Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 22
August 22[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2009
Lundi[edit]
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete both - this is English WP and we don't need translations from any other languages for common terms such as "Monday". These 2 were created in Jan 2008 (Lunedi by a current editor, and Lundi a week later by a now-indef-blocked editor), but were both picked up by Smackbot today: the bot delinked them, apparently as incorrect links to a day of the week, and tagged them stubs, so I found them while stub-sorting. PamD (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no problem with those redirects that would warrant deletion. Maybe redirecting to the appropriate subsection, where those foreign-language terms are listed, would be preferable, though. Jafeluv (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Refine redirect target to Monday#Monday in different languages. Because the Italian and French words are there, this is a useful redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Monday in those two world languages would be a semi-plausible search term. I have no opinion about altering the target to a subsection. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - my reasoning in nominating these was that we don't have, and don't need, redirects from foreign-language equivalents of article titles, unless those articles are plausibly searched for in the foreign language (eg placenames, cultural terms). If we keep these two, then for consistency we should have redirects to 7 days of the week, and 12 months of the year, from ... how many languages? And how many other categories of words too? I suggest that the presence of these two redirects implies that such redirects are standard/desirable, which is not the case, so they should be deleted. The same logic applies to a bunch of redirects to July, nominated next day. PamD (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds good, except WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid reason to keep or delete a redirect. This is a case in which WP:RFD#KEEP (reasons for keeping) applies: suppose someone remembers only "Lunedi". Then he/she can enter it as a search term and the redirect takes the reader to the appropriate article that actually mentions it.147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about it, and only fell over these RDs because Smackbot had decided to unlink them and tagged them as stubs, so I found them while stub-sorting. Someone has since relinked them. Happy to leave them well alone now. OK, consider this as a withdrawal of nomination. PamD (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(CFL)[edit]
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted (criterion G8: "pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page") by Icewedge (talk · contribs). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
History of south africa in the apartheid era[edit]
The result of the discussion was keep. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Improbable that anyone would expect such an article name to exist uKER (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I could see someone typing this into a search engine like Google and the redirect leads to the most-likely intended target. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
History of South Africa in the apartheid era[edit]
The result of the discussion was keep. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Improbable that anyone would expect such an article name to exist uKER (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This was once the title of the article. Dozens of pages still link here. 140.247.5.16 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep above two - retargeted (to South Africa under apartheid) to avoid double redirect; the second was also a prior name of the article that should be kept to document a page move.— Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Wind (talk • contribs) 05:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
South Africa under the apartheid[edit]
The result of the discussion was keep. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Improbable that anyone would expect such an article name to exist uKER (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Foreseeable search term as some people refer to "apartheid" as "the apartheid". This has zero chance of becoming a confusing or otherwise harmful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see a problem with this as a search term. Right or wrong, some people do refer to it that way. -- Ϫ 03:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
British Royal Air Force[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep. Killiondude (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
deletion - never an official description, there is only one Royal Air Force - the British one. All redirects have been re-directed ditrect to the appropriate page, with British as a separate wikilink where appropriate. Lynbarn (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree its not an official description or title, but seems like a useful redirect. Some people wont know they only have to look for Royal Air Force. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- keep as there are other Royal Air Forces, see Royal Air Force (disambiguation), and this may be useful for someone who wants to ensure that they get an article on the British one.PaulJones (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as a plausible search term that hits the most likely intended target. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as an appropriate reference in the same sense as British Open (which is actually The Open Championship, but often called "British Open" stateside). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an entirely possible search term. You can't expect every reader to know that there are no other RAFs in existance. Jafeluv (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)