Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 9, 2008

Unusual articles → Wikipedia:Unusual articles[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Non-encyclopaedic, cross-namespace redirect. — neuro(talk) 21:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is where the page existed before being moved to the Wikipedia space (and long before the software was changed to automatically record the move in the respective pages' edit histories). This is the only record I can find of the change to the page title. Changes to pagetitles are generally considered useful history and are subject to the attribution requirements of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A particularly useful redirect, given that new wikipedians are probably unaware of the WP: namespace prefix. Colds7ream (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When an encyclopedic article can be written on unusual articles around the world then I'll reconsider, until then this is the best use. JASpencer (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Casey Donovan (disambiguation) → Casey Donovan[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. Since article names now pre-fill as they are typed in the search box, once someone types as far as "Casey Don" they will have both disambiguated articles along with the page to which this re-directs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirecting titles like Foo (disambiguation) to the actual disambiguation page for the topic "Foo" is generally useful, since it documents that the target page is a dabpage and ensures that external links to Foo (disambiguation) will work – our use of "(disambiguation)" as a naming convention is fairly well known, but we shouldn't rely on readers understanding when we use it and when we don't. It also helps searching; though it's true that the autosuggestion feature lessens the need for this function, it does not eliminate it entirely. Granted, this is a small disambiguation page, but the redirect is still helpful. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with the auto-fill Casey Dovan will come up just before his disambig page, and 99% chance the non disambig will be clicked on. CTJF83Talk 06:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless and possibly useful --Rumping (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Autofill is irrelevant. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Halo Blue → Halo 3: Recon[edit]

Untitled Halo 3 project → Halo 3: Recon[edit]

Untitled Halo project → Halo: Chronicles[edit]

Untitled Halo Project → Halo (series)#Spin-offs and sequels[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete all --Allen3 talk 00:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All four of the above Halo-related redirects are implausible. The first is the result of some creative speculation and has nothing to do with the target, and the latter three are too vague to be of any help, especially considering that all currently announced Halo projects have already been given official names. The similarity of the last three redirects is also confusing since each one links to a markedly different article. It is unlikely any of these will be helpful or commonly used search terms. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Berbara Bell → Corbara[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this redirect to be deleted because it dosen't make sense at all Anthony Alda (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Berbara → Corbara[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete, no consensus for a retarget. Lenticel (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this redirect to be deleted because it dosen't make sense at all Anthony Alda (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as plausible typo for Barbara NullofWest Fill the Void 11:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bishop of Żmudź → List of bishops of Samogitia[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep Plausible redirect, currently does no harm, does not seem to violate any policies/guidelines.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bishop of Żmudź" is not used nor in Google books nor in Google scholar. Have no establish academic usage in English speaking word. In contrast to proper render "Bishop of Samogitia" M.K. (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry for Żmudź has one of the two options "as Polish name for Samogitia, a region of Lithuania". This is perfectly acceptable and has been used in various sources such as here and here. JASpencer (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also likely to be used in text from the polish wikipedia such as this example. JASpencer (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing redirect Żmudź, but Bishop of Żmudź; Google books gives ZERO hints, Google scholar gives ZERO hints.BTW, in your presented webs (are they within WP:RS?) there is no Bishop of Żmudź.Not even mentioning WP:N. M.K. (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two mentions of the Bishop of Zmudz in Google books, the episcopal lineage of Pope Pius XI (one of the two sources you called into question) mentions Mieczyslaw Leonard Pallulon, Bishop of Zmudzand the other page is headed Diocese of Samogizia o Tels (Zmudz). JASpencer (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JASpencer, I have to repeat myself - we don't talking about redirects such like Diocese of Samogizia o Tels (Zmudz) etc., but about Bishop of Żmudź. Your presented two google books proves only one thing, that even Anglicized version of proposed for deletion redirect has no established usage in English publications, and both are far from notability. Even more Bishop of Żmudź is seemingly close to original researched title. For some reason you are not addressing my concerns about reliability of presented web page as well - how myspace web, alongside with other, meet WP:RS standards particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. And let me remind, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of the original thought. Especially taking into consideration that redirect was irrelevantly used as primary link to article, then the prevailing and established one is just a click away [1]. M.K. (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. I also don't see any secondary evidences why such redirect should be kept.[reply]
What harm is this redirect doing? It's clear that this was a common title at the time. JASpencer (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JASpencer. Polish names are applicable for that period, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument for deletion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as context is established in the target list article (although an explanation for the alternate title would be most helpful there).

Even if it were never the official title for the bishop of that region in the appropriate era, the fact that the redirect's title incorporates an alternate name for the region makes it a very plausible search term indeed. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two votes? JASpencer (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Text editor support → Wikipedia:Text editor support[edit]

The result of the debate was Redirect to Text editor. This removes the cross-namespace redirect while still enabling disambiguation through the hatnote at the top of Text editor.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what the policy is for Article -> WP but I don't believe that these spaces should be linked. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Redirect is from 2005 and doesn't link to any pages outside of listing it as a crossnamespace redirect. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unneeded cross-namespace redirect (for the record, policy heavily discourages these, but does not prohibit them). The concept of "text editor support" could apply to any number of things, not just Wikipedia, so pointing this at project space is wrong. However, the redirect is also not specific enough to determine exactly what's wanted, so this is best as a red link. Alternately, it could be retargeted to text editor, but that's unlikely to be the intended target of a search on this phrase, so I feel the red link is better. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CNR. JuJube (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this may have been the original location of the page (before the separate Wikipedia space was created and before the software was changed to automatically record pagemoves in the edit history). If someone ever does have something encyclopedic to say on this specific title, they can overwrite it as easily as creating a new page. In the meantime, it does not appear to be doing any harm. Rossami (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to text editor, which is the closest article to this term we have, and has a link to the Wiki-namespace page at the top anyway. That avoids having a cross-namespace redirect while keeping the WP-link for anyone who needs it. Terraxos (talk) 22:04, 18 October 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_October_9&oldid=1138576349"