This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2014.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 7#Nac1
Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 7#Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC)
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#April 31
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep. (NAC)ArmbrustTheHomunculus12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep, and tag as incorrect names. --BDD (talk)16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 BushrangerOne ping only03:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SeeUser_talk:Andy_Dingley#JB-2_Loon 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)[reply]
- Pleaseassume good faith instead of making unsubstantiated (and, in fact, entirely untrue) allegations. Thank you. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then cite theWP:POLICY that states redirects aren't permitted in the same category as their target articles, rather than merely hand-waving to rely on itwhen removing such categorisation.Andy Dingley (talk)09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's calledWP:CONSENSUS. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ALoon is an aquatic bird, and is on the back of the Canadian one dollar coin (they are known colloquially asloonies and the two dollar coins astwonies) (although the article forloonies is a stub for a Dutch film and there is no article fortwonies). A "Loony" is in U.K. English slang for alunatic, although of course medical professionals do not call people that these days, instead using the termNFN ("Normal forNorfolk"). Stats show that this gets 20–30 hits per day. It's not a question of it beingright, 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)[reply]
- Comment. Actually I might change my mind. Although theredirect 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Which is whyLTV-N-2 Loon, a designation that actually existed, is in the category now. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, even if it is wrong, there are ~70,000 hits for "JB-2 Loon", and the first hit ishttp://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 byHarwood 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)[reply]
- 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)[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.
