Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 6

June 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2009

廾[edit]

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

廾 → 20 (number)

Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redirects from other languages can be useful but should be limited to cases where there is a natural connection between the language and the target of the redirect. In this case, no such connection exists between Japanese and the number 20. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep The redirect might be useful, as it is a redirect from another language. Whoever crated this redirect may have had another good reason for doing so, one witch we may not have thought of. Thus if it does no harm it should be kept. If it does harm, I am undecided--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that it does cause harm in terms of the precedent it sets for the creation of similar redirects (see WP:WINAD). Redirects from other languages, where there is no natural connection between the language and the target page, are routinely deleted at RFD (see, for example, here, here, and here—the last one was kept at RFD, but only because there was a natural connection between the language and the target page). As for a possible good reason of which we haven't thought yet, well ... I notified the creator when I posted the nomination, so he or she has ample opportunity to comment. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chinese numeral as it is a variant of 20 in Chinese. And Chinese numerals were exported to Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, so the original language is the appropriate target. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unnecessary for the English Wikipedia to have a local redirect for every interwiki from a non-English Wikipedia. While some inter-language redirects are useful, such as a proper name in its original language, Wikipedia is NOT a translation dictionary. Making an exception for numbers ~~and numerals~~ would be a harmful precedent, for that way lies madness. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Postscript: Make that "delete without prejudice to creating an encyclopedic article" as discussed by BD2412 below. (Cf. List of Kangxi radicals) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chinese numeral per 70.29.208.129. This (and other Chinese numerals) are perfectly useful as redirects to an article that discusses them directly, in the same way that we redirect characters from Greek, Cyrillic, etc. to articles that discuss them. It should not redirect to 20 (number), however; it's not a very useful redirect for that article on English Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Radical 55, and then write an article on that character. There are about 200 base radicals in Chinese script (other characters are variations of these base characters made by adding additional strokes according to a meticulous pattern). Each one of the base radicals, like the letters of the English alphabet, should have an article discussing not only the meaning of a given character, but also the history of its development. I started making them but have held off on account of other projects, and the possibility that someone might make a bot that imports and translates the existing articles from the German Wikipedia (which has them all). Cheers! bd2412 T 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Ninguable. We really don't need this kind of a redirect and it would be implausible in the English Wikipedia. Tavix | Talk 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix. Kanji titles are perfectly welcome either as redirects or as disambiguation pages. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" has nothing to do with that, it would apply only if people started writing articles about individual, less-than-notable kanjis. --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Armorines: Project S W A R M[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armorines: Project S W A R M → Armorines: Project S.W.A.R.M.

Delete – Implausible search term, with no significant incoming links or edit history. The target article already has several other similar redirects, including: Armorines: Project Swarm, Armorines: Project SWARM, and Armorines: Project S. W. A. R. M.. Replacing the periods with spaces is an unlikely error. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Welsh monarch[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh monarch → Prince of Wales

Pretty misleading redirect given that the "Prince of Wales" is an honorific for the heir to the British throne, and is not a "Welsh monarch" any more than other members of the Royal Family - there was never an unified Welsh state with a monarchy. Should either redirect to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" or be deleted. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buggy_bus[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. Term is included at target. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy_bus → Low-floor_bus

Delete - no evidence that this is phrase refers to the target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.40.21 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you even looked to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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