Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 25[edit]

Ads → advertising[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to ADS disambiguation page. Resurgent insurgent 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an extensive disambiguous page named "ADS", including a link to advertisements. The current redirect is confusing for people typing the ADS abbreviation in lower case letters. Erik-jan otto 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I retargeted Ads to ADS and reworked the latter slightly. As a consequence, the concern expressed by Erik-jan otto doesn't really apply anymore (but we shouldn't delete it in any case, since it helps with linking). Gavia immer (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected to ADS. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Secret (Bullshit) → The Secret (2006 film)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted by MZMcBride. -- JLaTondre 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the redirect tells it all. AW 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Eestimaa → Estland[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language redirect; does not belong in English Wikipedia. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, foreign languages don't belong on the English Wiki. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I being the original proposer. Digwuren 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - bad faith attempt to circumvent the consensus now emerging at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland. Same applies to all listed. -- Petri Krohn 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The accusation of bad faith seems wholly unfounded to me! Nom has shown nothing but good faith in this small collection of related RfD debates, going so far as to withdraw several nominations in the face of good arguments. The accusation is incivil and borders on a personal attack. Further, this redirect is not covered by the debate about the article at Estland (which, I might point out, was effectively deleted, even if the name was retained as a dab page). If you have any reasons besides the fact that you are apparently involved in a content dispute with nom, I would be happy to hear them, as I have not yet made up my mind about this particular redirect. Lets make this about facts, rather than a personality dispute. Xtifr tälk 20:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be part of the dispute involving other Estonia pages (one which I do not care to try to understand). Work it out on talk pages - if that fails, take a break. --- RockMFR 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless there is some deeper problem here. Redirects from foreign language titles are not discouraged, and they have their own template and category. Dekimasuよ! 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Duchy of Estland → Estland[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation of old German documents (correct would be Duchy of Estonia). Never referred, unlikely to be used. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a google search turns up a few hits, and I don't think they're just mirrors. Even if it's a mistranslation, it seems to have some minor currency, and redirects are cheap. If target fails AfD, this should probably be retargetted to Estonia or History of Estonia and possibly tagged as unprintworthy. Xtifr tälk 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Xtifr. --Random Say it here! 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I checked the google out, and Xtifr's point is not unreasonable. I still believe this is not sufficient reason to keep it. However, if it should be kept, it should be redirected to History of Estonia (was Estland, currently is Estonia). Digwuren 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are usually kept if there's any chance they might be useful, because they're so cheap. That's why we keep redirects from all sorts of misspellings and obscure nicknames and whatnots. We don't provide translation services, but we do want to help people figure out obscure references they might stumble across, and I think this qualifies. I agree that "History of..." is probably a better target, though. Xtifr tälk 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - bad faith attempt to circumvent the consensus now emerging at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland. -- Petri Krohn 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Eestimaa Hertsogiriik → Estland[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Duchy of Estland, but this is foreign-languaged, too. (And even so, mistranslated; a correct translation would most likely be 'Eesti hertsogkond'.) Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this seems too implausible a search term to be useful; I'm not finding any English-language uses outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. Xtifr tälk 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this is extermely useful as a search term. We have not yet reached a consensus on what this entity should be called in English, even less on what it was called in English. Most likely English readers and writers had never heard of it, or only knew it through German language sources. It is thus much more likely, that someone will be searching for this with a local name than trying to guess what it might be called in Wikipedia today. What would you do it you came across this coin. -- Petri Krohn 23:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem a chance whatsoever that this will be typed into the search box. