Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 19[edit]

Redirects to United States presidential elections[edit]

The nominated redirect was Withdrawn by nominator. --Rory096 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1960 election → United States presidential election, 1960
  2. 1964 election → United States presidential election, 1964
  3. 1968 election → United States presidential election, 1968
  4. 1972 election → United States presidential election, 1972
  5. 1976 election → United States presidential election, 1976
  6. 1980 election → United States presidential election, 1980
  7. 1984 election → United States presidential election, 1984
  8. 1988 election → United States presidential election, 1988
  9. 1992 election → United States presidential election, 1992
  10. 1996 election → United States presidential election, 1996

These redirects are too vague and could refer to any election anywhere in the world that occurred during these years. I have already fixed all of the incoming links from articles, many of which did not refer to the American presidential elections. Khatru2 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. I have changed all of them to disambiguation pages based on the articles in their respective categories. Please further edit the pages as you see fit. Khatru2 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These redirects are very useful for users who have no easy way of getting to the election information except by typing in the awkward "United States presidential election, 1996" . The "vague" objection does not help users, it hurts them. If there are other elections that overlaps the standard Wiki solution is a disambiguation page. Our goal is to help users not leave them in the dark. Rjensen 15:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All could become disambigs for worldwide elections, if desired, but otherwise, the most referenced elections are probably the proper target, and these are valid shortcuts for now. Good work on the incoming links editing, that's often a thankless job that deserves praise for completing. Unfocused 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disambiguate as necessary per above arguments. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and dab (I'll try to undertake the latter for at least some of the years) per Rjensen; I share, btw, Unfocused's appreciation for the incoming links editing undertaken by the nominator. Joe 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though a bit ethnocentric, still the best target for non disambiguated pages. i kan reed 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Cbrown1023 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Don't Open 'Til It's Doomsday / Day The Earth Caught Fire → Don't Open 'Til It's Doomsday[edit]

Talk:Don't Open 'Til It's Doomsday / Day The Earth Caught Fire → Talk:Don't Open 'Til It's Doomsday[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nominations by User:TrackerTV with reason "RfD for links, changes coming." Delete, doesn't seem like a plausible redirect. TimBentley (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Dar-Ape 20:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

K-rat → Mike Krzyzewski[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:71.111.204.124. Delete, sounds like an attack redirect TimBentley (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence in article supports this nickname. John Reaves 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was Deleted by Cholmes75. -- JLaTondre 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Schulmann → Mcdojo[edit]

Tiger schulmann → Tiger Schulmann[edit]

Tiger schulman → Tiger Schulmann[edit]

Daniel Schulmann → Tiger Schulmann[edit]

Tiger Schulmann's Karate → Tiger Schulmann[edit]

Crap karate → Tiger Schulmann[edit]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:SkierRMH for Tiger Schulmann and adding redirects to that page. Delete, Tiger Schulmann was an attack page before it was a redirect; these are now all attack redirects. TimBentley (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete all of the above as G10 (attack page). Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was Kept. Nomination withdrawn, no dissenting opinions. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William weasley → Bill Weasley[edit]

Known as Bill in canon; family tree by author reflects this; no evidence to suggest derivation from William. Propsed action: Delete. John Reaves 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Reasonable to assume that some future searchers will know nothing of canon and will search using "traditional" formal English names rather than what appears to be a shortened nickname form of a proper name when looking in an encyclopedia. Unfocused 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move/rename to William Weasley which is now empty. Redirects exist to help searchers find the correct name of something. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to William Weasley. Cbrown1023 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I see your reasoning. John Reaves 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Thomas Riddle → Tom Riddle[edit]

The nominated redirect was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 12:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No canon evidence to support Tom from Thomas. Propsed action: Delete John Reaves 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Reasonable to assume that some future searchers will know nothing of canon and will search using "traditional" formal English names rather than what appears to be a shortened nickname form of a proper name when looking in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a mention at the top of the target article regarding canon would be a good addition. Unfocused 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original target was a double redirect anyway, and the eventual target, Riddle family, does not have the ambiguity problems of the original redirection, so I went ahead and changed it. You can probably close this now. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects are to aid in readers searches, if at least one person typed that in instead of tom, then the redirect is successful. Cbrown1023 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it was originally a double redirect and now leads to to Riddle family. The term Thomas Riddle is listed on that page as the father of Tom Riddle. Since the term is used in the current target there is no reason to delete the redirect. --70.48.108.111 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I see your reasoning. John Reaves 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Reading Progam → Reading Program[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept & tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. -- JLaTondre 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to keep redirect on typographical error. Request delete. JohnDBuell 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is one of the points of redirects. Redirect hurts nothing. John Reaves 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Reading Program → Accelerated Reader[edit]

The nominated redirect was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should not have both words capitalized, per WP:TITLE. Redirect is also pointing to one, specific, guided reading software program, which is inappropriate. Request delete. JohnDBuell 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete mainly due to the second point. general -> specific is bad for any redirects. i kan reed 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - an attempt is being made at turning "Reading program" to a disambiguation page, but I think the phrase is too vague for that to be worthwhile. Might wind up on AfD, stay tuned. --JohnDBuell 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Serious business, man. → Elizabeth[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Grandmasterka. -- JLaTondre 12:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense as far as I can tell. Unless there's a film or novel or something, but it seems unlikely(i searched for just that). i kan reed 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's obvious nonsense, than why not Speedy Delete ({{db-nonsense}})? Cbrown1023 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply that's not a G deletion criteria, it's for articles only. It SHOULD apply to redirects, but I don't make policy(well we all do, but you know). i kan reed 07:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually it is a G criterion - WP:CSD#G1. I've tagged it as such. -- Renesis (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2006 (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/2006_November_19&oldid=1138574191"