Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

Apricot (album) → Björk's sixth studio album[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that this is a double redirect, the album name has been confirmed as "Volta", not "Apricot", which was just a rumour, so it is highly unlikely that anybody would ever type in "Apricot" to search for this album. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the double redirect aspect has been fixed.Phatom87 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects appear to have been crystal-balling in the first place. Unlikely to be searched for and may result in confusion given it is not the correct title. WjBscribe 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too rumorish. John Reaves (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Apricot (Björk album) → Björk's sixth studio album[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that this is a double redirect, the album name has been confirmed as "Volta", not "Apricot", which was just a rumour, so it is highly unlikely that anybody would ever type in "Apricot" to search for this album. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the double redirect aspect has been fixed.Phatom87 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects appear to have been crystal-balling in the first place. Unlikely to be searched for and may result in confusion given it is not the correct title. WjBscribe 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too rumorish. John Reaves (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Sir James Abbott" → James Abbott (British army officer)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete as violating naming conventions and an implausible typo as well. No Guru 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unnecessary use of quotation marks - Sir James Abbott already exists as a redirect. Xdamrtalk 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, the usage of speech marks makes this category useless.Tellyaddict 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violation of Wikipedia Naming conventions 1.13 "Avoid non alpha-numeric characters used only for emphasis".Phatom87 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I've often managed to have these speedily deleted under {{db-r3}} even though it isn't "technically" a typo. John Reaves (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kingdom of Iraq → Iraq[edit]

The result of the debate was appears to have been turned into an article. 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Iraq was a different nation, even though it exsited in the same location of Iraq. Mohammed Khalil 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it was really a different nation, then be bold and replace the redirect with a stub. --- RockMFR 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not persoanlly sure whether thet are separate places or not so I'm remaining neutral but if they are the same place then delete but if separate places then delete.Tellyaddict 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or if possible redirect to Iraq#Hashemite monarchy or History of Iraq#The Iraqi Monarchy). The Kingdom of Iraq is a phase in the history of Iraq. teb728 08:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The kingdom has not been a different nation, just a different political system in the same nation. History of Iraq#The Iraqi Monarchy would be a good redirect target. --Magadan ?! 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a more-specific target if desired. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

Color Talk/Blue → Blue[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 05:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useless redirect, the result of a nonstandard page split. It doesn't have significant page history & the only incoming link is from the talk page of the article to which it redirects. Jimp 07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, it's 6 years old, prior to the implementation of naming conventions I assume. John Reaves (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irrelevant category as mentioned by the nominator, very few edits and there since about the start of Wikipedia, seems liek its relevance = zero.Tellyaddict 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page doesn't seem to have any relevancy. -- Wenli 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Artifact from 2001, no longer standard. Dar-Ape 19:52, 4 March 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_March_2&oldid=1072731326"