Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 3[edit]

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

Template:2011 NFC standings[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The title of this redirect could refer to the 2011 NFC North, South or West standings, or even those of the NFC as a whole, as well as the NFC East. Due to the ambiguity, this redirect should be deleted. – PeeJay 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

NZ:POL[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirects. We don't need a "NZ:" pseudo namespace... Mhiji (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WPSS:JOVE[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 delete per G7. Mhiji 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. We don't need a "WPSS:" pseudo namespace... Mhiji (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless there is a better shortcut. We need at least one shortcut for this Taskforce to be available. If this is not an appropriate notation, please input a better one.--Novus Orator 05:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:SSJ? Mhiji 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to WP:SS/J, the most common format for doing sub-project, sub-guideline, etc., pages. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Althought Wikiproject Solar System is at WP:SOLAR. So it should be WP:SOLAR/J. WP:SS links to WP:Manual of Style (summary style). Mhiji 09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will delete the redirect and redo it as WP:SOLAR/J. Thanks for the assistance.--Novus Orator 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MoS:[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 No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. MOS:J, MOS:NUM, MOS:MATH, MOS:IMAGES, MOS:DATE, MOS:DAB, Mos:dab, MOS:UNLINKYEARS already exist. Mhiji (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all in this series. We don't use lower case in pseudo-namespaces. Mhiji, please combine all this into one group nomination (you can use {{anchors}} to keep the named section links working, w/o having to change anything in the nomination templates at the redirect pages). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They were created in good faith at a time when the capitalization rule was not so strict. They do no harm and may do some minor good. Capitalization variants are an accepted use for redirects. We do not, of course, want to preemptively create such redirects but once created there is no reason to delete them. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What possible "minor good" could they do? For each one, there is the same redirect in the conventional form which I've listed above. If only MOS:NUM existed (and MoS:NUM didn't), the search on Wikipedia will still go to the same page whether you type in MOS:NUM, MoS:NUM, mOs:Num, MoS:nUM, etc etc. The only reason the stats link above shows up as getting lots of hits is that http://stats.grok.se isn't case sensitive. This would show up the same whether these existed or not. There's no need to have an MoS: namespace. They are not useful to anyone. If you feel that we shouldn't now create MoS: redirects, then you must agree these shouldn't have been created in the first place. If they shouldn't have been created, they should be deleted. Mhiji 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your last sentence that "If they shouldn't have been created, they should be deleted" is the error. While many redirects would not be preemptively created if we had to do it over, deleting them is more trouble than it's worth. Any minor value to any user is enough reason to keep a non-harmful redirect. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Brion Vibber Day[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. If the page is not notable enough to be in article space, then there should not be a redirect there to another namespace Mhiji (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- user has since left...Smallman12q (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created far more recently than both the Wikipedia namespace and the day, so there is no reason to keep it around. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

