Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2010

Wikipedia:NASA[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively new cross-namepsace redirect to a page (draft WikiProject?) which has remained untouched for well over a month... much earlier than when this redir was created. I don't see a use for it... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would guess this was created in anticipation of moving the Wikiproject NASA out of the user's sandbox and into Wikipedia:, but until that happens the redirect is inappropriate.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Normally, I wouldn't mind this, so long as the user was still actively working on the project. However, the target hasn't been edited on over 45 days. So delete, unless something drastic happens in the next few days, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. If it ever is made into Wikipedia:NASA that is one thing, but redirecting to user space is another thing entirely. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Red link[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep deleted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected Red link to Dead link as it would serve a greater purpose than merely leaving Red link as a blank article. Smallman12q (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dead link. This makes perfect sense. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep create-protected as is, useful for meta discussion. Has nothing to do with the content at dead link anyway. —Кузьма討論 22:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    People frequently refer to red links as "dead links", even if it is not appropriate. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a red link on Wikipedia isn't really the same thing as a dead link, thus this could be potentially confusing for users. Best to leave it protected in my opinion. --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is article namespace, it should be used for articles.Smallman12q (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with Taelus here. A red link is not a dead link. A red link is a non-functioning internal link, whilst a dead link is an external link with a faulty URL (or something similar). It's in the article namespace, but that doesn't mean there needs to be an article. IMHO, I don't see what's wrong with a soft redirect for these situations, but apparently there's consensus against it. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A red link is a kind of dead link, but a special one with a special purpose. What is more keeping it protected as a red link itself serves a useful purpose for using in examples etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't keeping it in article namespace to prove a point go against WP:POINT?Smallman12q (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "point" are you refferring to? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mare'[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's nickname is "Mare" not "Mare'." Silly typo that's been around for over a year with no significant viewage and no linkage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although around 10/views a month is beyond random, I really don't believe anyone would enter Mare' and expect to get this sports official. This typo is best served by search, hatnotes and disambiguation. Josh Parris 08:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Apparatus and Hand"[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces of art surrounded by quotes. Confer WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#"it's a small world" and WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 28#"almanac of british politics". As with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 29#"Alexander R. Bolling", quotation marks have no place around a name (or around almost any article title, for that matter). — the Man in Question (in question) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avram (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was The result was withdrawn, no longer a redirect

Delete. Disambiguation page no longer exists since former disambiguation page was converted to a name page. This link will be confusing wherever it points. MegaSloth (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination and change !vote to Keep: The article Grand Duchy of Avram exists and appears to have a reasonable claim on the page name Avram, along with Abraham and at least one article about the name. More than two pages have a claim on this title and so a disambiguation page is required. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This title should not redirect to Avram (name). It should be a disambiguation page listing Avram (given name) and Avram (surname). Avram the given name and Avram the surname are two separate topics; despite common etymology, which is often shared between disparate topics, these two pages should develop into very different articles, similar to the difference between Spencer the given name and Spencer the surname. It is Avram (name) which should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently common practice to have a single name article covering both surname and name. This however is an argument to be made at WP:Anthroponymy; we disambiguate based on the articles that do exist, not on those that we think ought to. Disambiguation guidelines indicate that when there are only two articles competing over a single page name, a disambiguation page is not needed; hatnotes are used instead. In this situation, there is nowhere for a disambiguation page link to point, and any redirect that should point to it needs to be deleted. If the situation changes so that three or more articles compete, clearly it will be required again and should be recreated. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Avram, move Avram (name) to Avram, correct already confusing hatnote on Abraham. Why give Abraham all those aliases? Josh Parris 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors believe him to be the primary topic for all those names perhaps? Remember Abraham is an important figure figure in 3 major religions; it should be no surprise if various transliterations by different routes result in many variations in English usage. Redirecting Avram (disambiguation) to Avram is counterproductive as long as Avram is not in fact a disambiguation page, as it would not be under this proposed scheme. --MegaSloth (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as explained by Megasloth above. I should have tagged the disambiguation page for deletion after moving it. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the one article is eventually developed into very different articles, then there would be a possible need to disambiguate them. Until then, this should be deleted. (disambiguation) redirects target disambiguation pages, and Avram (name) is not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the dab page gets more traffic than the redirect and the name page combined. This is with nothing linking to it. If Avram (disambiguation) is deleted, what then? Can anyone explain where this traffic is coming from? Josh Parris 14:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most likely to me to be people following incoming links from other-language wikis. As these links appear to be bot-maintained, I expect that deleting the article will cause the links to be deleted and the traffic to cease. Otherwise, assuming we could find the links, we could boldly edit the other-language articles, or request assistance at the host wiki to correct them as appropriate. --MegaSloth (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have extended this title into a disambiguation page, listing the given name, the surname, and the micronation. If users still feel that this page should be deleted, the discussion should take place on an AfD rather than this RfD. Neelix (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this page split has been made, I agree that the disambiguation page is required. It seems pointless to have split such a perfectly serviceable page without extending it at all, however as I said before, that is a topic for anthroponymists. However, the page split has not been done correctly. Neelix (or any other interested party), please correct the following issues, or I will fix things by the most expeditious route, that is, reverting those changes followed by listing at AfD under the same rationale, should this RfD fail as now seems inevitable (no longer necessary as sufficient terms exist anyway --MegaSloth (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  1. Content has been cut-and-pasted from Avram (name) to Avram (given name) andAvram (surname) without proper attribution; please see instructions at Help:Split#Procedure for the correct way to split pages.
  2. Content from the lead sentence of Avram (name) is missing from Avram (given name) and/or Avram (surname), for no readily apparent reason.
  3. Three pages now exist: Avram (given name), Avram (surname) and Avram (name). Clearly the latter should not exist alongside the former.
--MegaSloth (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it stands now, it's a valid dab page. As Neelix said, this would now be a matter for AfD. Boleyn2 (talk) 16:58, 9 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_9&oldid=1150995361"