Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 29, 2010

Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 04[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7 and G6. JamieS93 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for page after it was moved for uniformity (most every other talkpage archive does not contain the "0" in front of the number). Airplaneman talk 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No incoming links, no reason I can imagine to keep this redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per my reasons below (The "Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 02" and "Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 01" RfDs), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nominated by creator of redirect (and next three entries). No history worth preserving. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 03[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7 and G6. JamieS93 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for page after it was moved for uniformity (most every other talkpage archive does not contain the "0" in front of the number). Airplaneman talk 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 02[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7 and G6. JamieS93 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for page after it was moved for uniformity (most every other talkpage archive does not contain the "0" in front of the number). Airplaneman talk 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 01[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7 and G6. JamieS93 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for page after it was moved for uniformity (most every other talkpage archive does not contain the "0" in front of the number). Airplaneman talk 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pravda.ru[edit]

The result of the discussion was retargetted to existing disambiguation page at Pravda (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. This Internet domain is not affiliated with the newspaper Pravda which has a different Internet address (www.gazeta-pravda.ru). I therefore request that this redirect be deleted per deletion guideline no. 2 which states "The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted." It is simply to easy too equate the two newspapers if the redirect remains. meco (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. That article describes a Vienna Pravda, the Soviet Pravda, a play called Pravda, Pravda.ru, and the gazeta-pravda tabloid which the article says also is unaffiliated with the Soviet Pravda that was closed down in 1991, though both the latter were founded by Pravda employees. Getting rid of the redirect isn't really the answer: it's time to create a Pravda (disambiguation) page and make pravda.ru point at that. Ah, but on the preview I find it does exist already, so I think you can reorient the redirect and be done with it, unless you want to start a pravda.ru article (and a gazeta-pravda article, both of which would be overdue. Wnt (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be quite happy to change its target to the existing disambiguation page. I wasn't aware of its existence. Had I been I'd changed the target without bothering this page. __meco (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the upn.com discussion and it makes it clear that such redirects are only deleted for non-Web businesses that are not typically identified by their websites. Since pravda.ru is an online newspaper this exemption fully applies... in fact, I can't think of another way to uniquely identify it! Wnt (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Non Angli, sed Angeli"[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. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes unhelpful. Non Angli, sed Angeli already exists without. Quotes make no difference in the search box, anyway. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per repeated consensus on quotation marks.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created this redirect last June for a notable quote, so I put it in quotation marks. I see that tMiQ created another version without quotes last month, and if that is preferable to you it doesn't matter much. Aesthetically I prefer the appearance of the quoted phrase as a Wikilink, but it's not a compelling argument. Wnt (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glenfarclas's comment about the consensus regarding quotation marks. I don't think anybody is going to search for the quote in quotation marks so, per WP:REDIRECT, delete. JulieSpaulding 12:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure there is consensus around deleting redirects containing quotation marks when the phrase is an actual quotation. I think we need to take into account WP users who navigate by methods other than the search box, such as using the Special pages utility, or using outside search engines, or (even!) typing an article title into their browser's address bar. I think it is very reasonable for a WP user looking for an article on something that somebody said, or a phrase somebody wrote, to find it within quotation marks (via redirect). UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if a person typed in the phrase with quotation marks into a search engine, the Non Angli, sed Angeli redirect should come up anyway. I think that the number of people using your stated other two methods of navigation would be very small. JulieSpaulding 13:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I doubt many people use the address bar method of finding an article like this, especially since it requires typing in underscores for the spaces. And I may be missing something, since I've never used Special:SpecialPages, but I'm not sure how you'd get from it to Non Angli, sed Angeli, or why quotation marks would help.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a quotation and not the title of a book (to which the "repeated consensus" refer), nickname, or fictional character. Note that in some of the deletion discussions, some phrases with quotation marks have been kept upon closing. Redundancy in itself is not a reason to delete a redirect, and it certainly does not generate confusion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Andrei Khrzhanovsky[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete per author request. Jafeluv (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. From what I can tell, Khrzhanovsky and Konchalovsky are two different people, as I fleshed out here. If someone wants to later create the article for Khrzhanovsky, they can. TheTito Discuss 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both I created 'em, and I'm fine with deleting them, since I have no intention of creating an article. I was mistaken. I think I was misled by some website, but I might have jumped to the wrong conclusion seeing a similar name of two Russian filmmakers of about the same age. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I kept confusing the two when I was doing the research, they are too similar. TheTito Discuss 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ಠ_ಠ[edit]

The result of the discussion was title unsalted and redirect created. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an emoticon from the sources and that it is fairly popular. It already has an entry in an established article to which it should redirect to. It is currently protected so see also: Talk:ಠ_ಠ#redirect_page Zondor (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if RfD is the right place for this discussion, but it's probably an acceptable one. In any case, this seems like a reasonable redirect to me, and the protection is due to repeated recreations over two days in February 2008, which should not be a barrier to creating a policy-compliant redirect. I don't have a problem with making this a redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine by me. According to WP:SALT, "[c]ontributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator or use the deletion review process." I suppose whenever an admin stops by to close this debate he or she can create the redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create - Nothing wrong with it. Seems reasonably popular, Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unsalted the page and created but I haven't categorised it, so someone may wish to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Dlw[edit]

The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_30#Template:Dlw. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me if this is deprecated or a redirect to a valid template, but it can't be both. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, I converted all three uses of this redirect in the mainspace to use the target template, thus bypassing this redirect. The RfD nomination was transcluding onto the mainspace articles previously. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose closing this discussion here, remove the redirect per nominator, and put it up at WP:TFD as a deprecated template, which is almost sure to result in a deletion. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listed as TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_30#Template:Dlw. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 30 January 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_January_29&oldid=1148047924"