Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 23, 2010

Dhivehi (Mahl) language[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 both. — ξxplicit 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion of this redirect page is that the name of the redirect page is wrong and will cause confusion. On the heading the word in brackets is Mahl which is a dialect of Dhivehi language. There are two pages Mahl dialect and Mahl language in existence which redirects to the page Dhivehi language. So already redirects for the dialect are in existence. This heading will cause confusion as it shows that Mahl is another name for Dhivehi language while it is a dialect only and not used in any case to refer to the language. To see the only names for Dhivehi language see this link: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=div. Also refer the article Dhivehi language which have lots of proof. The word Mahl is not used synonymous with Dhivehi. It is a name of a dialect only. As this will cause a lot of confusion it needs to be deleted as soon as possible. Also it is important to be highlighted here that according to commonsense people will not search by putting a synonymous word in brackets. People will only use one word for the subject whether it be dhivehi or mahl while searching for the article in Wikipedia. For both these names redirects are there to the page Dhivehi language. So a redirect of this heading with a word in brackets is not fit to be in existence. In this case there are redirects for Dhivehi as well as Mahl to the page Dhivehi language. As people will search only by one name this one is of no use. And it will only cause confusion as highlighted above with Mahl not being a word used synonymous with Dhivehi. Leone (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: With respect to the above reasons. This heading will only cause confusion among people. As information is taken from Wikipedia for many popular websites around the world there are circumstences in which the redirects are also taken as other names for the subject. I have come across many such cases. This will only cause confusion among people as it will make them think that Mahl is another name for the subject. Mahl is a dialect only and there are dialects which have more speakers than Mahl. Mahl dialect is different from the standard Dhivehi which is Male' dialect. This redirect makes no sense and will only cause confusion among people. See the above reasons too. Leone (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Categories: High schools in Georgia (U.S. state)[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. WOSlinker (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, cross-namespace redirect. Mhiji (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't make sense for a template to redirect to a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of convention exclusive Transformers[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) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since there is no such list at the target article. There used to be a list of convention-exclusive TF toys, but it was decided that it was best not to have that. NotARealWord (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Printworthy Redirects[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. — ξxplicit 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – pointless soft redirect. Category redirects are for alternative names and such, not minor capitalisation differences. Entering "Category:Printworthy Redirects" in the search bar will automatically take one to the correct target anyway. The redirect category has no members or links to it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mhiji 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:08[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, see relevant discussion here regarding WP:12. — ξxplicit 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too ambiguous. 08 could refer to any number of events e.g. 2008 Shandong train collision or 34th G8 Summit. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#WP:12 Simply south (talk) and their tree 12:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename WP:US08 or something similar. Adding "US" makes it less ambiguous, and it is a convenient shortcut to the project page.--JayJasper (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well keep, unless someone else wants the name for another purpose... Also, we don't have project pages for either the train collision or the G8, so they are irrelevant. If there's a more relevant project page than this one that it could refer to, then it might be worth considering retargeting it to that, if not, just leave it be. Mhiji (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per my comments on yesterday's page about WP:12. If someone wants a WP:US2008, that might make sense, but even WP:US08 is gibberish to most people. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shortcuts aren't really supposed to make sense. The full page names are, but I don't think it's necessary for shortcuts to. They're supposed to be short! Mhiji (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#WP:12.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ember 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: Nobody would type this, and according to page stats, almost nobody does type this; just because redirects are cheap is no reason to keep ridiculous redirects that make no sense. - Anomalocaris (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason to delete.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete it because if anyone were crazy enough to enter WP:08 (which, again, hardly anybody does), there's no reason to believe they are interested in U.S. 2008 presidential elections, as opposed to something else in 2008 or 1908, or the 8th occurrence of some event, or who knows what. Delete Anomalocaris (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an election in 1908. 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) 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Padrões[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Portuguese word (lit: "patterns", so probably not wrong) to English equivalent. I can't find an English usage at all. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We'd have billions of redirects if we redirected every foreign language term to it's English equivalent here. Exception: If this is some kind of official/legal term people are likely to encounter when studying English-language material about Portgual or Brazil, then keep it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "standard" is solely/primarily/originally a portuguese concept. 65.95.12.136 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Padroes[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Portuguese word (lit: "patterns", so probably not wrong) to English equivalent. I can't find an English usage at all. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as for other spelling, above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "standard" is solely/primarily/originally a portuguese concept. 65.95.12.136 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