沙盒[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary, non-English cross namespace redirect Mhiji (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally made the redirect after a request (I can't recall whether it was at RFPP) that it be protected because Chinese users were mistaking it for the sandbox. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 20:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been around since 2008, which means we should have a good reason to delete it. Looking at the stats, it is very well used - 70-90 hits most months, over 300 in September. Unless it's needed for an article, then there is no need to disrupt all these people. If it is needed for an article, then replace it with a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was viewed 112 times in September... Mhiji 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, the "300" was a thinko, I meant "100" (as I was writing it, a friend on msn posted about receiving 300 spam emails). Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's getting hits, and Jeremy's rationale for creation shows that it's useful for another reason as well. Look at the deletion log for this title; it was used as a sandbox as far back as 2005. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt "sandbox" is not a concept originating from, restricted to, or primarily related to Chinese. The Chinese page zh:沙盒 is not a Wikipedia sandbox either. The chinese wikipedia sandbox is at zh:维基百科:沙盒 . If a chinese user were looking for sandbox, this redirect would be extremely unhelpful. WP:沙盒 does not exist, so if the correct namespace redirect does not exist, why should the wrong namespace redirect exist? If you want Chinese users to access a sandbox, then it should be zh:Wikipedia:沙盒, and they would be softredirected there. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reality of the situation is, however, a softdirect isn't really plausible here (I don't believe policy allows us to redirect to other-language wikis)especially because the deletion log makes it patently clear Chinese users have been rotuinely mistaking this title for Wikipedia's sandbox, even without the namespace modifier. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 20:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should be salted to prevent people from sandboxing Chinese-language articles there. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, that's the thing; at present the redirect already prevents them from sandboxing anything there, let alone Chinese-language articles, so why delete and salt it when it, as a redirect to the actual sandbox, is doing its job? Especially since the sandbox is largely not bound to the same rules as the encyclopedia proper? —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is the English Wikipedia for one thing. Or should we have a redirect from whatever the word for sandbox is for every language in creation, to WP:Sandbox? And that still doesn't address the fact that it isn't the sandbox article, so any user expecting a real article won't get it, since most of the foreign language redirects (aside from this one) redirect to the English named article. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion log shows that this redirect is doing an effective job of pointing editors to the page they really want and preempting the repeated creation of pages which must then be nominated and deleted. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

INTRO:GUIDE[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 --Taelus (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirects. We don't need a "INTRO:" pseudo namespace... Mhiji (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. These have all been around a year and get 30-40 hits a month at least. I see no reason why we shouldn't have an INTRO pseudo-namespace if people find it useful (and it seems they do). RfD is not the place to set policy on cross-namespace redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one is trying to set policy on cross-namespace redirects...? The reason they get as many hits as they do is that they are linked to from the 2 target pages. If the links on the 2 target pages were changed to Help:TI and Help:PG or something similar, then these could be removed from there and then would be unnecessary and could be deleted. We have a small number of pseudo namespace prefixes (see Wikipedia:Shortcut#List_of_prefixes), which are useful to provide a quick way to access pages (e.g. an editor only has to type "CAT:" rather than the whole word "Category:"). "INTRO:" isn't even short ("Help:" is shorter!). Pseudo-namespace prefixes are to save time when typing. Having an "INTRO:" prefix (when "Help:" can be used) just doesn't make sense... Mhiji 22:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project for most of the discussion that happened last year around this (re development of introductions and helpspace expansion). The plans were a little more grand than they turned out, but it doesn't hurt anything to keep. JoeSmack Talk 04:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. It was an interesting experiment and even if it didn't pan out, it's still part of the project's history. There is no real potential for confusion here. The opinion that they are "unnecessary" is not a valid reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Red Faction (category)[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 --Taelus (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. Mhiji (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a precedent we don't want to encourage imho. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Books:Index[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. We don't need a "Books:" pseudo namespace... Mhiji (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm very surprised that books: isn't an interwiki prefix to Wikibooks. WP:Books would seem a far more useful shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikitendo[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP and it's unnecessary and cross-namespace. Mhiji (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. This has been around since 2006 and gets a limited amount of use (typically 20-30 hits per month). It was considered as part of two group nominations of redirects to portal space in 2007, with outcomes of "keep, for now" and "no consensus". Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I agree to an extent with the nominator, but it isn't one of the most problematic types of cross namespace redirect as it remains in the 'content' domain. --Taelus (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

