Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2011

Talk:Mata Sundari[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 Redirect removed by Sin un nomine. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for Mata Sundari currently redirects to the talk page for Mata Jito. These articles are overlapping and should be merged, but the redirect needs to be removed so that discussion of the merger can take place on the correct Talk page HistoryStudent113(talk to me) 22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may because only until a few days ago, the article for Mata Sundari redirected readers to the article on Mata Jito. There was some confusion that these are two different names of a person. That didn't seem to be the case when I didn't some online research (WATCH: REFERENCES). And therefore I found it becoming to separate them. When I was doing that it slipped out of my mind to separate the TALK PAGES too. That's what I think is at the root of the problem. Can you separate TALK PAGES? In the mean time I try find out how to do that. :)
Sin un nomine (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am by far an expert on the subject but one article mentions that they are the same person, and the other says they may be different people. Evidentally more research is needed. Either way, that's the discussion for the talk page once the redirect is gone. HistoryStudent113(talk to me) 04:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide me a link to a source that says Mata Jito and Mata Sundari are just two different names of a person? Polygamy was common in India when Guru Gobind Singh lived. There is a controversy now because of changed attitudes towards the practice. And this has resulted in many Sikhs trying to rewrite the history to show the tenth guru wasn't polygamous. That's what I think the confusion has arisen from. It's just what I think and I may be wrong or I may be right.
I separated the articles because in one of William Hewat McLeod's works it's written that "Sahib Kaur was the third of Guru Gobind Singh's three wives." This implicits Mata Jito and Sundari couldn't be the names of one person, else how would you account for three wives? :)
So what do you suggest now? Should there be two separate TALK PAGES? I am for it.
Sin un nomine (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undo redirect and have separate talk pages - while there are two separate articles each should have its own talk page. The debate over the future of the articles should take place around the articles and the talk pages should follow the result of that discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undid the redirect.
Sin un nomine (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Co Za Asy[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. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the creator of this redirect who said it is a polish phrase meme. I have never seen a foreign language meme as a redirect. Pass a Method talk 18:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Pass a Method talk 18:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Co za asy is a polish phrase that became a YouTube meme earlier this year. These links explain a bit more about the origin of its use: [1][2]. Given that this redirect was used over 100 times in the past month and that it's the sort of thing that readers might look up if they hadn't heard of it, I'd urge keeping it, since redirects are cheap. I concede that the destination of the redirect isn't exactly ideal, as it would be best if there were more of an explanation of the phrase on the landing page. Gobonobo T C 18:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If the meme was explained in the target (and perhaps it should be) then the redirect would be fine. But redirects should not be a route to external links. Since (at the mo') we have nothing to offer on the meme in the text of any article then it should be deleted until there is. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ernst Honigmann[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. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects a page which already in exists RohG ??· 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yivli Minare Mosque[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 Retarget to Alaaddin Camii. Technically correct or not, as Bridgeplayer points out, the expression is in common use and so is a likely search term. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wrong name. The Yivli Minaret architecturally and religiously accompanies the Alaadin Mosque or "Grand Mosque". Using the term "Yivli Minaret Mosque" is wholly incorrect and conveys the wrong impression. Worse, there are a LOT of links to this which someone will have to correct. On one hand, it's hard to get enthused, but on the other, incorrect information will be replaced with correct naming. Student7 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Alaaddin Camii to avoid double redirect. This was the long-standing article name until the nominator moved the page. Consequently deletion is likely to break links in mirrors. It is is plausible search term as can be seen from its widespread usage. The fact that it is not a technically correct term is not relevant; redirects are neutral search aids only. It is the job of the article to explain the exact meaning not for the redirect. This redirect does its job of getting the reader to the correct place. The many redirects is mainly because of its presence in Template:Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and Turkish beyliks which needs fixing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_3&oldid=1144728551"