Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2010

阿勒泰[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 Redirected to Altay. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is. Only the Altay's in Xinjiang (Altay City and Altay Prefecture) can be referred to in Chinese as '阿勒泰'. Some of the other Altay's or Altai's, e.g. Altay people are represented by 阿爾泰/阿尔泰. --华钢琴49 (TALK) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Altay, having a separate disambiguation page for two articles already included in another seems unnecessary—especially when that page is not rendered into Latin figures.--Supertouch (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Altay. The distinction in the Chinese names can be added to the existing page. My view remains that disambiguation pages should have Romanised titles with Chinese redirects as appropriate. Having said this, I think this is the wrong forum - since it is a disambiguation page we are discussing WP:MFD is probably the correct venue. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not completely understand what you mean, but it seems like you wish to list the characters on the Altay disambiguation page? If so, then I disagree, because the non-Xinjiang terms are obviously not Chinese. With regards to listing this here, I initially thought it would be appropriate given that Supertouch almost immediately after page creation re-directed it. Regardless, as of yet, admins shouldn't take any action, because there still might be other arguments for both sides. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is for a proper merge, not simply listing the characters. The present Altay page is a mess and needs significant reorganisation. Your page contains good information that I should not like to see lost. I think that, with some skilful editing, the two pages could be combined to provide a good, informative page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. thank you for the explanation; much clearer now that you have done so. but the [rhetorical] question is, how to combine...? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some structure into Altay which should make it possible to carry out the merge. However, it is better that you merge since you have expertise on the language that I do not. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you very much for your initial work. I still oppose the redirect/merge, but I have no issue in doing so either. so any other guidance points for the merge besides including the characters? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have completed the merge - please feel free to fix my addition if it is not correct. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Politics of Bihar[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 Nomination withdrawn and the sole objector has now moved the discussion to the WP:RM forum. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring a nom from AFD, with the original rationale copied below. For my part, I note that a speedy tag would be declined for any redirect with a non-trivial history, which this one certainly has. No particular opinion on deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have this completely backwards. Bihar's Politics should be at Politics of Bihar. This is a housekeeping delete to move it back to its original proper name. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then this can be withdrawn. The AFD request specifically called for deletion (as with the speedy requests previously declined), so I moved it here for that purpose. Now that your intent is clearer, requested moves is the way to go, as indicated below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Bihar follows:

had speedy-tagged this redirect, as this is the proper naming for the article per WPMOS, now at the incorrectly and badly named Bihar's Politics. Speedy was declined because "redirect has a long history", which is meaningless if the article needs to be occupying that space. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - we don't delete RDs with history without a very good reason. However, if you wish to move the page then go to WP:RM and ask for a move together with a history merge. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very good reason is to move it back to its original proper name. This issue has now been moved around three times, it shouldn't be this troublesome. Wikiocracy at its worst.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your unhappiness, and appreciate that this has been moved around, but this is simply not the right forum, nor was AFD. What you want to do is to carry out a page move over a page with a history. It needs to go to WP:RM firstly to allow interested editors to comment and secondly so that a history merge can be carried out. It is not good practice to delete pages with histories because there are GFDL implications. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Not porn[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 not keep (delete) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre redirect - original didn't seem to make sense, and latest version even less so -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No utility that I can see; I can normally figure out a reason for redirects but this one has me stumped! Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: LOL. Something that you should report to admins immediately. It's called a nonsensical edit. Since only registered users can create pages, the person who created the re-direct needs to be warned. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A warning is not necessary here since it was actually and unregerstered user altering a existing redirect that caused this to page to be targeted at taco. It was originally at on-line puzzle, then puzzle afterword. I believe that it was a refercne to this game [[1]]. Since the puzzle article does not cover this game I don't think we need to keep it, however I beleive the on-line puzzle redirection was to a plasuable target and not an attempt to add nonsense.--76.69.169.100 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kumo (album)[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. There is enough confusion that this is a reasonable search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single, not an album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - way too many incoming links so deletion would be disruptive. Also, as having three tracks, it has been described as a minialbum so it is a foreseeable search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent point but even if the links are culled I still think it should be kept as a foreseeable search term since this is a minalbum. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've corrected the link in the template. "What links here" will probably take some hours to update, as the job queue is currently quite long. --Zundark (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to the article, "Kumo" is the name of the single, but not the name of any song on it. This means that the article title is incorrect, and should probably be Kumo (single), even though we don't normally use "(single)". --Zundark (talk) 08:41, 25 May 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_May_24&oldid=1148047549"