Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2010

Wikipedia:Audio use policy[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 Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a userspace essay. Should be deleted as misleading, as there is currently no policy of that name.  Sandstein  20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Refudiate[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 Malapropism#Malapropisms by real people. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect: not mentioned on target page, and not likely to be, since Sarah Palin using the word 'refudiate' was a pretty minor event in the course of her life. There is an article on that event, Definition of "refudiate", but it's currently up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definition of "refudiate" and likely to be deleted. Robofish (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Teh Smithsonian Institution[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 Smithsonian Institution. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are we going to have redirects from "Teh foo" to every page "The foo"? bd2412 T 15:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Smithsonian Institution; the original target before a bot meddled. Harmless. Doesn't meet WP:RFD#DELETE. Long-standing redirect. If one person uses it, it has served its purpose. No benefit in deletion so why delete? Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a bad precedent. bd2412 T 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Its not a precedent; there is no benefit from deleting harmless redirects, and they could break links in external sites, so the guidelines are clear - we just leave them be. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Bridgeplayer. Train2104 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cat years[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 Already converted to article (non-admin closure). Train2104 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to cat years. The redirect itself points to dog years, which is just a disambig page anyway. There is nothing related to aging in cats like the equivalent aging in dogs. It just doesn't make sense to redirect this to a page that has seemingly no significance to the title, "cat years". — Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not really related. bd2412 T 15:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Cat (zodiac)‎ which has some relevant content. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that's a different meaning than the aging in dogs article, but it might work. I'm not sure if it is as relevant. (Again, nothing links here, so who is searching for "cat years" to get to the zodiac?) — Timneu22 · talk 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cat (zodiac) per Bridgeplayer as a reasonable alternate way of saying Year of the Cat / Years of the Cat. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I cannot think of a useful/valid redirect target for this either. I don't feel that Cat [zodiac] would be beneficial to our readers. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 01:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oddly, the page is no longer a redirect. Right now it has only a chart. What to do? — Timneu22 · talk 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is now an article (erm, of sorts) and converting a redirect to an article can be carried out at any time as an editorial. Now it is an article it is beyond the scope of this project. The correct course of action is to close this RFD and, if considered appropriate, Prod or AFD it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mohamed Elamir awad al-Sayed Atta Karadogan[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the redirect deleted because it is nonsense. The "Karadogan" part is uncited of course, it's garbage. Karadogan is a Turkish name, Atta wasn't Turkish, Atta's biography is listed on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCengiz77 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 July 2010

  • Comment - I have notified the creator, who is still around, and invited contributions from editors of the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (Talk) 07:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently misleading. No-one has come forward to dispute the nomination. The only Ghits are Wikipedia-derived. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Borgo, Lazio[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 No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect (and all the others created for the rioni) should be deleted. Borgo is one of the original 14 historic quarters (rioni) of Rome. All over Italy there are hundreds, if not thousands, quarters and frazioni which bear the same name. This means that this redirect is - at the very best - ambiguous ,and therefore nonsense. Moreover, a rione is a part of a city (Rome), not of a region (Latium), therefore it should be superordinated to the city. If we want really to be precise, then we should rename the article to Rione Borgo (Rome), and then rename accordingly all the other Rioni. Alex2006 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Though a newly created redirected, looking here it seems a plausible search term. I don't understand the nomination since this seems the only Borgo to which the redirect can relate? Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have copied below a question/ comment/reply from my Talk page concerning this

Hallo Skinsmoke

sorry to disturb you, I am writing about this redirect. Borgo is one of the original 14 historic quarters (rioni) of Rome. All over Italy there are hundreds, if not thousands, quarters and frazioni which bear the same name. You can google a little bit to discover it. Just to make an example of a town which I know well, the ancient part of Nocera Umbra, is called il Borgo. This means that this redirect is - at the best - ambiguous ,and therefore senseless. Moreover, a rione is a part of a city (Rome), not of a region (Latium), therefore it should be superordinated to the city. If we want really to be precise, then we should rename the article to Rione Borgo (Rome), and then rename accordingly all the other Rioni. I hope you got my point. Cheers from the Eternal City, Alex2006 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about disturbing me. On Wikipedia we determine disambiguation terms by what other articles we have; not by what potential articles there may be. We have articles on just two places called Borgo: one in Corsica, France; and one in Lazio, Italy. We have plenty of articles with Borgo as part of the name (18 in total): Borgo Santa Lucia in Campania; Borgo Tossignano and Borgo Val di Taro in Emilia–Romagna; Borgo Velino in Lazio; Borgo di Terzo, Borgo Priolo, Borgo San Giacomo, Borgo San Giovanni and Borgo San Siro in Lombardy; Borgo Pace in Marche; Borgo d'Ale, Borgo San Dalmazzo, Borgo San Martino, Borgo Ticino and Borgo Vercelli in Piedmont; Borgo Valsugana in Trentino–Alto Adige/Südtirol; and Borgo a Mozzano and Borgo San Lorenzo in Tuscany. However, all those 18 are pre-disambiguated (their name is not simply Borgo).
The example you gave in Nocera Umbra is somewhat irrelevant. Firstly, it is in Umbria, but more importantly we have no article about it, there is no redirect to it, and it isn't even mentioned in the article on Nocera Umbra. For the purposes of disambiguation, it is therefore irrelevant. However, in the unlikely event that an article was created, it would be under Borgo, Umbria.
If subsequently there was another article created for a Borgo in Lazio then, under the naming convention for Italy, the articles would be named under the Placename, Province format. If we had two within the province of Roma, then we would move to the Placename, Comune format.
As it is we only have to differentiate between two places in Lazio: Borgo and Borgo Velino.
One final point is that disambiguating by parentheses is deprecated for placenames, unlike (I think) on Italian Wikipedia. Your suggestion of Rione Borgo (Rome) would therefore be Rione Borgo, Rome. However, with the Rione in the title, there would be no need to disambiguate at all. There may well be an argument that all the rioni should be titled Rione Placename, but I am not sure you would find widespread support for that. We do not title articles on frazioni as, for example Frazione Borgo Santa Lucia, nor do we title articles on comuni as, for example, Comune Borgo Velino. I would hazard a guess that such a proposal would be met with widespread opposition
Skinsmoke (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borgo, in this particular case, is not a regular placename. It's a part of Rome, which is more of a placename. Why not keep it simple: Rione Borgo? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rioni of the City of Rome

This whole issue is now being discussed. There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:58, 25 July 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_July_24&oldid=1138577302"