IP:TSA[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect. We don't need a "IP:" pseudo namespace... Mhiji (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, virtually never used, and doesn't make sense anyway: how would the "I" in "IP" correspond to anything in "Portal"? If it's meant to correspond to "India", we really don't need a pseudonamespace just for the India portal. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MOS:[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) 00:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirects which do not link to Manual of Style pages. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#MOS:POKER, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_21#MOS:DERM and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_13#MOS:DABCU. Mhiji (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep MOS:BETTER this has lots of incomming links and gets lots of use. Keep MOS:TR and MOS:TTR - these are both moderately well used and have incomming links. Weak keep the rest, as all the targets could plausibly be part of the manual of style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But per the comments at the previous discussions, "MOS:" pseudo-namespace redirects should redirect to Manual of Style pages - it's confusing and potentially deceptive when they don't. We shouldn't be keeping these because they might "be part of the manual of style" - the point is they aren't part of MOS. We shouldn't be passing them off to be MOS pages when they aren't. There might be a couple of pages here which could possibly be incorporated within MOS, but unless they are, these redirects shouldn't exist. Mhiji 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the page stats for MOS:BETTER are misleading since I added a RfD tag to it on 21 December but didn't list it at RfD. The tag was subsequently removed a week after it was added as the nom had not been completed. There was also a discussion on my talk page regarding it. So the majority of the page views in the latter half of the month were probably by me or by User:SMcCandlish. The first half of December and the months before show a better reflection of its usage. Mhiji 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom except for pages adopted into the MoS before this closes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Update: I've started discussion of the elevation-to-MoS-status idea at WT:WPMOS. 06:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAVOR ELEVATION AND INTEGRATION of better articles, rest of it don't know or care: I think the current style guide is very heavy on granular rules but light on some of the higher level things needed to drive better articles. I'm in favor of having those things better adressed and more attention put on them. Endless debates about curly quotes and then people don't want to talk about how themes should be developed in a composition? Well, it's probably harder to be White than Strunk, but still really needed. Or even just look at the stuff on Harbrace guide or a few other books on how to write well. It's obvious the project needs that stuff. Yeah, it's not "easy", but it's needed. If we cold make the elevation a positive, I would be all for it. Or the other alternative would be to put it all in TonyS's user space so people can't mess with it.  ;)TCO (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Some of the target pages used to be Manual of Style pages, others are currently in the Wikipedia space but based on their content could be equally well categorized as MOS pages. Regardless, they are helpful to our readers and create no serious potential for confusion. The difference between an MOS page and a Wikipedia page is not one that most readers know or care about. They just want to find the answer they need. If these redirects help even a little bit, leave them be. They do no harm. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right.... if no-one cares about whether a page is an MOS one or a standard project page, we might as well scrap the MOS altogether then! Mhiji 01:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also mine and others comments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#MOS:ALT. Sorry I should have listed them together really... Mhiji 12:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for MOS:BETTER, which explicitly deals with stylistic advice for editors; therefore, it is plausible that one might believe it is in the Manual of Style. Weak keep for everything else—while it's quite clear they are not stylistic guidelines, many casual editors may not have made the distinction between MOS guidelines, editing guidelines, and content guidelines, and they could easily lump them all under the sprawling "MoS". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WPYU[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 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. WP:YU already exists. Mhiji (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very likely to conflict with the article space in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until it conflicts and then overwrite the content with a disambiguation page. In the meantime, it is doing no apparent harm and appears to have been created in good faith by an established user so presumably it is useful to him/her. Rossami (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's probably better to avoid leaving a way for a reader to fall out of the 'content' part of Wikipedia into the 'project' part. Those who actually would want to find project pages would most likely be familiar with the WP:YU style of link. --Taelus (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Taelus. In this case, we should favor reducing the chance for reader confusion over the slight convenience of not having to type in a colon (done probably by only one or two editors, I should think). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gordon Brown's favourite cookie[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 a WP:POINT violation.  狐 FOX  01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this redirect? It's pretty useless IMO. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator rhetorically suggested creation of such named article where a redirect is more appropriate. Does not violate WP:R2 or WP:R3. The term "biscuit" is more appropriate than "cookie" in the United Kingdom, but I am uninclined to create a double-redirect. KimChee (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bird's Foot[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 RESULT was converted to disambiguation page. Orlady (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this to RfD to sort out the mess here. There are several plants whose common names include the term "bird's foot", which is sometimes (seemingly less commonly) replaced with "crow's foot". These plants are listed at Crow foot, which I have just fixed up. Bird's-foot redirects to Ornithopus perpusillus. No other bird foot redirects exist.

