Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2010

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete the lot. Crouch, Swale has been warned before and is now simply playing games. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Round Maple[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep totally harmless, not missleading, why delete. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unnecessary to dab beyond Round Maple. Never used, recently created, no history serves no purpose but to clutter the suggestions in the search box. Nancy talk 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but the most likely I still have to check all of them, but this degree of preemptive disambiguation is insane and should be strongly discouraged. I think a large portion of them can be speedily deleted under wp:CSD#R3 as implausible misnomers and nominate them as such. I would also urge the nom to follow the instructions for nominating multiple related redirects in the future, as nobody likes having the same discussion 40 times. Yoenit (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the reasons to delete apply. Redirects are cheap. Mhiji (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: user:RHaworth has blocked User:Crouch, Swale for disruptive editing and deleted all redirects to Round Maple under R3, including a large number which where not nominated for AFD yet. Now we just need somebody to close these RFDs. Yoenit (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundmaple, Suffolk[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundmaple, Babergh[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round maple, Babergh[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round maple (near Edwardstone)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round maple (England)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, suffolk[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk, England[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk (near Sudbury)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk (near Edwardstone)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep totally harmless, not missleading, why delete. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unnecessary to dab beyond Round Maple. Never used, recently created, no history serves no purpose but to clutter the suggestions in the search box. Nancy talk 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one is going to enter "xxx, yyy (near zzz)" 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think most of the Round Maple stuff is implausible enough to go but this one is wayyyyyy out there, and recently created as noted. Sideways713 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the reasons to delete apply. Redirects are cheap. Mhiji (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Sudbury[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Round Maple, Edwardstone[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Round Maple[edit]

So good they named it twice? As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Mill Green[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, England[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Edwardstone[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, East Anglia[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Boxford[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple in Suffolk[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple Suffolk[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (suffolk)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (near Edwardstone)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (hamlet), Babergh[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Village)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Suffolk)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Sudbury)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Hamlet)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (England)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Edwardstone)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Babergh)[edit]

As Round Maple is an extremely obscure settlement that needs no disambiguation this search term is highly unlikely - it's one of many that an over-zealous editor has made which set a precedent that would lead to extreme clutter if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was : Deleted as non-controversial maintenance, page has already been moved to main space and doesn't contain any history. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Maroto/Translation[edit]

It looks like this was used as a temporary spot to hold the Spanish article when this was first being translated. Now it's just a redirect to the current English article. Ruodyssey (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Komponisto[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Komponisto is the Esperanto word for "composer". It isn't really necessary to have a redirect from the Esperanto word in the English Wikipedia. We don't have a redirect from the Frence "compositeur", so why have one from "komponisto"? cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 07:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC) ember 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nobody would type this, and according to page stats, almost nobody does type this; should not have a redirect for every word in every language. - Anomalocaris (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

P:RUS/NEW[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"P:" pseudo namespace redirect which does not link to a Portal page. Delete. Mhiji (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for obvious reason given by nominator. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MOS:DERM[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"MOS:" pseudo namespace redirects which do not link to MOS pages. Delete. Mhiji (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like I created MOS:HPP but I can't remember why. I have no objection to its being deleted.  –droll [chat] 06:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - No strong feelings here, but, believing that redirects are cheap, I would lean towards keeping the MOS:DERM. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise redirects are cheap, but I'm concerned that these ones might be confusing or even deceptive (see the discussion link below), as they are prefixed with "MOS:" but then do not lead to a Manual of Style page. Also the MOS:DERM one doesn't link to style guidelines anyway, so it seems unnecessary. Also, there's already WP:DERM which links to the same place. Mhiji (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#MOS:POKER (sorry should have listed them together really...). Mhiji (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything starting with "MOS:" should relate to the manual of style; these don't. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not part of the MOS, so it should not imply that it is. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MOS:DERM (as it's not a style guide); no vote for the other two. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MOS:SHIP, it redirects to a style guideline. --J Clear (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a Manual of Style page. "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirects should redirect to Manual of Style pages. Mhiji (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Medium Transport-class Assualt Transport[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect Mhiji (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 27 in rail transport[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Were created as the result of moves but not deleted afterwards. Mhiji (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this, as well as any others like it. Tavix |  Talk  00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; appropriate cleanup of pagemove artifacts resulting in unnecessary cross-namespace redirects.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_21&oldid=1138988156"