Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2009

Rhapsody (mp3 player)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Anyway player called rhapsody is not even made by sandisk. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sansa e200 series#e200R series. -- ToET 11:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I've actually got one of these, ... somewhere.[reply]
    • Delete as confusing per Zach. -- ToET 12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the e200R series Sansa is Rhapsody-friendly, it is not the Rhapsody mp3 player (official title: Haier Rhapsody ibiza™). I can only find one reference to the Haier Rhapsody ibiza on Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to be an appropriate target. Thus, it seems that more confusion than good will come out of keeping or retargeting this redirect. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rhapsody (online music service) -- This a common search term. A list of Rhapsody compatible MP3 mplayers can be added to that article. But even if they aren't listed there, the Rhapsody page still seems like the most correct location. —mako๛ 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per confusing disambiguation. Tavix |  Talk  23:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alan Frank[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no justification for the redirect and (R1) may make it harder to find more notable individuals of the same name. (COI disclaimer: I am the Alan Frank referenced here.) Matchups 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsencical redirect. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are enough other Alan Franks mentioned on Wikipedia who of comparable notability to make search results more useful than a redirect. —Zach425 talk/contribs 09:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a few other mentions of Mr. Frank's accomplishment on Wikipedia, e.g. at Solved_game#Solved_games. None goes beyond mentioning that this is the name of the first person to give a complete solution for Ghost, so the redirect is not especially useful. In case someone is looking for Wikipedia's information on Alan Frank, the search results are actually more useful, since they show the same lack of detailed information in several places. Lastly, in cases like this that involve very minimal mentions, we ought to simply delete such redirects on the subject's request. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alan Frank himself. Since the only mention of him in Wikipedia is minimal (and for only one reason), there is no reason not to accede to his request. Note that a template dealing with the Washington Post is linked to this name, and the transclusions are the sources of the multiple linkages. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Per all the conversation above. Entirely non-helpful as is and there's no correct place to point it. —mako๛ 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Champagne-Ardenne[edit]

The result of the discussion was page moved. — RockMFR 17:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was in error and should be undone. The correct name for that region of France is "Champagne-Ardenne". Eric talk 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that you have already made a {{movereq}}. -- ToET 16:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sorry; I didn't grasp at first all that the mover had done, and initially only consulted the redirect guidance. Then realized he'd moved the page in two stages. I'm rusty on fixing this stuff--hope I haven't made things more confusing than necessary. Eric talk 16:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. JaGatalk 13:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect not needed at all, anyway should be on wp:deleted articles with freaky titles --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reasonable usage for this redirect by users of the English language and no reasonable connection between the disambiguation page pointed to and any foreign languages. Wikipedia is not a foreign language to English dictionary and redirects should not be used to circumvent this core policy. --Allen3 talk 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- I don't have a font that can display this. What is this glyph supposed to be? —mako๛ 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gibberish (the second character isn't even defined for use in HTML):  —Zach425 talk/contribs 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Porto Polythecnic[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo, but not recent (thus ineligible for the R3 CSD). Waldir talk 12:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. The "h" is two spaces off, which makes this an unlikely search term. Besides, that's a bad precedent to set. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Soviet era: 1947-1991[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Soviet era: 1947-1991 to Tartu Ülikool/Rock basketball team seasons 1947-1991, because, well, it should be obvious. There should be a better target for Soviet era: 1947-1991. All I could think of is History of the Soviet Union, but the articles don't match the timeframe this redirect does. Delete if we can't repurpose it. — ℳℴℯ ε 00:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom mentioned it: retarget to History of the Soviet Union, which is a disambiguation page. Then the reader can decide which specific era he/she wishes to research. Nominated redirect appears to have been a section name in a standalone article with a different name... which it was, it seems. There is no reason to delete a redirect of the form "History of the Soviet Union (19##-19##)" as it can be pointed to the dab page with no problem. B.Wind (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Yes, you could retarget it as you suggest, but that would be confusing. Anyone typing "soviet era" into the search tool is going to see this in the drop-down box and think that 1947 is a significant epoch when characterizing the soviet era, when its true significance is as the date of formation of a basketball team. Moreover, anyone following that link will see a dab page breaking the history into the four ranges, 1917-1927, 1927-1953, 1953-1985, and 1985-1991, so at the very best they will see Wikipedia as disorganized and ill maintained. Redirects are not the invisible, zero-cost items they are so often treated as. -- ToET 06:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of the Soviet Union per B.Wind. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ToE. And "hear, hear" to your final sentence. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per ToE. This period is not meaningful in and of itself and there's no correct and non-confusing place we can point this. —mako๛ 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter (ismfof album)[edit]

The result of the discussion was History merge into You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter. Both have been created as articles (as has You cant spell slaughter without laughter). As this one has been merged into main article we should keep its edit history. Merging the history it into the other redirect puts it at the right place and also bundles recent edits related to the album, although this is in general not worth the effort. Tikiwont (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R3 declined. You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter already redirects there, (ismfof album) is nonstandard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any nonduplicated material from last article version into I Set My Friends On Fire plus the history to that point if anything from it makes the move; then delete the redirect. This was a near-duplication of an article already; if the appropriate part is histmerged, there is no reason to keep a redirect with a title which a most highly improbable search item because of the lower case abbreviation in the parentheses. B.Wind (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already merged, save for an unsourced trivia section which was moved from the main article anyway. `Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- What exactly is the harm of keeping this redirect around? It's pointing to the correct place and generating real traffic! —mako๛ 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's an unlikely search term (because of the "ismof album" part), and the traffic it created happened before the 20th, when there was still an article in place of the redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the history is contained at the current name. The lower case "disambiguation" actually makes no sense; thus this can be a very confusing redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was redirected by the nominator before bringing it here, so technically we're not discussing deleting a redirect but deleting an article. Shouldn't this have gone to AfD instead? Jafeluv (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. The key question is whether or not the material was merged into the current target before the redirect was formed or not. I'm accepting on good faith TPH's assertion that it was. If it's the case, the AfD wouldn't be needed; if there were no such merge, then a revert and AfD would be required. Is the actual history at the You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter redirect? I haven't checked yet. The key is the history and its location(s), I believe.B.Wind (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, it was merged by TPH here, so I guess no AfD would be needed. I don't know if a simple track listing counts as GFDL-attributable edits, but if it does, the edit history will have to be preserved somehow. I've tagged the redirect with {{R from merge}} for now. Jafeluv (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_20&oldid=1144722464"