Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 22, 2010

Missile range[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  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 8#Missile range. — ξxplicit 02:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to redlink this article instead of redirecting it. All missile ranges are NOT spaceports. In fact, a minority of all the missile ranges in the world are also spaceports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedraug (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 December 2010

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

Plantilla:Nihogo[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) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Plantilla = template in Spanish. Mhiji (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As unused. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—unneeded cross-namespace redirect. While it is allowed to have redirects in non-English languages to the English-equivalent article, I don't believe this should be extended to cross-namespace redirects. –Grondemar 14:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spanish is one thing, but Spanish with a typo? Sideways713 (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Every Character Under the Bloody Sun[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) 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Mhiji (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—inappropriate, potentially-confusing cross-namespace redirect. –Grondemar 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:12[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. Consensus here seemed to agree that the search term is too vague and U.S.-centric. — ξxplicit 00:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - target to the WikiProject makes no sense. Simply south (talk) and their tree 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably intended to reference the next election (2012), but the term is just too ambiguous. bd2412 T 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid rationale given for deletion. This is an obvious reference to the 2012 election, and has been in use for over a year.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I wouldn't say it's obvious... Mhiji (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is for those who use it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, and i would agree it is not obvious, I still think it makes no sense. A lot of elections around the world happen every year as well as other events. We may as well have WP:12 redirect to the 2012 Olympics or WP:22 redirect to the football world cup in Qatar. I still stick with delete. Oh and now i will put up 08. Simply south (talk) and their tree 12:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 23#WP:08. Simply south (talk) and their tree 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than have discussion in two places (which makes no sense), why didn't you just add it to this discussion? Also, you have not linked to any other wikipedia projects that could or would like to use the redirect. It is currently in good use, therefore deletion would be disruptive. What are you trying to accomplish by deleting this redirect and preventing users from easily reaching the page?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that umbrella noms couldn't be opened once the noms had already started. It is impossible to put this at other projects as this would still be ambiguous and if going by other sense there would be too many to list. I am not trying to be disruptive. Redirects are meant to be momerable and should be specific whereas this is a very broad redirect. Simply south (talk) and their tree 19:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If another project that can put the redirect to better use wishes to do so, all they need to do is redirect the redirect. This happened with WP:2012. It doesn't make sense to delete a redirect because you don't understand its use. Those that use the redirect, do understand.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:08 also redirects there, whatever is done with 12 should be done with it too. I tried WP:10 to see if it went to WP:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom but instead it goes to something completely different. The uses of 08 and 12 seem a little too U.S.-centric to me, but I suppose it does no harm until someone else wants those names. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remame: WP:US12 or something similar. It is a convenient shortcut to the project page, and adding "US" gives it specificity which should address the concerns about ambiguity.--JayJasper (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well keep, unless someone else wants the name for another purpose... Mhiji (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It doesn't "obviously" (to quote someone above) mean anything, and I'm a voting American. If someone wants to create a WP:US2012 or something that actually makes sense, I have no objections to that. But just a number? Does anyone here really think no other country in the world is having elections that year? Or that the number 12 could have no other significance to people? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed it for any other reason so I suppose the answer to your question is no.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nobody would type this, and according to page stats, nobody does type this; just because redirects are cheap is no reason to keep ridiculous redirects that make no sense. - Anomalocaris (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason to delete.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete it because if anyone were crazy enough to enter WP:12 (which, again, hardly anybody does), there's no reason to believe they are interested in U.S. 2012 presidential elections, as opposed to something else in 2012 or 1912, or the 12th occurrence of some event, or who knows what. Delete Anomalocaris (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an election in 1912. However, if someone types it in and discovers the project, it would be beneficial to the project and to wikipedia. Again, no one is claiming this for anything else, it is just an easy way for participants to reach the page for collaboration.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Centrifugal force (disambiguation)[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 Disambiguation restored. There are still several applicable articles so I have restored the dab page. It should be noted that there was not a GFDL issue since content was not copied. Also, a redirect would be confusing as "NAME (disambiguation)" is our standard naming convention for dab pages and the proposed target is not a dab page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed or used, per discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after the merge as it appears the redirect has extensive page history; we need to keep this history in order to stay compliant with our licenses. Redirects are cheap; there should be no harm in keeping this one. –Grondemar 15:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the reasons to delete apply. Redirects are cheap. Mhiji (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Genesis creation myth[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 Kept. See WP:RNEUTRAL. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silvrstridr (talk · contribs) mistakenly nominated this redirect at WP:MFD, so I am renominating it here to get it into the correct venue. This is a procedural nomination; I take no position for or against the deletion of this redirect. The original deletion rationale from Silvrstridr was: unnecessary redirect with malicious intent of labeling Creation a "myth". RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thanks for doing this... wikipedia makes things so difficult to change. So many unnecessary policies and trolls that edit this site! ~silvrstridr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvrstridr (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that Genesis Creation is considered a myth is a biased opinion. I did not bring this rfd up to argue that point though. I brought it up because it is unnecessary to have a redirect page created because someone was too lazy to create the redirect properly in the first place to Genesis creation narrative.--Silvrstridr (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Looking at edits such as those at Genesis creation narrative, this looks like an attempt at aWP:POINT nomination. Silvrstridr, I've changed your !vote above to say 'Comment', you can only !vote once. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible redirect. The article itself discusses the use of the term "myth". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target article is a far more neutral term, but the redirect is a commonly used term. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—useful redirect, no reason provided to delete. –Grondemar 15:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dodge B110[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) 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information on any Dodge called B110. There was a B-series van at one point but these were B-100, B-200, and B-300. --Sable232 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only non-trivial mention appears to be in an old version of a Wikipedia article (Volkswagen Type 2) which has since been changed to the correct Dodge A100. The "keep" !votes in that AFD don't seem to have much basis in anything but a poor nomination and "if someone created the article, it must exist." As far as I can tell there never was such a vehicle. --Sable232 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neither harmful nor recent - but change to Dodge B Series. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • How is it not harmful? The original article was a hoax. Someone searching for Dodge B-100 in the search box is just going to be confused when "Dodge B110" comes up. --Sable232 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dodge B110 WILL NOT show in a search for Dodge b100. Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - The Vehicle doesn't seem to actually exist. Keep only if can be proven otherwise. The Google search result doesn't seem to give me anything to prove that it's real. Perhaps I missed something, but there's no reason to keep this if there's nothing with such a name. NotARealWord (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it prevents (or at lest makes more unlikely) inadvertent re-creation. Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - There is no reason to maintain a hoax-based redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it prevents (or at lest makes more unlikely) inadvertent re-creation. Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

House of Representatives of Ceylon[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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Representatives of Ceylon is not the Parliament of Sri Lanka. They are two different Legislatures. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deletion is not required anymore, as a user is going to write an article on the topic, very soon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

National State Assembly[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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National State Assembly is not the Parliament of Sri Lanka. National State Assembly existed from (1972 - 1978) Blackknight12 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deletion is not required anymore, as a user is going to write an article on the topic, very soon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:34, 22 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_22&oldid=1138970410"