Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 1, 2010

Template:Suite Life of Zack & Cody[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect (maintenance deletion). Template was created in August 2010 by an editor who insisted that two templates were needed when one could do, and was doing, the work of both. Was redirected to {{The Suite Life}} four hours after creation and was never used in any articles. No links to it, serves no useful purpose. AussieLegend (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Suite Life on Deck[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect (maintenance deletion). Template was created in August 2010 by an editor who insisted that two templates were needed when one could do, and was doing, the work of both. Was redirected to {{The Suite Life}} four hours after creation and was never used in any articles. No links to it, serves no useful purpose. AussieLegend (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Suite Life on Deck[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect (maintenance deletion). Template was replaced by {{The Suite Life}} in 2009. {{The Suite Life}} is only transcluded to 31 articles and this redirect serves no useful purpose. AussieLegend (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Suite Life of Zack & Cody[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect (maintenance deletion). Template was replaced by {{The Suite Life}} in 2009. {{The Suite Life}} is only transcluded to 31 articles and this redirect serves no useful purpose. AussieLegend (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:The Suite Life of Zack and Cody[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect (maintenance deletion). Title is a misspelling that was corrected when the template was moved to {{The Suite Life of Zack & Cody}} in 2006. That template was replaced by {{The Suite Life}} in 2009. {{The Suite Life}} is only transcluded to 31 articles and this redirect serves no useful purpose. AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Recently created redirects by a semi-bot run by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), contained parenthetical comments. All but the first contain both a concept and its acronym. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have notified the creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I previously notified him that I was going to submit it to RfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We do have a search function, you know, and so does Google, which Wikipedia does very well on. Rd232 talk 18:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom gives no reason to delete: Rd232's reason is irrelevant per "* The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for." Keep, per redirects are cheap. Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Every single one of the redirects gives the target page as the top hit on Wikipedia's internal search. I'd expect this to be true of most if not all redirects of this type. Rd232 talk 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why deliberately delete a page when that action will cause someone extra clicks, and extra page impressions (and have more cost than not deleting)? Redirects are so cheap it's not worth discussing deleting them, unless they are harmful. Note that this is a completely different from saying that the redirects are in any other sense "good", e.g. are worthy of creation. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as recently created, implausible redirects. The chance of anyone typing in the search box "Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification System" is extremely small... Fram (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe but the same is not true of Customer relationship management (CRM). Rich Farmbrough, 11:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't see how that would work. I.e. someone typing 'Customer relationship manage...' into the search box is presumably looking for Customer relationship management and that is the first thing they see so they find it. The Customer relationship management (CRM) does not help them get there, and might even make them think (if they are not familiar with WP's disambiguation policies) "ah, two articles, I should read them both". There's no plausible way a reader would find Customer relationship management (CRM) without also seeing Customer relationship management. So delete.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is people do regularly use "Customer relationship management (CRM)" as a Wikipedia article title. With the redirect in place they will go straight to page they want. This is a Good Thing™. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
You mean in inbound wikilinks? I hadn't thought of that. Any evidence? Rd232 talk 21:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you mean like this: Customer relationship management (CRM) ? If I saw that in an article I was otherwise cleaning up I'd change it to Customer relationship management (CRM) to bypass the redirect. I.e. we don't need redirects like this that editors are meant to put in articles in preference to a direct link.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Redirects which have only a miniscule chance of being used (and saving a single click) are, for all intents and purposes, not really useful. Redirects are not intended, after all, to replace the search function entirely, and these types of redirects can unnecessarily consume time when they appear as an extra listing in the search drop-down list. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Madison-Woolford, Maryland[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 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Madison, Maryland and Woolford, Maryland are separate communities, and they aren't combined for census purposes, as neither is part of a census-designated place. The redirect is left over from a pagemove but doesn't really serve a purpose. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Madison-Woolford" is a name formulation used locally; see here for example. Consequently it is a plausible search term. The fact that it may not be strictly correct is a different, and not relevant, issue. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Stewarty of Kirkcudbright[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: This a misspelled name. There is a valid redirect with the correct name. Rich Rostrom (Talk) 02:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU[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 per WP:CSD#G4. The move without redirect was intentional and noted in my close of the MFD. If you think I'm screwing something up, my talk page is this way, or if you don't want to talk with me about it, deletion review is that way. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Page was moved from here without redirect as a result of this MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU, which concluded it should not appear to be a subpage of WP:AN. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a comment. Redirect was to fix an ANI archive link. Count 4 rename votes, one of which specifically mentioned it would make a good redirect. -- ۩ Mask 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this was nommed for RfD about 10 minutes after it was created... wikistalk much? Anyway, on to other things. -- ۩ Mask 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it as it's in my watchlist: when pages are moved both the old and new addresses appear in the watchlist. And the name does stand out somewhat.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Futbolito[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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirects are in spanish. The second also has an erroneous accent that is incorrect even in spanish. uKER (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC) uKER (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - practice has been to keep redirects of subjects in their native language and non-English words in use in English-language publications. This is neither but a random foreign-language word. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - there appears to be no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 05:07, 9 November 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_November_1&oldid=1053185426"