Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2010

European air passenger taxes[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 by Athaenara as WP:CSD G7. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European shouldn't redirect to German, as it's not the only country. Nolelover It's football season! 22:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please delete the redirect. My intention was to cover all of Europe (summarising the Irish Air Travel Tax, the UK's Air Passenger Duty and others) but I bottled out. -84user (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added {{db-self}} to the redirect to help speedy this. Of course, if anyone want to start such an article, please go ahead! -84user (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lights (musician)[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 closed as wrong forum. This request does not concern a redirect but is, rather, a suggested page move. It should go to WP:RM. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As her legal name is indeed Lights Poxleitner, I think it would be a good idea to have everything moved to that page. For example Beyoncé releases her albums as just Beyoncé, but her article name is Beyoncé Knowles. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

United Republic of India[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. Not mentioned at suggested re-target location. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but I think it needs discussion here, DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete United Republic of India was an article which showed no notability for its subject. It was then redirected to Greater India. "Greater India" is the concept of the spread of Indian cultural influence beyond the boundaries of the political state of India, whereas "United Republic of India" is a proposal for the setting up of a new state incorporating the current territory of India, Pakistan, etc. These are two quite different concepts, and the redirect is totally inappropriate. In my opinion the speedy deletion nomination was perfectly correct. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect was nominated for speedy deletion because the Greater India article makes no mention whatsoever of a "United Republic of India". Restoring the pages prior content would have been inappropriate because there does not seem to be an notability for that topic. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of the Republic of India as plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Numberdis[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) 00:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; cross-namespace redirect for implausible search term, with no incoming links. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – implausible, unhelpful cross-namespace redirect. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Greek National Road 7[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 (non-admin close as no deletions required). Nominator has created an article on Greek National Road 7 to which GR-7 should redirect, and further investigation has revealed that the other redirects to Moreas Freeway are in fact correct.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these redirects should be deleted because of the following reasoning: Greek National Roads like this one were defined and numbered by a 1963 ministerial decision, while freeways like Egnatia Odos were defined by a 2008 decision. There are two different types of Greek roads. Dead3y3 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So are you saying that Greek National Road 7 isn't the Moreas Freeway? In which case, what happened to Greek National Road 7? Did it get closed? torn up? From the looks of it, four roads got merged together to make the Moreas Freeway, so actually what was Greek National Road 7 is now part of the Moreas Freeway. Surely this is an analogous situation to the Manchester Inner Ring Road which subsumed half a dozen pre-existing and new roads to make an orbital around Manchester and Salford. The redirects should only be deleted if the old names have gone completely out of use and no-one remembers them any more. If they remain potential search terms, then they should be retained.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Yes that is what I am saying, that GR-7 and A7 are not the same. And no, the A7 isn't a result of merging. The GR-7 exists until today. The A7 is called New National Road (mistakenly, since it is a freeway, though under construction), and the GR-7 is called Old National Road. To visualize it, check the Map View of the roads of Peloponnese in Google Maps. The A-7 is the road labeled E65 (the european route number) which goes from Corinth directly to Tripoli, while the GR-7 is the one eastern of it, which passes through Argos. (The same are valid for the GR-2 below. What is happening is that in Greece, by law, there must exist toll-free roads, which are usually the GR-XXs, so that motorists can follow them instead of the toll roads AXXs, which are the freeways (motorways)). --Dead3y3 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for clearing that up. And we don't have articles/an article on the Old National Road? Because it strikes me that this would make a better target for these redirects. If there is no valid target, then they certainly need deleting unless we have a top level article on Roads in Greece which explains the toll-free thing you just explained now. In any case, targeting them to a different road that happens to run in the same direction is not helpful.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I searched, there isn't any article about the old national road. --Dead3y3 (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked further, and it seems there is a screw up here going back in time. We have articles on most of the Greek National Roads eg Greek National Road 77 which is a stub. What happened with these articles is that they were chain moved to end up at Moreas Freeway. Since the roads exist, we should keep the redirects, as they are plausible searches. Someone should really recreate all the redirects as stubs, as these roads all exist. An alternative would be to redirect them all to List of Greek roads which at least explains the nature of the different types of roads. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what should be done are the following: a) turn the redirect Greek National 7 into an article, b) change the redirects GR-7, Trípoli-Kalamáta National Road, Tripoli-Kalamata National Road, Old Tripoli-Corinth National Road to that article, c) leave or delete New Tripoli-Corinth National Road redirect. --Dead3y3 (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. I believe you are the one who redirected Greek National 7 to Moreas Freeway (apologies if not, I got a bit confused by the end of the chain). Is it possible to identify the text that needs to be in Greek National 7? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably about here. After that it does seem to get mixed up between it and the Moreas Freeway. Provided you say what you are doing in the edit summary and article talkpage, it is perfectly legitimate to copy that diff back into Greek National Road 7 and re-create the article.
