Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 18, 2008

Template:Spamlink/doc → Template:LinkSummary/doc[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete.--Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is no longer used or needed; nothing links to it except the target. Redirect was created when Template:Spamlink was moved to Template:LinkSummary and its accompanying documentation page, Template:Spamlink/doc was moved to Template:LinkSummary/doc A. B. (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? No need to discuss this I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

土 → Earth[edit]

The result of the debate was No consensus defaults to keep. -- JLaTondre 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English encyclopedia, we should not open the door to including all language's dictionaries as redirects. Woodstone (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. The Chinese and Japanese for Earth is irrelevant as a redirect for the English language Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The foreign translation is sometimes good for people looking places in the local language. This is not the case. By using Special:Allpages I think we can find more of these cases out there. I think a cleanup is necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a centralized discussion about redirects from foreign names/characters. We have many thousands of redirects from foreign language names and/or characters. They have always been deemed acceptable in the past. Consensus can change but if we are going to make a policy that those are now a bad idea, it needs to be advertised and discussed as such a policy decision, not initiated through an isolated discussion here. (This would, however, be an excellent example to use in that centralized discussion.) Rossami (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Acceptable only if the correspond in a revelant language. Ok, i understand that Earth belongs to everyone but this is different. I have no problem with redirects having a Chinese place in Chinese but if you allow redirects for all articles in all languages we are in trouble. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that trouble? ➳ Quin 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect has it's uses. If someone encounters this symbol somewhere on the Internet and are an English speaker, they can input it into Wikipedia, and it would redirect to Earth (classical element). Thus he or she would know that this were an Asiac symbol for the Earth. ➳ Quin 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I understand it, the use case for looking up translations of foreign symbols is to input it into English Wiktionary, which welcomes translations of foreign words. It is not likely that a PC operated by someone who doesn't speak Chinese would have a Chinese input method editor enabled, and the only way someone would "input" this character would be through cut and paste. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Karenna Gore Schiff → Insert text[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Article was changed to a redirect due to a mistaken edit made using AWB. AfD seems unnecessary, but can be pursued. –Pomte 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like this would make sense to redirect "Karenna Gore Schiff" to "Insert text"

Comment I just found out there was an article there before, maybe AFD would be a better venue? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Laughing Jackass → Kookaburra[edit]

The result of the debate was Retargeted to Laughing Kookaburra. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redir. David Pro (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Laughing Kookaburra, it's an alternate name for that bird, and I believe this redirect was a mistake and supposed to point there anyways. I've boldly done that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Geology of North America → Geology of the United States of America[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. The two are not synonymous. While the primary function of redirects is to send people to where information they are interested in is located, it should not been done at the expense of the purpose of red links: to highlight missing articles. This one should be red. If editors choose to populate it by beginning with the target article, that's an editorial decision. -- JLaTondre 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. USA does not equal North america —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created it because Geography of North America exists, and I expected geology to shortly follow. Personally I think it's ridiculous to have a geology article follow political boundaries, so I have proposed to have Geology of the United States of America moved to Geology of North America -Ravedave (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only purpose of this redirect is because there is no article on the Geology of North America. I would love to work on an article on that, because I've studied the Cordilleran and continental craton geology from that perspective, not from the US only. The article on the Geology of the United States requires a lot of work. There is a professor from Calgary (emeritus) who has a web site that writers could use to guide their work writing an article on the Geology of North America. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepuntil a correct article is created. Since the article doesn't exist the reader can be redirected to the most similar article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Magioladitis. Jonathunder (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is misleading. We do not redirect articles for the sake of having blue links. We redirect to improve navigation, including common typos and associated names. This is neither, and the fact that the topic is both large and important is of serious concern, puzzling some readers as to why Wikipedia equals the geology of an entire continent with that of one country. Come on guys, let's put a little more effort into this. Perhaps the reason the article hasn't been created is because it exists as a redirect, discouraging some users. Contrary to popular practice of leaving it as is, I propose deleting to incite proper creation. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move unless there are any dissenting opinions I am going to move Geology of the United States of America to Geology of North America. Most of the maps are of the continent anyways. I will fix up the text to make it more continent centered. -Ravedave (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ravedave. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to a proper title. North America != the USA. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 29 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_18&oldid=1138575299"