Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2010

BR Class 152[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination; had been listed at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BR Class 152). Original nomination rationale was: "Non-existent British Rail class of diesel multiple unit. Also this article is orphaned. Sunil060902 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" The AfD had two delete !votes which were direct results of the article having been blanked and therefore I have not copied them here (they may be viewed by viewing the archived AfD). As a procedural re-nominator, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it is a non-existent class then it should still be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is about 156, not 152. Non-existent, so it should be deleted. The Arbiter★★★ 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

As of[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created as a DAB pointing to Wikipedia:Redirects for_discussion/Log/2006 December 7#as of → Wikipedia:As of, Template:As of, and Wikipedia:As of. (This may have been an attempt to avoid CNR; see Talk:As of.) The DAB was prodded; Effective date was then created and As of redirected to it. I can see no need for Effective date (a dictionary definition) or As of, as neither has encyclopedic content. Cnilep (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These concepts are significant in data modelling and systems designs, as documented in Data model patterns for example. If Cnilep has no need for this information, he is free to move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as Effective date exists. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For my reasons given in Talk:As of; still no satisfactory way for new editors to get to Wikipedia:As of if they were not aware of it. Petersam (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or retarget somewhere more appropriate. The phrase "as of" just doesn't mean the same thing as "effective date." It's not even particularly close. "As of December, the petition had garnered 5,000 signatures"—is there any way to reword or rephrase this in terms of an "effective date"? I don't think so. "As of yesterday, she had not been heard from." On what date does that one become effective? I can't imagine someone typing "as of" into the searchbox and finding the article Effective date a useful result. The claims above (vague "significan[ce] in data modelling," and nostalgia for As of → WP:As of) don't in any way support redirecting as of to effective date.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're misreading it. The manual says that attorneys sometimes, "as a matter of professional courtesy," write "as of (date)" to indicate that a party signed the contract on a date other than that given in the introductory clause. Nowehere does the manual say that a contract's effective date is the same as such an "as of" signing date; and in fact a contract becomes effective whenever it says it does. It could become effective a year later, or it could already have been in effect if the "as of" signer's assent were not necessary. Section 2.19—on the very same page you linked—says as much. If your manual shows anything, it's that "as of" does not mean "effective date."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context is when the contract is written to become effective upon signature. The as of formulation is then used to make the nominal date what is wanted. This is the effective date concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tápiószele[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy close per request of Polargeo (talk · contribs). Redirect has been changed to an article. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tápiószele is a new town (formerly a village) in Pest County in Hungary. Every Hungarian towns have their own article, (or still not have one), but only Tápiószele is redirected to the county. I think it would be useful to delete it, because a blue link shows it is already written, but it isn't. A red link would be better.--Perfectmiss (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this to an article. There was no good reason to delete the redirect but I thought it tidier to just change it. Can someone please speedy close this now as keep. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Floating Market[edit]

The result of the discussion was  Relisted at today's RfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As argued at Talk:Markets in Bangkok, only one "floating market" is actually in Bangkok; the vast majority are located in other provinces and other countries, Vietnam being one of them. The redirect, as it exists, obstructs the reader from locating actual articles involving such markets themselves. Paul_012 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion Why don't you make a List of floating markets put the wikilinks and locations of all of the floating markets on wikipedia in there and redirect to it. Seems a sensible thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Amundsen Ice Plain[edit]

The result of the discussion was  Relisted at RfD 2010-01-25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The feature does not exist. It is therefore not clear what it should redirect to. Therefore likely to cause confusion. Not a likely search term, so not useful. Existance of feature seems to hinge on one source, a 2006 book by Tim Flanery. As an expert on the area I can say that his reference to this feature is certainly incorrect. this leaves us with a misleading redirect originating from a single incorrect source. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The source might not actually be incorrect, because I added the information to the article by memory from I book I read. When I go to the library again, I'll try to check the book, as well as the name of the feature as I might have remembered it incorrectly, although the contents of the book are available online, but it did show that in a 2004 study that the collapse of this feature is likely to lead to a sea level rise of 1.3m. ~AH1(TCU) 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think you are wrong it is the source. Searching for the phrase on google books gets one hit for this particular book. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"plaster spraying"[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 Speedy Delete per CSD:R3- Recently created implausible redirect; CSD:G6- Non-contriversial clean-up/House-keeping. --Taelus (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect in moving the target to make the page title more in line with the MoS. Nothing links to the redirect, as per Special:whatlinkshere, and it is highly unlikely as a search term; as such I believe it should be deleted. Sorry for any trouble, it's my first time moving a page. Arcendet (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you could probably tag it as speedy deletion for housekeeping, especially as consensus is against such redirects. --Taelus (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it with dbG6, if declined it may be useful to bundle this with all the other quotation RfDs. --Taelus (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"40" (song)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete, except "Couples" (album), "everybody dies", "Es reiten die Toten so schnell" (or: the Vampyre sucking at his own Vein), "Heroes" (song), "Love and Theft", "No Flashlight" Songs of the Fulfilled Night, "The Perfect Drug" Versions, "Them", "Them" (King Diamond album) as they appear to actually be the name of the albums/songs in question, and "Ringo" since it is very highly viewed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music and audio works surrounded by quotes. Delete per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 11#"’Til Death Do Us Part", WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 11#"A World Away, the Quest of Dan Clay", WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#"it's a small world", and WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#"almanac of british politics". As with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 29#"Alexander R. Bolling", quotation marks have no place around a name (or around almost any article title, for that matter). Illy conceived and in danger of setting precedent. A violation of Wikipedia:TITLE#Article title format. Most if not all are artefacts of pagemoves. Searching for something in quotation marks will turn up the same result anyhow (for example, searching for "United States" will take you straight to United States). (No works which actually use quotation marks in their names have been listed here.) — the Man in Question (in question) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with my congratulations for doing all this cleanup work.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Look at the title of this page: WP:MOSTITLE and in particular the section headed "Quotation marks". Does anyone think that a new editor reading that might infer that song etc titles should be in quotation marks even in the article name? Might a note be placed there to explain that the policy outlined does not apply to article titles? Sussexonian (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, delete all. Sussexonian (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - astonishing. JBsupreme (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18&oldid=1148682647"