@Elen: Yes I am the one who redirected the GR-7 to Moreas. @Anonymous, Elen: I don't exactly understand what you mean. There isn't any text here in Wikipedia which applies to GR-7. The history section of the Moreas article refers to another National Road which was torn up so the Moreas could be constructed. Unfortunately I cannot identify which road it is, partly due to the mess that is the numbering scheme and the legislation thereof in Greece. I suspect that info exist in the National Road Registry of 1998 of the Hellenic Statistical Authority, which unfortunately does not exist online and I don't have it readily available to find the number of the road. --Dead3y3 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can you create a stub article with a single line of text like Greek National Road 77? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done: User:Dead3y3/Greek National Road 7. I have created it in a temporary user page of me because the discussion is not yet closed, I don't know if I have done right or not. :-( --Dead3y3 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, particularly if you add it at sometime the big template with all the roads navigation on it (as on Moreas Freeway). Just copy (don't try to move) that over the existing redirect on GNR 7 and then repoint all the other redirects. Job done, and we can close this request as having been sorted out (they don't need admin closes if the issue has been resolved and nothing requires deleting)Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I just noticed that all the redirects except GR-7 are correct, because they refer to the no-name road over the same route that Moreas Freeway is, which is described in the history section. So only the GR-7 needs to change. --Dead3y3 (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Greek National Road 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 converted to an article. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these redirects should be deleted because of the following reasoning: Greek National Roads like this one were defined and numbered by a 1963 ministerial decision, while freeways like Egnatia Odos were defined by a 2008 decision. There are two different types of Greek roads. See also the motorways-exitlists.com site. Dead3y3 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Dead3y3. So what's the story here? Does Greek National Road 2 still exist, and should it have at least a stub article? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it still exists. Go to Google Maps and center on Thessaloniki. The one part of the road is the one marked with a white "2" inside a blue rectangle east of the city, and the other part is the one marked with a white "E86" inside a green rectangle. I think we should have a stub article. --Dead3y3 (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the stub article with an infobox road included. It should become clear now that we are referring to two different roads. --Dead3y3 (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I noticed that the German article is very extensive on the subject. Unfortunately my German are not good. --Dead3y3 (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thinking Machines (company)[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the redirect should be deleted as it is an implausible search term. Rilak (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Reason: It's not implausible. Thinking Machines was a company. If a user familiar with wikipedia's disambiguation titling (title+ (genre in parentheses)) knows that it was a company, but does not know it was a "corporation", they might use these terms. (I use the parentheses searching other areas, such as books and films). In any case, "implausible" in RfD guidance is used to describe implausible typos, misnomers and obscure or novel names, not something like this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This redirect is implausible because it has no external usage outside of Wikipedia — eg. real-world usage — Thinking Machines have never referred to themselves as such, and "people" have never referred to Thinking Machines as such. This phrase is an unnatural abomination. It was the result of an unfortunate and poor attempt at disambiguation that has since been succeeded by a new disambiguation scheme that assigns an unambiguous title for Thinking Machines that is based on real-world practices. Thinking Machines and third-parties have referred to the company as "TMC", which is exactly what the present title implies. Can you make an argument that this redirect is founded on historical fact, and that it means anything to anyone who is not deeply familiar with Wikipedia? Such as most people? Additionally, it should be noted this redirect is very recent — the article that used to be where the redirect is was created in late September 2010, I believe, and the present redirect was created on 12 October 2010 as the result of a move. The article that is now Thinking Machines Corporation has been around since 7 September 2002. And for all this time, the