Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2010

Template:Connecticut Huskies basketball coach navbox[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) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, all transclusions of this template redirect have been replaced with the new Template:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball coach navbox. Confusing as it does not disambiguate between Connecticut Huskies men's and women's basketball. –Grondemar 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:ConnecticutBasketballCoach[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) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, all transclusions of this template redirect have been replaced with the new Template:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball coach navbox. Confusing as it does not disambiguate between Connecticut Huskies men's and women's basketball. –Grondemar 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black River, Ontario (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 speedy deleted as moot by BD2412; page converted from redirect to set index. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page. This is an unnecessary redirect page that was created in good faith but in error when Black River (Ontario), an article about several rivers of that name in Ontario, was moved in good faith but erroneously to Black River, Ontario, which should be about settlements (rivers take parentheses and settlements take a comma per WP:CSG and WP:RIVER). The rivers article has been moved back to Black River (Ontario), and content has been added to the Black River, Ontario article describing the single settlement of that name in Ontario. Both the rivers and the settlement article have {{Otherplaces3}} templates that point to a master disambiguation page at Black River. There are no links to Black River, Ontario (disambiguation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui1che (talk • contribs)

  • The reason there are no links to Black River, Ontario (disambiguation) is that Qui1che removed one and thereby improperly created a mainspace disambig link at Black River, which will now have to be put back on the list of pages needing repair. There is a very good reason why we fix intentional links from disambig pages to run through a "foo (disambiguation)" redirect. It prevents those links from perpetually showing up on the lists of links needing to be fixed, and makes the job of our hardworking disambiguators much easier. We have nearly a million disambiguation pages to fix, and actions like this screw up the entire system. As it stands, Black River (Ontario) is neither a proper disambig page, nor a proper article, and will also need to be referred for repair. bd2412 T 19:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments BD2412. I think I see your point having looked at, amongst other info, Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links#Current_disambiguation_collaborations. Does either: moving "Black River, Ontario (disambiguation)" to "Black River (Ontario) (disambiguation)" and changing the content to redirect to "Black River (Ontario)", or creating "Black River (Ontario) (disambiguation)" page fresh as a redirect to "Black River (Ontario)" and deleting "Black River, Ontario (disambiguation)", then using the "Black River (Ontario) (disambiguation)" page as the "foo (disambiguation)" redirect at Black River make sense? Not certain if naming a page with two sets of items in parentheses is considered good practice.--papageno (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion stems from the fact that Black River (Ontario) was incorrectly tagged as a disambiguation page when in fact it was a set index article. I've changed the tag, based on a request for help at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Black River (Ontario), and changed the hatnotes on the community's and the rivers' articles so that they point to each other. So I think the question is now moot as there's no further need for Black River, Ontario (disambiguation) either as an intentional dablink redirect or as an actual dab page for only two items. I think it can be safely deleted. Station1 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this resolution. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done Station1 and BD2412. Now I know what a set index article is, and have learned of the {{SIA}} template. I guess someone who is an administrator will need to effect the deletion of "Black River, Ontario (disambiguation)". --papageno (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Boiled ham[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 Re-targeted to Ham. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The York ham is boiled but evidence suggests a general cooking technique for which I cannot find a target. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ham. The article on York actually says that "York ham" is "a type of boiled ham", indicating that it does not define the class. bd2412 T 16:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ham. A logical destination. I have to say that the coverage of types of ham does need to be improved. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ham per above—logical target. –Grondemar 23:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

English ham[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. If a section on England is added to Ham, then this should be recreated and pointed to there. However, in the absence of any discussion on it at that target, re-targeting is not appropriate as it would be confusing to our readers. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on York mentions a "York ham" but there's no evidence that the latter is referred to generically as "English ham". Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Hugh Grant. No, wait, that would be too POV; delete. bd2412 T 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ham. There needs to be a section on the UK at the target; a start can be made by moving ham content from York. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Agios Vissaros[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent connection between term and any of the target topics (all of which are red links). bd2412 T 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find the connection between this two terms in Google.--Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the redirect and the target. I, also, cannot find a connection between the two subjects. The target, a disambiguation page between two red links, is unhelpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Access 2[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 Re-targeted Access II to Access (group) and Access 2 to Microsoft Access. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confusing. If there is a legitimate target for "Access 2" (or "II"), users won't find it on the target page. bd2412 T 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Retarget per anon and Bridgeplayer or Convert one to disambig and retarget the other redirect to it.--Lenticel (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Across the Neck[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) 22:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent connection between term and any of the target topics. bd2412 T 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... Google search says that Niagra came from the Indian word Neagra which means across the neck. If someone will ref and add that to the article then Retarget to Niagara falls. Otherwise Delete.--Lenticel (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on Niagara Falls says that the leading theory is that the name "is derived from the name given to a branch of the locally residing native Neutral Confederacy, who are described as being called the "Niagagarega" people on several late 17th century French maps of the area". I think "Across the Neck" is probably a red herring, but if it has some advocates, I suppose it should be mentioned in the article as a debunked idea. bd2412 T 16:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Likewise, prepared to change my !vote if some sourced content is added to the target. But, at the moment, it's just plain confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Abidianus[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent connection between term and any of the target topics. bd2412 T 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Create an Article or Delete According to catholic.org, Abidianus was martyred together with Quirinus in Africa. I think it would be better if someone will create an article for this saint.--Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing since there is no clear connection with the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Abhichara[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or delete. No apparent connection to topics on the disambig page to which this term currently redirects. Apparently has to do with Buddhism (there is also a village in India named Abhicharan). bd2412 T 14:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Black magic if info on Hindi black magic is added to the article. Otherwise delete.--Lenticel (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently also one of the black arts[1] but we need some explanation in any target otherwise the searcher is confused as to why they have been sent in a particular direction. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

States with name Clinton[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect or typo Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 30 July 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_July_30&oldid=1138577325"