avoid problems with wp:Parallel history. I've informed user:Anthony Appleyard, who did the fixing of the copy and paste move of this discussion, and I'm very surprised that you didn't think to do this yourself (or even just ask him directly in the first place). Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have done that but I was on the ipad doing quick Recent Feedback cleanup when I discovered that baffling redirect by accident, wasn't on my regular computer. Sorry about that. Secret account 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to have a subpage redirect to he main article. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • G6 Speedy Delete. Same as Jacob (Lost)/redirects that resulted in G6. I don't see any need to keep the redirect history around and this redirect is just search page clutter. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 06:18, 15 April 2010‎ I histmerged B.o.B. (with fullstop at end) to B.o.B . During this I shifted aside some old junk that was in B.o.B before the incoming cut-and-paste point, to avoid the new history-merged page sitting over a deleted WP:Parallel history, to avoid accidents if B.o.B had to be temporarily deleted some time in the future. So I moved the junk aside to B.o.B/redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason for you to not G6 such redirects after you create them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that people may want to see that edit history to know what happened. Sorry. OK, delete B.o.B/redirects if you want to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outcome of this discussion should also apply to these redirects too. 82.132.139.10 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kinda understood why this redirect existed, unfortunately the history here isn't helpful to keep around, mostly cut and pastes and poor page moves right before he became famous as a singer. However we shouldn't form consensus on all these redirects based on one redirect, especially if some of the history is needed for Wikipedia licensing/copyright purposes. Secret account 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the history of a redirect, why would it be needed for licensing/copyright purposes? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_3&oldid=1050185422"