Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2010

Glasgow, Lanarkshire[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 keep (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow is not in Lanarkshire. In fact, Lanarkshire doesn't exist any more in any official way. The original article here was a misguided attempt to point this out. It was turned into a redirect but this seems unnecessary and possibly misleading. Also, the author has indicated on my talk page that he would like to see it deleted. DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment was Glasgow ever in Lanarkshire? If so, it is an acceptable redirect. Is it ever mistaken to be in Lanarkshire? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that this is the key question. If Glasgow was never in Lanarkshire then it probably should be deleted, but not otherwise. The impression I get from the maps on the articles and from the fact that Hamilton, not Glasgow, was the county town of Lanarkshire is that it looks like Glasgow was never in Lanarkshire at all. I find it telling that the Lanarkshire article does not even mention Glasgow, but how can we be sure about this? We need some reliable references for this stuff. A historic map would be nice. At the moment, the Lanarkshire article is referenced to a single non-RS website that has an agenda to promote its own idea of what the "traditional" counties are without making it clear at what point in history it would like to take its snapshot of their borders. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't know whether Glasgow was ever in Lanarkshire, but many of the suburbs are in North Lanarkshire or South Lanarkshire so it is plausible. The Glasgow article says that it commonly but wrongly assumed that Glasgow is in Lanarkshire, and a google search for "Glasgow, Lanarkshire" -wikipedia gets 585,000 hits. All this says to me that we should have this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sort of neutral-ish - I think this is a tad misleading. This may cause people to continue thinking Glasgow is in Lanarkshire. Which it's not. They'll search for it, think "hey, this redirects straight to Glasgow, I must be right". If it's deleted and brings up no results, they can just search "Glasgow". Much easier. On the other hand, it was viewed 278 times last month. But if this many people think it in Lanarkshire, surely it's our responsibility to correct them. They might read the whole article and see that it's not in Lanarkshire. But this could also be confusing, as the redirect seems to be contradicting the article. I can't decide, myself, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anyone thinks it is in Lanarckshire, as they well might--based on the discussion above -- this is necessary so they find the material. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not ambiguous. The shading and lettering of File:Scotland_Administrative_Map_1947.png suggests to me that it may have been a burgh indirectly associated with Lanarkshire, in the same way Edinburgh was associated with Midlothian but not administratively part of it. --Rumping (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cyclononane[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 stubified; non-admin close. TheTito Discuss 06:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cyclononane (C9H18) and nonane (C9H20) are two distinctly different chemicals. Redirecting one to the other will likely cause confusion. Ephemeronium (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubify or delete per the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify clearly a very different compound from nonane, with different melting and boiling points, and so forth. B.Wind (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Imma Be Rocking That Body[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 Black Eyed Peas#2008–2010: The E.N.D. and World Tour. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An odd double soft redirect to Imma Be and Rock That Body, two songs by the Black Eyed Peas. The purpose of this double redirect is unclear, but it apparently has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imma be rocking that body. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has since been recreated as a redirect, thus re-opening discussion. --Taelus (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think converting this to a disambiguation to cover all the potential terms may be best, as it doesn't really work as a redirect able to be pointed at two or more different locations. However, this would be a style of disambiguation frowned upon by the guidence at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches. Any other thoughts? --Taelus (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Black Eyed Peas#2008–2010: The E.N.D. and World Tour as the anchor section discusses both songs contained in the video. This is a case in which the title is that of a medley (side note: medleys do not have to be continuous throughout the presentation - all multisong CDs, playlists, etc., are medlies). The retargeting would also discourage recreation of the deleted article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Check Out (The Price is Right pricing game)[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 deleted per WP:CSD#G8 - pages dependent on a deleted page. Thryduulf (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect – Target article of redirect was deleted 19:04, 2 March 2010. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:37, 3 March 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_March_3&oldid=1141906677"