sky has not come crashing down because the lack of this obviously critical redirect, this Atlas. Rilak (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Real world usage is not a necessary criterion for redirects, only a very strong one for actual article titles. I'm referring here to the criteria laid out in WP:Redirects for discussion. An aid to searching is one of the criteria for not deleting. Thinking Machines is a defunct company; for those outside of the industry (which is who "most people" actually are) all these details are fading into the mists of time if they were ever there in the first place. Whether or not it was called a corporation or a company might not be obvious to someone looking them up for the first time. (Where I live, by the way, TMC is quite unambiguously the extant Toyota Motor Corporation). I cannot see the harm done by having this as an avenue for finding out about this particular company, and I do not see how this proposal fits in with the criteria for deletion. The world will not come crashing down with this redirect in place. The original title differences, based on whether or not people were capitalising first letters of either of the words thinking machines (and pluralising machines or not), was clearly unhelpful, leading as it did to three or four different pages. I asked for the move because I ended up at the wrong page when - ironically - looking for this company that I had never heard of before. For my sins, I'm not an IT specialist, but then again, neither are Most People. I would rather the encyclopaedia helped people who didn't know things before, rather than already knowing them. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly disagree. This redirect is not an aid to searching, it is an obstacle that clogs up the search suggestions. It needs to be bulldozed. There is no evidence that this redirect is an obvious search term given that the less one knows, the less one is able to come up with. Therefore, obvious search terms are Thinking Machines, TM, or TMC. And let us not forget how we have this redirect to begin with. What is now "Thinking Machines Corporation" used to be at a perfect title, "Thinking Machines". However, TMC was forced from its rightful place by evil robots to the title which is now this redirect, evidently to artificially inflate the importance of Thinking machines (Dune), and to snub TMC. The evil robots have been sent back where they belong, however, due to the need to neutrally accomodate them, we have this present situation. The attempt to snub TMC was achieved by using the title of this redirect, as it is obscure and impluasible. Due to the lack of neutrality in the origins of this redirect, another justification has been found for its deletion. Rilak (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How does it "clog things up"? I don't see "clogging up" in the list of reasons to delete, which is what you need to reference. (And why do you keep insisting that everyone knows about Thinking Machines the company? It's defunct, and has been for over fifteen years) And what's so obscure about considering Thinking Machines to be a company? That's how it's described in the article itself. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And your "list of reasons to delete" includes every possible reason for deletion? And I am not insisting that everyone knows TMC, I am insisting it's more notable than everything else to date that has a similar title. Furthermore, your argument that since TMC is a company, it must have redirects that say so, in parenthesis, is flawed. Do I see IBM (company)? Nope. There is no reason to say what x is in parenthesis in this case, and in many other cases. Rilak (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If IBM enjoyed (?) the level of public awareness of Thinking Machines Corporation, it might just have that qualification on wikipedia. And you still haven't explained clogging up. I can't for the life of me see why this redirect causes any problems at all. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep--this is the name that the company was known by in the press and elsewhere. It's the obvious search term a reader would use. The purpose of redirects is to serve the reader. The other two uses are very minor in comparison. Id suggest changing the disam page at Thinking machines to a redirect also, with a note about other uses. Thee is already one at Thinking Machines (with capitals) DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems plausible enough to me. In any case we should only be deleting redirects if they are harmful and this one is entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – definitely not an implausible redirect. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless redirect. Thinking Machines was a corporation, and a corporation is a type of company, and there is no other plausible target for this redirect, so keeping this redirect doesn't cause any problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 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_October_14&oldid=1196230277"