October 2009 in science[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 Retarget to appropriate year in science articles. --Taelus (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unnecessary, cross-namespace redirects. Mhiji (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Mhiji, please stop nominating redirects as "unused". That is not a reason to delete. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, perhaps "unused" meaning "not very many people search for this redirect term"? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I meant "little used". Mhiji (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In November 2010, these recorded hits on 53, 72, 23 and 40 occasions respectively. Those figures to me indicate redirects that are neither "unused" nor "little used". Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - October of last year hardly counts as "current events". Any month will no longer count as "current events" after a while. Why are there month-specific redirects like that anyway? NotARealWord (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget all to 2009 in science and 2010 in science as appropriate. Italicised porttion added Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC). Because we do have some articles/lists at <month> <year> in <field> (e.g. October 2009 in sports, October 2009 in Pakistan) these are very plausible search terms. Anybody wanting to find out what happened in October 2009 in science will find what they want from the 2009 in science article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Mhiji (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget sounds good. - RoyBoy 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

SportsLink[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 Keep --Taelus (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor attempted to prod this redirect. Since prod is not applicable to redirects (plus the page was at AFD previously), I have declined the prod and am nominating here. The IP editor's deletion rationale was: "SportsLink is no longer referenced in it's redirected article 94.7 The Pulse and has no new relevance for its existance". This is a procedural nomination; I neither support nor oppose the deletion of this redirect. RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as deletion is an all-round bad idea. First of all this was kept at AFD (no consensus). Secondly content was merged into the target so deletion breaches our GFDL licence. Thirdly the subject of the redirect didn't appear in the target because the IP who prodded it deleted the content just before prodding. I have restored the content. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 1, 2005[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. Courcelles 09:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Were created as the result of moves but not deleted afterwards. See also here. Mhiji (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should check a bit more carefully before you claim they're unused; see what you did to February 2005, for example. The redirects were requested to be left for just that reason, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 32#Simple article moves. Personally, I don't care much either way whether they're kept or deleted, if someone fixes anything like February 2005 first. Anomie⚔ 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I've fixed that now (and the other month pages). Mhiji (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot as implausible for someone to search for a specific date. Tavix |  Talk  20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all assuming all the months are fixed. I proposed the moves in the first place. Reywas92Talk 16:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not implausible to search for a particular date - to take a non-serious example, one might wish to find out what happened on one's date of birth the date of birth of one's child. It could also be useful for other reasons, such as historical learning. The place where this information is actually stored (subpages of Portal:Current events) is not at all obvious to the casual reader. But delete 2005 May 15 as an implausible way of writing the date in English. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, that is a non-serious example because these redirects only exist for the birthdays of five-year-olds. These are rather implausible, and if not, the search results will have the portal links. Reywas92Talk 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, the portal subpages should show up in search results. But they don't seem to. Try a search for "1 July 2005" or a search for "July 1, 2005". The first result is this redirect. The next results are about cricket and other irrelevant stuff. The month July 2005 does turn up, but there is no way to navigate from that page to the correct portal subpage. If and until portal results are included in normal searches, such redirects should remain, and indeed be expanded to all dates for which a useful Current Events subpage exists. (And it was a silly example. I've fixed it.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are kept, they should be retargeted to the relevant place in article space. So 1 January 2005 should redirect to January_2005#1_January_2005. This makes it consistent with Category:Days_in_2004. As long as they are changed to be like that, so that they are not cross-namespace, I can't see any harm in keeping them. Mhiji (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No justifiable explanation for why specific dates would be plausible search terms. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget per Mhiji. The current targets are not illogcal, but Mhiji's suggested targets might be very slightly more appropriate and would not be cross-namespace (although see also below). The stats show that, however implausible TeleComNasSprVen thinks specific dates are, these redirects are used, they are doing no harm where they are and so I see no reason to delete them. One of the main reasons why we don't want cross-namespace redirects (CNRs) is that the article-space is reader-facing and most other namespaces are editor-facing and we don't want them being confused with articles. Portals, however, are also reader-facing and are the most article-like non-article namespace, so cross-namespace redirects from article-space to portal-space are the least harmful of CNRs. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Sk8erock[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 Closed. The page in question is no longer a redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from user page to article space. Does not meet WP:SPEEDY R2, but provides no navigational value, the sine qua non of redirects, and is potentially confusing to other readers and editors. I recognize that User:Sk8erock is a Christina Agulera fan, but WP:NOTFACEBOOK. TJRC (talk) 00:57, 23 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_23&oldid=1138577208"