Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2012

Talk:Universiteti i Prishtinës[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 Close as moot. Ruslik_Zero 08:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is nominated because it was nominated for speedy deletion in order reverse the redirect, but I oppose the deletion for the reason I will give below in a separate post. The rationale given for deletion was "per the outcome of the discussion at Talk:University of Pristina, Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal" —teb728 t c 21:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: despite the cited discussions, per WP:USEENGLISH. Wikipedia's naming convention is to use the most common English name as the title for a subject despite an official name in a forign language. The name should be kept as "University of Pristina" (or some other English name) possibly with a disambiguation qualifier. —teb728 t c 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) See new !vote below. —teb728 t c 02:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G6: there was a several years long discussion that now ended with consensus. Thus the redirect has to be deleted, and all consequent naming discussions should be carried on via WP:RM. Also note, that the practice of splitting article on native names is an established practice, see talk:University of Pristina#Proposal as per solutions in other split Universities for examples. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, the main namespace counterpart of this redirect is the article. This redirect only blocks the movement of the talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shame on you: You moved the article at 22:44 (UTC) almost an hour after you posted here. Therefore you knew that the move was controversial. Please move it back pending the outcome of this discussion. —teb728 t c 00:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did everything right, as I acted implementing the decision consensus was reached upon. If this is shameful, OK, shame on me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see now that you had requested Fastily to delete the article before this RfD. With it deleted I guess that you had no alternative to completing the move. —teb728 t c 07:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Zoupan proposal you cite had as many users disagreeing as agreeing (and those disagreeing cited the same reason as I). Thus the deletion cannot be regarded as uncontroversial (which is the criterion for G6). The DS proposal above Zoupan’s received more support. I don't dislike the idea of an RM, but if you think there should be one, it is for you to open it after the disposition of this RfD. —teb728 t c 00:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call for procedural close without action, as the discussed page is not a redirect any more. (And no, that wasn't me who did it.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing out that deletion. I restored the RfD notice and redirect directive. (Note that a redirect directive after an RfD notice (or after anything else) does not cause redirection.) —teb728 t c 07:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure it doesn't. But you never nominated the main namespace page, why do you insist that only talk page would be redirected? Do you understand that the outcome of this discussion won't change anything regarding article in main namespace? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • O, for god sake, can we just close this nomination, without actions? Everything is clear now, i removed notice, as i didnt even saw this, i thought that we have only proposition there, and not notice... We are all well aware of USEENGLISH, COMMONNAME, etc, etc, but this names were result of enourmous discusion that lasted for over a year. So, if you ask me, good faith will be just to withdraw this nomination, per procedural close. This is pointless, as nothing will be different after this. Please, close this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually you underestimate the consequences: if teb728's motion will get supported, the whole split will be reversed and the discussion will restart from the very beginning for another couple of years of time waste. The funniest thing of all is that there is an appropriate and less harmful tool for teb728's motion – WP:RM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as moot (by nominator). As much as I may dislike it, the move to a non-English title is for all intents and purposes complete. Since it is already complete, no deletion is needed. Or if it is actually desired to have the discussion of the split on the Albanian university talk page rather than the disambiguation talk page, I would also be content with deletion. —teb728 t c 02:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, it's a talk page with discussion. If it's blocking a page move, then move it out of the way first. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as of now all the moves are done (the article was moved to the main namespace counterpart of this talk page, and the discussion is about that article). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

University of Mitrovica[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 Withdrawn: as teb728 pointed out, this name is used in some sources and thus is useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect should be deleted, as there is no institution known under such name. One of the successors to the University of Pristina resides in Kosovska Mitrovica and is sometimes called "University of Kosovska Mitrovica". This controversy creates enough confusion already, so we don't need unused relatively new redirect with yet another totally incorrect name. Note: some page views were generated by recent heated discussion and consequent RfC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i agree. Redirect will do no harm, but it is not correct, per Kosovska Mitrovica, and useless, as except our discussions, it is non existent on Wikipedia... --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have talked yourself out of it. The redirect does no harm. Therefore it should be kept. Since its target is written in a foreign language (which it should not be, per WP:TITLE, there should probably be an English language title to the article and take Univerzitet u Prištini to be one of the several redirects. But that is a separate discussion: the redirect does no harm, therefore keep. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is University of Pristina, three universities and multiple precedents of language-based splits of articles about Universities split on language basis. Regarding the "harmlessness" of this redirect: strictly speaking it can inflict no harm, as there is no such place as "Mitrovica", so there would be no need for the article with such title. The same fact (lack of place called "Mitrovica" and university under this name) makes this redirect's name misleading. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The redirect does no harm. I agree with Si Trew also that the target article should have an English language title and that that is separate discussion. —teb728 t c 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC) A more important reason for keeping the redirect is that the name "University of Mitrovica" is actually used by some sources (see for example here) to refer to the (Serbian) University of Pristina. So the redirect is not only harmless: it is likely to be useful for some readers. —teb728 t c 08:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Popularize Mandarin[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. No type of Mandarin is called "Popularize Mandarin". Ungramatical also. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Google, "popularize Mandarin" appears to be the most common English translation for the Chinese government's policy to "ensure that mandarin, the officially-endorsed standard Chinese spoken language also known as "putonghua" (the common speech), is commonly used throughout the country by 2010." Our Standard Chinese article has a History section including several paragraphs on the government's attempts to standardize the language (though the article does not currently include the phrase "popularize Mandarin"). According to this article, the effort has been sustained enough that the government has for over a decade set aside the third week in September for the campaign. Keep until a better target about the actual government policy presents itself. Rossami (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Rossa[reply]
Keep per Rossami and Czarkoff. If there are uses of it, as demonstrated, if English ears don't like it then they should try to popularise Mandarin. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Night of Too Many Stars[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Target contains no mention of this subject. Aervanath (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as I get it, the "Night of Too Many Stars" is a name of a TV show from 2003. If by now it didn't get notable even for the mention in another article, I see no sense in this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube has "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884329/". YouTube. 2006. Retrieved 18 March 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help) as a one-off charity event for autism in 2006. I expect any spin-off is related. I agree deleted not quite as non-notable, since a quick Google search gives plenty of other results for the same event, but if in six years nobody could be bothered to write about it, probably time the redirects went. At any rate, the redirect to a very general article about Comedy Central is not helpful in any way, I think, and possibly distracting to people trying to find out about the specific topic: for that reason I agree they should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as I imagine you suspected already that link is for IMDB. But a quick Google search will give you the performance (no doubt against copyright etc) on YouTube. Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Film Brain[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 all to List of Channel Awesome shows. Ruslik_Zero 08:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love Film Brain, but he's not mentioned in the target anymore. This also points to a section that no longer exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all: in some context this redirect can help some reader to trace the reference in some forum comments, tweets, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And get utterly confused when the target doesn't tell them who the hell Film Brain is. I also can't make heads or tails of your comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_18&oldid=1091632779"