Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2009

DICK Cheney → Dick Cheney[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by Orangemike [1]. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization of the word "DICK" just implies a personal attack, and is in itself and implausible misspelling —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It was an error I made a long time ago. Someone did this as an act of vandalism, while I thought there was something wrong with either the link or a redirect, so I created a redirect. I should have checked carefully, and for that, I apologize. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 20:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update- I have applied for this to be speedied. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shiva (disambiguation) (version 2) → Shiva (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this one's not useful for searching or linking. It's a leftover from some complicated merging maneuver that resulted in the present contents of Shiva (disambiguation). I'm not certain why it was done this way and not cleaned up, but it's currently of no use. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, OK, get rid of it. At 17:44, 4 February 2008 I moved Siva (disambiguation) to Shiva (disambiguation) as it contained about twice as many entries Sh- as entries S-, therefore I moved the old contents of Shiva (disambiguation) somewhere away from under the incoming matter. Leaving deleted matter from another editing history under a non-deleted editing history is liable to accidents if the non-deleted edits must be temporarily deleted for history-merging or history-splitting. Anthony Appleyard (talk)
  • Delete. Obviously an implausible search term, and I don't think there's any need to keep this for historical reasons. Robofish (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ganesha (deity) → Ganesha[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Wizardman 16:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, why would anybody type Ganesha (deity), if Ganesha link is enough? Redtigerxyz Talk 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is useful for linking when you want the link target to be explicit, and it's useful for the autosuggestion box as well because the target is explicit. These sorts of disambiguation titles are not redundant at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The only link to Ganesha (deity) was " [[Ganesha (deity)|Ganesha]], the [[India]]n [[deity]]" in See also Ganesha (psychedelic), which is corrected. Everyone else was lazy to link Ganesha directly, and not be so diligent to link it as [[Ganesha (deity)|Ganesha]] so lead the reader to redirect and from there lead him/her back to Ganesha. Why should one do that? Also the history of the redirect suggests it was a product of "undiscussed move" of the Ganesha article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as there are multiple uses of the term Ganesha, this provides an obvious route to the article about the diety for those users who knows, or assumes, that there will be disambiguated articles. PaulJones (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shiva (Hinduism) → Shiva[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Wizardman 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, Shiva is about Hindu deity. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is useful for linking when you want the link target to be explicit, and it's useful for the autosuggestion box as well because the target is explicit. These sorts of disambiguation titles are not redundant at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The no article link to Shiva (Hinduism). Why lead the reader to redirect and from there lead him/her back to Shiva. Why should one do that? Also the history of the redirect suggests it was a product of "move" of the Shiva article, which was reverted. Relevant discussion present in talk Talk:Shiva/Archive 2. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I actually believe that the plain title "Shiva" should be the disambiguation page, due to the fact that Shiva (Judaism) is also a very common term, and this the current Shiva should become this title. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it provides a route to the intended article when a users knows, or assumes, that there will be disambiguated articles. PaulJones (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pope PIus IX and Judaism → Pope Pius IX and Judaism[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it seems like a useless redirect. I doubt many people will make that specific article search, or mistake. The chances seem to be low. blurredpeace ☮ 00:56, 25 April 2009 (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/2009_April_25&oldid=1138576436"