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the original proposal. Digwuren 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Original language names should be linked to articles to enable searches. -- Petri Krohn 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Even if that were true (and I'm not convinced that it is), the Estonian name for Estonia seems to be Eesti or Eesti Vabariik, at least according to the [Estonian Wikipedia]. In fact, there is no article nor redirect named "Eestimaa Hertsogiriik" on the Estonian Wikipedia! Xtifr tälk 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eestimaa Hertsogiriik translates to Ducal State of Estonia. A number of Herzogs have attempted to claim such a state. None of these states lived past medieval ages; in fact, all such instances were rather short-lived. Republic of Estonia (Eesti Vabariik) was only established in early 20th century. Furthermore, using Estonian to name the Ducal State is definitely not of "original language". Original would probably be Herzogtum Estland; however, in the Babel of the days of the Livonian War, even that is questionable. Digwuren 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and the short-lived herzogtums aren't really notable in context of Estonian history. The final one sometimes merits a footnote in discussions of Livonian War; the earlier ones get even that far very rarely. Digwuren 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Litauen → Lithuania[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn (see next to last bullet). -- JLaTondre 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An old and infrequently used (AFAIK, never in modern texts) name for Lithuania. Appears to have been created under the same mistaken deliberations as the others listed above. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, "infrequently used" seems like an adequate excuse for keeping, since redirects are so cheap. This looks to me like one of those borderline cases that probably shouldn't have been created, but as long as it has been, we might as well keep it. Xtifr tälk 18:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The exact spelling is used by Wikipedia articles in other languages. --Aarktica 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actually a very good reason for keeping. Other languages are, well, other languages; this is the English encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to see what it's called in the German Wikipedia can click on the inter-Wiki link from the main article. Xtifr tälk 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have to agree with Xtifr. This is the English Wikipedia. --Random Say it here! 23:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom implied that it's used in English sources (albeit not modern ones). Note that while I disagreed with Aarktica's reasons, I am still arguing to keep this redirect. Xtifr tälk 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe, however, that this should follow the same policy as Estland currently being considered for deletion, so these two should be deleted together, or kept together. (Estland, if kept, will probably be a disambiguation page instead of redirect, though, due to some historical confusion over borders and administrative control.) Digwuren 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria for keeping redirects are much different than those for keeping articles. Generally, we try to keep redirects if there's any reasonable excuse to do so, because redirects are so cheap, and you never can tell who might find one useful. For me, the deciding criteria here would be: are there English sources that use this term? You implied that there are, which is why I argued to keep. I believe that "Estland" is similar, but not necessarily identical. Xtifr tälk 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Estland would become a redirect if not for the ambiguities involved. The consensus on the deletion page is that there is no independent article-worthy content on Estland now. Unfortunately, there is not a single page it should reflect to, hence the disambiguation.
      • The reason Estland is not a redirect now is that somebody thought -- incorrectly -- that it is an exact translation of an Estonian word 'Eestimaa' in a *particular*, old meaning of that word. It isn't, and this word in Estonian has more meanings.
      • As for English sources referring to the name; I believe they're almost all referring to history of Lithuania, or to old documents discussing Lithuania. So, they exist, but they do not make independent references to 'Litauen'.
      • If Estland or Litauen were to be kept; I think the main reason for this should be the idea that these countries' name in neighbours' language may "leak" into English discourse, and may thus be worth preserving, as per the discussion above. Digwuren07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-per being a valid language redirect, and for other keep reasons above. Alphablast 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have converted Estland into a disambiguation page and, as per my view on these two article's similarity described above, I now believe Litauen should be kept. Digwuren
  • Strong keep - Original language names should be linked to articles to enable searches. -- Petri Krohn 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Haliaster → Haliastur[edit]

The result of the debate was keep as redirect from common typo. WjBscribe 16:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mistyped the genus name when moving the page from my sandbox to article space. MeegsC | Talk 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a Google search [1] reveals a fair number of pages that repeat this exact typo in species listings. It seems to be a common enough typo that we should keep it around. I did tag it as {{R from misspelling}}, though. Gavia immer (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gavia immer. --Aarktica 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible mispellings are a good reason to have a redirect. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a comman mispelling, see no problem with this redirect. Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 22:07, 26 May 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_May_25&oldid=1140383921"