Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 1, 2011

Hibitable moons[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted because it is an unlikely misspelling. It looks like it was made by accident because the edit that made it says in it description "Redirect for plural". Tideflat (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A google search for "hibitable" near "moon" or "world" returned a surprising number of results, leading me to believe that this mistake is more plausible than I first guessed. "Hibitable" does have some other uses (primarily as the name for a Chinese container company) but nothing that could reasonably be confused with this context. Keep because it is unharmful and mildly helpful. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "mildly helpful" isn't enough, and even that much is being generous past the bounds of credibility. This is a very unlikely mis-spelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Being "Mildly helpful" and "unharmful" is sufficient to keep a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Glycated Albumin[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. I will delete it as misleading, but the nominator is encouraged to create an article. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted. Glycated albumin is not the same as Fructosamine. I am in the process of writing an article for Glycated Albumin, but in the meantime the redirect is misleading and innacurate. Jymorale (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references I've been able to find suggest that they are related through their relationship to diabetes testing. [1] [2] [3] None are outstanding sources on this specific point, though, so if you have reliable sources explaining the difference, overwriting the redirect with content would be good. In the meantime, though, the redirect should be kept until overwritten. It doesn't have to be a perfect article. Just drop a stub in. Rossami (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwrite, as you're already doing. 137.205.222.193 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dolina Środkowego Bugu[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 both. Foreign language redirects are generally discouraged unless they are strongly related to the target. In this case the targets appear to be wrong. Ruslik_Zero 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are incomplete Polish translations and not needed on EN:WP Ajh1492 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foreign-language names of a river in Poland seem like very reasonable redirects to me. You call the translations "incomplete" but google returns many hits on that exact placename. It seems entirely plausible that a reader might find that phrase and want to copy-paste it into a search to find what it refers to. Rossami (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - The only hits in a Google search for these two terms go to Polish websites - the only link to an english language website is this redirect to the main article on EN-WP Ajh1492 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to closer: This "delete" opinion is offered by the nominator. Please be cautious of double-counting.
    • On the contrary, googling Dolina Środkowego Bugu turns up a number of flikr pages and a travel website, both in english. They do, however, also turn up in a significant number of Polish websites. And translation services applied to those websites seem to substantiate the validity of the redirect. These redirects appear little different than Munchen → Munich, one of our prime examples of a preferred use for a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lower Bug Valley and Central Bug Valley are the translations to english, considering this is EN:WP and the redirects in Polish do not rise to the level of notability as Munich, your argument is quite specious.
        Dolina Dolnego Bugu is really a geographical landform that is part of the Warsaw Basin Mezoregion. It should not be pointing at the Western Bug, but should be pointing at an article in EN:WP that doesn't exist.
        Dolina Środkowego Bugu is a Natura 2000 special protection area for migratory birds. It should not be pointing at the Western Bug, but should be pointing at an article in EN:WP that doesn't exist.
        Either the new articles need to be translated or the redirects need to be deleted. Either way they should not be pointing at Western Bug which is a river article.Ajh1492 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

FM- and TV-mast Krynice[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 all. These mixtures of Polish with English seems to be confusing, and since they are not actual Polish names for the masts they should be deleted per past precedents. Ruslik_Zero 17:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FM- and TV-mast Krynice kolo Bialegostoku - Cleaning up a number of redirects that are partial translations from Polish to English or misspellings. Structure is not referred to by this name in any reference. Owner of the structure (TP EmiTel z o.o.) refers to it as RTCN Białystok (Krynice) Ajh1492 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Several of these redirects were created as part of a recent series of pagemoves. I have no argument with the correction of the pagetitle but the software creates redirects during pagemoves on purpose and we ought not to remove those without good reason. In this case, the underlying article is old and the pagemove very recent. Even if you have completely orphaned the original titles, 1) they will exist in the history of other pages and could be restored if, for example, a page is reverted during vandalism cleanup and 2) we have no way to know if there are still external links referring to the original title. Redirects are not endorsements of page titles. On the contrary, redirects such as this correct the misunderstandings that led to the original choice of pagetitle. Rossami (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    One is a typo entry on my part and needs to be deleted RCTN Białystok (Krynice)
    FM- and TV-mast Krynice kolo Bialegostoku, FM- and TV-mast Krynice koło Białegostoku and FM- and TV-mast Krynice k. Bialegostoku are from a page move ca. 2006
    FM- and TV-mast Krynice are from a December edit by User:Severo
    The reality of the situation is that the owner of the structure calls it RTCN Białystok (Krynice) - http://emi.emitel.pl/EMITEL/obiekty.aspx?obiekt=DODR_E1A in addition to the Polish regulatory authority (UKE). It's time to clean up some old (6 years), inaccurate and superfluous redirects that nobody uses. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to closer: This "delete" opinion is offered by the nominator. Please be cautious of double-counting.
    • I think you are misunderstanding the policy. Redirects serve multiple purposes on Wikipedia, and several of those purposes become more important the older the redirect, not less. Redirects are cheap and we are specifically enjoined from "cleaning them up" unless they are somehow harmful or confusing to future readers. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know that Krynice koło Białegostoku means Krynice near Białystok? So we have three redirects that are partial translations into English, one that is a partial translation that doesn't reflect the actual name, and one that I have admitted is a typo on my part and NEEDS to be deleted. I consider all of them covered under WP:RaC since they create confusion to future readers (partial translations, bad translations and a typo).Ajh1492 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll speedy delete the RCTN redirect as a G7 user request if you go and update the incoming links to reflect the new title. If something is linking to the redirect, the redirect needs to remain. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only links that were left are the deletion requests. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rail Gun[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 Rail gun. Ruslik_Zero 15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article appears to be an artifact from an earlier merge. Rail gun (lower case g) already exists.

  • Comment: We have Rail gun with 47 links and Railgun with 230 links. Rail Gun has 5 links, user, talk page, and a Stargate AfD. Rail Gun (upper case G) seems superfluous since Rail gun (lower case g) already exists. A user would have to deliberately type the upper case G to select that redirect. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's an artifact of an old merger. It documents the contribution history of content which was merged into the target. Documentation of attribution history is a requirement of GFDL. History-merge, while theoretically possible, has its own set of problems and would do more harm than good in this case. Regarding the other arguments, redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Those other navigational techniques are case- and spacing-sensitive. Capitalization variants like this one are among the most established uses for redirects. It would be kept even if there were no history behind it. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that rail-gun has been converted to a disambiguation page and most of the other uses hatnoted to it, this redirect should be retargetted to the disambig page (keeping the pagehistory intact). Rossami (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP:MAD. To satisfy WP:GFDL, the edit history needs to be kept. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rail gun, because it makes more sense for it to point to the page that is just a different capitalization than to point to a different word separation. Tideflat (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as case differences are more likely to be useful than word separation and case differences. The two articles link to each other via hatnotes, although these are sprawling and would probably be better presented as a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2011 (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/2011_March_1&oldid=1141906504"