Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

Cumberland, MD-WV MAS[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. —Centrx→talk • 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is just a typo...Abbrev. MAS should be MSA... Metro Stat. Area... Not Metro Area Stat.

  • In that case it could probably just be tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, unless you don't think it is a plausible misspelling or if it causes confusion and should redirect to a different article. BigNate37(T) 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a likely mispelling to me. Wrs1864 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Edgar Avila → Paul Levesque[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. If it's a Wikipedia-only hoax and there is no mention of "Edgar Avila" in the target article. —Centrx→talk • 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to speedy this redirect because it's pretty nonsensical, but it has a bit of a backstory, so I came here for a second opinion: a couple of days ago, I found this article on Edgar Avila when checking a problem user's contributions; I was about to send it to AfD because it's a rather obvious hoax, the forgot about it and went to sleep. When remembering the article today, I found it had been redirected to Paul Levesque who is apparently the real wrestler the hoax is based on (disclaimer: I know pretty much nothing about pro wrestling). I don't think there is much reason to redirect a hoax article to the real article, but it's not a totally clear-cut speedy case (and it is remotely possible that some pro wrestling expert will see a reason for the redirect to remain) -- Ferkelparade π 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I can't see a reason for a hoax article to redirect to the real article, unless the hoax is common outside of wikipedia. Also the target article should mention the hoax. I haven't looked into this, and I don't know all the rules for RfD, so I'm just going to give a weak delete. Wrs1864 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete Only the people who read the article would even think of using associating that redirect name with him and I doubt that many people read it. Also if for some bizare reason it is kept the target should Triple H (his wrestling persona) because Paul Levestque redirects there. --70.48.110.117 03:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fossilime → Megalosaurus[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Special:Contributions/Anonymous U... claims the word is another name for "Megalosaurus". Google says differently. JuJube 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, creator was recently blocked because of creating nonsense pages. Dar-Ape 02:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ::mikmt 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nonsense! SkierRMH 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is nothing but vandalism and should have been speedily deleted.Glendoremus 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

‽ → Interrobang[edit]

The result of the debate was: withdrawn by nominator Dar-Ape 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because the interrobang symbol is not on the keyboard, so it makes it an unlikely search term. Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This may be used when someone copies and pastes it into the search box (maybe they saw it on a webpage and wanted to know what it is). --WillMak050389 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most websites are copyrighted. Besides, I havn't seen the interrobang on any websites besides puncuation articles on Wikipedia. Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the copyright statuses of various websites have to do with this redirect? BigNate37(T) 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is at least a very likely search term since it is the subject of the article. ("They aid searches on certain terms" -- criteria for keeping #3). --WillMak050389 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WillMak050389's believable scenario. See User:Goldom's signature for one place someone might encounter the interrobang. Dar-Ape 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WillMak050389. JuJube 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; is this nomination a joke? What in the world does copyright have anything to do with identifying an unknown symbol? --Cyde Weys 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WillMak050389 ::mikmt 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. --- RockMFR 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... Sorry for proposing this redirect for deletion. It was a very poor idea for me to do that. If I could go back to change things, I would. Feel free to remove the rfd template. Best regards, Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speey Keep the nominator has withdrawn and no one else wants this deleted. --70.48.110.117 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Prager Groschen → Talk:Prague grosh[edit]

The result of the debate was Redirect & target reversed. This was probably better suited for WP:RM, but since the talk page should be with the article instead of the article's talk page redirecting to the redirect's talk page, I fixed it. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During a series of moves and reverts, the article ended up at Prager Groschen, and the talk at Talk:Prague grosh. The reason for this is, as I understand, the edit of User:Lysy which prevents a moves back. He did the same with other pages [1]. I assume good faith, even though one could suspect Wikipedia:Content forking to protect a POV.  Matthead discuß!     O       10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Talk:Prager Groschen, unify article with talk page at either Prager Groschen or Prague grosh (wherever you see fit, a move request to Prague groschen will be filed after this is solved anyway) and remember all involved parties -including myself- to use proper move request procedures in the future. - Best regards, Evv 12:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The weather in Moscow → Moscow[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Given the special use for this link, this really should be speedy deleted on sight. Demi T/C 15:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this redirect is not pertinent to the content of its target page. Also, Help:Editing_tips_and_tricks#Links uses the name of this redirect as an example of a page that does not yet exist. However, now that it does, the formatting shown at Help:Editing_tips_and_tricks#Links is incorrect and can potentially confuse its readers. Xhantar 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a very unlikely search term to enter. Wrs1864 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very unlikely search term. Dar-Ape 02:47, 14 January 2007 (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/2007_January_12&oldid=1141907111"