Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 14, 2008

03 → 2003[edit]

The result of the debate was disambiguate. WjBscribe 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

04 → 2004
05 → 2005
06 → 2006

Delete (as is 07), or replace by disambig page (as is 02, 08). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This could be from any century, not just this century. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlazikenMaster. The problem is that the correct target for one changes for every year. For instance, a little over two weeks ago, 07 would have pointed to 1907. Then, at the new year, the link would have to be changed and every page that used it would have to be edited. Also, how about dates like 29 - do they point to 1929 or 2029? Even a future date can be referred to in the short hand. This just makes things way to complicated with very little benefit. - Koweja (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only inbound links that I'm finding do not apply to the respective targets. (For example, the Google News article had a malformed date link where someone had linked [[03]] [[August]] [[2007]] instead of [[03 August]] [[2007]].) I can't imagine anyone working on an encyclopedia to be so imprecise as to not specify the century. This exceeds even my ability to assume usefulness. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Rossami. It's most common that people will link a date instead of a year. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've made them into disambiguation pages similar to 08 and 01. Delete 09 however. RightGot (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Googolduplex → Names of large numbers[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of actual use, doesn't appear in target article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add Googolplexplex, as well. Doesn't appear in target article, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add Googoltriplex, as well. Doesn't appear in target. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, there are are couple of mentions in Names of large numbers - one says googolduplex etc. do not have dictionary definitions; the other says the terms have been coined by "various persons", but does not give a reference. I am in favour of removing these mentions as well as deleting the redirects. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless references can be provided that these are actually real words. Terraxos (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, just like my invention of Googolcarlosplex = infinity plus 1. Now that's a big number, worthy of an article or at least a redirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to get a some hits in arabic and japanese when I googled those terms... I wonder if it originated in one of those languages. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

09 → 2009[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, still could be 1909. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Additional deletion argument: a disambiguation page such as that at 08 may be more plausible. A link from '09 might be plausible, but, in writing, no one refers to a year by the last two digits alone. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate this discussion with the "03" discussion above. Unless I'm missing something, I can't find a reason why the conclusion for this redirect should be different. Rossami (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion for 03, 04, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect until it can be made into a disambiguation page similar to 01 through 08. RightGot (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Secondary fermentation → Winemaking#Process[edit]

The result of the debate was converted to article. WjBscribe 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary fermentation should not redirect to winemaking, because it is also used in other processes, most notably beer brewing. Secondary fermentation should probably have its own article, with general information, as well as more detailed information regarding its usage in the brewing and winemaking processes. Deepfryer99 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • sofixit. You don't have to delete the redirect from pagehistory before overwriting it with sourcable content to make an encyclopedic article. Rossami (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Year 100,000 problem[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Year 1,000,000 problem
Year 10,000,000 problem
Year 100,000,000 problem
Year 1,000,000,000 problem
Year 1,000,000,000,000 problem
Year 1,000,000,000,000,000 problem

Delete as implausible redirects (to year 2038 problem, year 10,000 problem or 11th millennium and beyond). The latter two were created in a WP:POINTed attempt to support deletion of some articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Year 292,471,208,678 problem
Year 292,271,021,075 problem
Year 2100 problem
Year 7,000,000,000 problem
Year 10^40 problem
Year 10^100 problem

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as they have nothing to do with the target. - Koweja (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as highly implausible search terms. Terraxos (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree that they were created in a WP:POINTed attempt. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Swimming Hall → Olympia Schwimmhalle[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to swimming pool. WjBscribe 23:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect masks the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have a generic article on swimming halls, and the chances that the chosen target article is going to satisfy a user entering this term in negligible meco (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think that you can write an encyclopedia article on the generic concept of a "swimming hall", be bold and just do it. You don't need to delete the pagehistory to overwrite the redirect. I must admit, however, that I'm skeptical that sources exist for such a topic. The fact that there are zero inbound links would tend to suggest that no one else has sources either. This particular redirect doesn't seem helpful to me but the person who created it has a positive contribution history. Presumably, it is helpful to him/her. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a "swimming hall" different from a (presumably large) swimming pool? I would say a redirect to swimming pool would be the best option here unless anyone else knows better.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that's the best idea we've had yet. __meco (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bahá'í criticisms → Bahá'í apologetics[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bahá'í criticisms had been decided to be merged with Bahá'í faith, see here. This did never happen, and now it's a redirect to Bahá'í apologetics, which does not contain any criticisms. This redirect is not helpful in any way. The content of the original article was created by IPs, its quality is doubtful. KnightMove (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Irelands Biggest carpark → M50 motorway (Ireland)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely punctuation and capitalisation would in itself be a plausible deletion reason, but coupled with its complete lack of use and its likely creation as a joke any remaining doubts about nominating this are gone Grutness...wha? 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the joke. I'd argue to speedy-delete it as vandalism but the creator's contribution history is otherwise clean so write this one off as just poor judgment. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can understand the sentiment as I’ve made similar comments about highways and freeways I’ve been stuck on. It is, however, a joke and shouldn’t exist on Wikipedia. —Travistalk 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_14&oldid=1085562020"