Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 17, 2009

Eeeeeelectric motor[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely ridiculous redirect. Propose deletion. 137.205.74.169 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can see no reason that someone would use 6 E's trying to type the word electric. There is no history regarding any reason for thus usage and it is clearly not a plasuable typo.--76.71.215.237 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as not a plausible search term. PaulJones (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless, by any stretch of the imagination, someone can provide evidence that this is a plausible search term. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unplausible search term, unneeded. American Eagle (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rt episodes[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far too short-hand of a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ww episodes[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far too short-hand of a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nominator's got it right, and there's not much else to say. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1881 Boundary Treaty[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Boundary Treaty of 1881[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1881 Argentina–Chile Border Treaty[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1881 Argentina-Chile treaty[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. There are too many names for the same article and the treaty is not very, very, very important. Keysanger (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the official name is stated by the Court of arbitration:

"…This involves in the first place an analysis of the text of the Treaty, which was entitled "Tratado de Límites" (Boundary Treaty).…" (Page 84 of Beagle channel conflict: Report and decision of the Court of Arbitration)

--Keysanger (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who are we, as encyclopaedists, to place a cap on the number of names for a thing? The number of names that a thing has is the number of names that it has; they do not somehow mystically signify a measure of importance; and, as the saying goes, redirects are cheap and useful. They prevent duplicate articles from growing, for one thing.

    You haven't provided a rationale that has a good grounding in policy. Can you show that any of these names are not a name that is used for this treaty? It's relatively easy to show that 1881 Boundary Treaty, 1881 Border Treaty, Boundary Treaty of 1881 are, for starters. All three of them occur in books, sometimes as the primary name. (Salvatore Bizarro's Historical dictionary of Chile uses "Boundary Treaty of 1881" as its article title, for example. Michael A. Morris' The Strait of Magellan uses "1881 Boundary Treaty" as a section title, for example. Jack Child's Antarctica and South American geopolitics talks of "The 1881 Border Treaty", for example.)

    Please provide a rationale that actually has a basis in policy. Please show which redirects do not fit with Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? — which nowhere encapsulates your ideas of "too many names" or number of names being somehow a measure of importance, notice. Again: Redirects are cheap. Uncle G (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I argue based in common sense. I saw the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and I found only 1 extra name Queen Elizabeth II. There are no redirects from Elizabeth, The Queen, Betty, etc. … --Keysanger (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Incle G Said these names occurs in literature to refer to the treaty. However I suspect the 1881 treaty redirect will soon became a disambiguation. Dentren | Talk 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as redirects are so that people who may not know the official terminology can find content. Those redirects that do not specify countries can become disambiguation pages as and when necessary. PaulJones (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These seem to all fall nicely into the "other / alternate names" category of redirect. That there are a lot of them is irrelevant. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Boundary treaty of 1881 betwen Chile and Argentina[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion because bad english Keysanger (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not bad English, there is just one word spelled wrong. Also, who's you to judge what bad English is when you imply it yourself? Tavix |  Talk  17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one, there are infinite variations of missspelled words.. everybody with a good knwledge of englsih will figure out that this misspellling redirect is not nessesary.Dentren | Talk 10:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dentren as an implausible search term. The number of misspelled variations of a word or phrase increases with the length (in terms of the number of characters) of the word or phrase. Redirects from misspellings are useful for common misspellings and can be useful for single words, but we cannot (nor should we attempt to) account for every possible misspelling of every word or phrase. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MOS:BEGIN[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate mainspace → projectspace redirect. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There are several dozen similar redirects, but I figured it would be best to start a general discussion before mass-nominating them. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (First, thanks to Juliancolton for letting me know about the discussion.) I created the redirect after seeing similar "MOS:" redirects (since then, other pages such as the style manual itself received such links). I forget which prior redirects inspired me, but there are many (mainspace) articles with opening paragraphs that don't summarize the article, or simply say something different.

I did it as a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" thing; if I stepped on a rule mine, delete it as needed. Perhaps "MOS:" can be its own namespace or an "sub-namespace" of "Wikipedia:", or changed from "MOS:NAME" to "WP:MOS-NAME" where convenient? Not sure what's best there, and as this one's creator I may just be biased. --an odd name 01:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the MOS shortcuts seem to have been kept as of the last discussion last month... 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't find that discussion after checking every day of April here; is it somewhere else? (Got a link?) Either way, consensus can change. --an odd name 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I was sure there was one in the last month or two. Yes, CCC... though this impressive strong keep from the end of 2007 exists. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Redirects implicated in the nom are here, here, and here. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is good for us, from time to time, to reconsider earlier consensus. That said, I find the arguments in the earlier debate on this compelling. Namely, I don't think MOS:___ is a likely search term for an article, and it is an intuitive and useful shortcut. I think some general standardization in capitalization would be a good thing, though. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:19, 21 May 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_May_17&oldid=1142587974"