Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 5

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 Re-targeted to Internal combustion engine. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fossil fuel engine → Fossil fuel (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete as there is no such thing. While most internal and external combustion engines run on "fossil fuels," they do not need to, by definition. People have been able to power ICE vehicles with alternative fuels. Steam engines that burn coal can be powered with non-fossil fuels. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Internal Combustion Engine. The stats show that it is a foreseeable search term. The redirect Fossil fuel internal combustion engine was created around the same time, and by a blocked sock puppet, possibly the same person. That redirect raises the same issues so, though it has already been redirected to Internal Combustion Engine, it should also be considered. The nominator makes a fair point, but I don't consider that it is misleading. The revised target starts "The internal combustion engine is an engine in which the combustion of a fuel (generally, fossil fuel) ...". It goes on to say "Generally using fossil fuel ...". Redirects don't have to be technically correct, but only to have a reasonable target, and I think this one is fair enough since it deals with fossil fuel engines, even though there are other types of ICE. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Bridgeplayer. It's hardly the most vital redirect on Wikipedia, but nothing in WP:RFD#DELETE particularly seems to apply. And even though "fossil fuel engine" isn't a particularly recognized set phrase, I can think of at least one fossil fuel engine right away -- the one in my car.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are non-ICE engines that use fossil fuel, like coal powered steam engines, stirling engines, etc. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we all accept that there are non-ICE engines that use fossil fuel but the ICE is the major example of a fossil fuel engine. Consequently, the proposed target would be of value to anyone seeking information on the subject. Targets do not have to address topics in the round, only be relevant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ICE is not the major example of a fossil fuel engine. Steam engines are very prominent. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment perhaps it should be dabified then, but I think deletion is best. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 N/A. This is a page move request which are handled by WP:RM. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 2012 apocalypticism → 2012 phenomenon (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion to make room for move of 2012 phenomenon Greg Bard 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep-Putting the cart before the horse, here. If/when a consensus from requested moves supports the move (discussion is already in progress), an admin can quite simply speedy delete the redirect, as it has only minor page history. (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Edit history of destination page.) Until then, its a fully valid redirect and there is no reason to delete it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Convert to disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Vango → Pearson Education (links to redirect • history • stats) 

No mention of "Vango" at target article. Vango are a well-known manufacturer of tents and related equipment, and nothing to do with the current target. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify - the reason for the present target is that it is an imprint of textbooks made by Pearson. However, it is not the prime use so I have drafted a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Re-targeted to Pat Cadam. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pat’s Garage → Silicon Valley Leadership Group (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Redirect doesn't appear to have any connection with its target and was created by banned User:Mac. One incoming link from a dab page (which I'm about to remove) and one from an article that looks like a great candidate for AfD. If kept, the curly apostrophe in the title may be a problem. BPMullins | Talk 16:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pat Cadam who founded this garage which has some notability by winning a number of SF Bay awards. If this is deleted at AFD then the redirect will also go but that's not for us and for now this is clearly the correct action. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify Pat Goss hosts a television segment called "Pat's Garage". 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either solution is okay with me. I'll withdraw the deletion nom. Pat Goss says that the article is titled Goss's Garage, though, so how about retargeting this one for now? If we get evidence for the title Pat's Garage we can always change the page. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The segment that the IP was thinking of is on MotorWeek but it is called Goss' Garage - see here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I stand corrected. It was my misconception. (My IP has rotated, in case you are wondering). Either way works then. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Re-targeted to Milton Friedman#Economics. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Helicopter money → Liquidity trap (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nominating for deletion under criterion 9: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect." The article Liquidity trap does not contain anything about the concept of "helicopter money" as defined by Milton Friedman, and this concept is only tangentially related to the liquidity trap. I therefore suggest this redirect be deleted until an article on the concept of "helicopter money" can be created, or a section can be written in another article which would then be a more appropriate redirect target. Theis101 (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Milton Friedman#Economics which provides some background on the expression and this passage can be expanded if required. This appears to be an off the cuff phrase rather than a formal economic theory. I am not convinced that a separate article will ever be needed since the issues are dealt with in other pages, possibly Quantitative easing? Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Milton Friedman per above, as that's the article that contains the most information about it. (I also found the more confusing redirect Helicopter drop when looking at this article - I've retargeted that one to Airdrop, as I'm sure that must be the primary meaning in that case.) Robofish (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The appearance of the white lion → White lion (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Strange, random and implausible redirect ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 09:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no reason to delete. It gets a trickle of hits each month so someone finds it useful. Harmless. There is a page history and keeping is the easiest way to maintain this. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The trickle of hits are likely from the way that I stumbled across it, namely seeing it pop up in the search-box after typing The Appe... ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not useful or plausible. FinalRapture - † ☪ 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - where, as here, a redirect is harmless, we need one of the criteria of WP:RFD#DELETE to be met to delete it. Thus far no valid deletion criterion has been specified. We do not know why people have searched on this term, but they have, so it is used and therefore not implausible. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that Criterion 7 would apply. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete confusing is a sufficient criteria, and the example of that is the search box artifact. mentioned above . DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - at the risk of appearing unduly dense, I don't see why this is confusing. The title is clear enough, even when entering just 'The appearance' in the search box, and content at the target such as "A recessive gene which results in the white appearance is found in a very small number of captive lions." is directly relevant and helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The correct title would be, then, Appearance of the white lion, without the initial "the" – ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary, implausible search term. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 N/A. This is a move request. You need to use WP:RM instead. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Sri Lankan Tamils → List of Tamils of Sri Lanka (links to redirect • history • stats) Blackknight12 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect List of Sri Lankan Tamils should be deleted so that List of Tamils of Sri Lanka can be moved to List of Sri Lankan Tamils--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Re-targeted to Solar power in Australia#Projects and status by state. Of the two suggested targets, this one mentions the topic and the other one doesn't. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Solar energy noise barrier → Photovoltaic engineering in Australia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirects to Photovoltaic engineering in Australia because, as far as I can tell, Solar power in Australia has a brief mention that solar panels were once used as a sound barrier along a highway. I suppose we could change target to Solar power in Australia, but this is so tenuous I wonder if it shouldn't be done away with all together. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Solar power in Australia#Projects and status by state which gives an example. This is a perfectly respectable concept - see here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Noise barrier, and add a note that solar voltaic panels have been used for such a purpose. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as is obvious, I have been dithering over the better destination. The advantage of Solar power in Australia#Projects and status by state is that it contains information that is directly relevant to the redirect. OTOH Noise barrier is a more generic title. On reflection, I am sticking with my original suggestion, for now, but will switch if suitable material is added to Noise barrier. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]