The question here is, does "bird foot" or "bird's foot" deserve its own disambiguation page? Or should the terms be redirected to crow's foot? Plant nomenclature and WP disambiguation page guidelines are two areas with which I am relatively unfamiliar. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely disambiguate - a user typing in that search term might be looking for any number of things, and should have the all of the potential targets (including the Texas town, the various plants, and the foot of birds) laid out in one place. bd2412 T 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per BD2412, this sort of situation is why we have disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have disambiguated the redirect, see if my entries are okay or if you could add more.--Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. Shall we move it to "Bird foot" to fit in with the other disambig pages, or "Bird's foot" as a second preference? Also, it seems a bit odd to have the plants listed both on crow foot and Bird's Foot? — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think moving it to "Bird foot" is okay with "Bird's foot" as a redirect. The plants are interchangeably called crow foot and bird's foot, kinda weird actually. However, since the plants are both called by both names they should belong to both dab pages.--Lenticel (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Teenies[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 Teeny. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improbable name for the decade. As far as I can tell, it's never been in the target article., even though the redirect has been here about a year. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twen-teens[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improbable usage. Not in article. Never been in target article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twenty twelve[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. Given the ambiguity discussed below, I am going to retarget to 2012 (disambiguation) but only as an ordinary-editor action. Rossami (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Could be the year 2012 or the number 2012 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's not an article at 2012 (number) so I don't really see why there is an issue... Mhiji (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an acceptable reason to disambiguate to [[2000 (number)|2012]] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing about the number 2012 at 2000 (number)... If there was, a hatnote at 2012 or just simply a link from 2012 (disambiguation) would be sufficient (this is already linked to from 2012). Mhiji (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there was, before I deleted the current years (2009–2012, replacing 2008–2011 around the first of the year) from 2000 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems fairly intuitive that the primary meaning for this term will be the year. If other possible targets exist, a disambiguation page can be created a hatnote away. bd2412 T 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not generally provide year-number-in-words as redirects. For example, the only "Nineteen ninety ..." possible year redirects are Nineteen Ninety-Four and Nineteen ninety seven, neither of which redirects to the year, and the only "Nineteen eighty ..." possible year redirects are Nineteen Eighty-Four, Nineteen Eighty-Five, and Nineteen Eighty Seven, none of which redirect to the year. "Twenty twelve" is a march down a road I do not think Wikipedia should go. Besides, with equal plausibility, it could refer to 20/12 vision. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my rationale at two thousand eleven. There's no good reason to delete a reasonable redirect. If 2012 (number) is created, the redirect can be turned into a disambiguation page. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Two thousand eleven[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. Since the only reference to 2011 on 2000 (number) (the page to which 2011 (number) redirects) is a mention that it is part of a sexy prime pair, I am unconvinced by the arguments to disambiguate but that is an ordinary-editor decision and should be discussed further on the article's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disambiguate. Could be the year 2011 or the number 2011 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's not an article at 2011 (number) (it's just a redirect) so I don't really see why there is an issue... Mhiji (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good reason to disambiguate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wouldn't... We create dab pages to disambiguate between existing articles. There's no need for a dab page here and I can't see any reason to delete. I've been bold and added a hatnote to 2011. I think that's sufficient. Mhiji (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dab pages exist to pages with existing topics. The page itself does not need to be an article in an of itself the topic referred to by the dab page. It could just be a section on that page. Otherwise you'd never find any information on wikipedia if you restricted it to needing a separate page to exist. Lots of topics exist as sections of larger topic articles. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not generally provide year-number-in-words as redirects. For example, the only "Nineteen ninety ..." possible year redirects are Nineteen Ninety-Four and Nineteen ninety seven, neither of which redirects to the year, and the only "Nineteen eighty ..." possible year redirects are Nineteen Eighty-Four, Nineteen Eighty-Five, and Nineteen Eighty Seven, none of which redirect to the year. "Two thousand eleven" is a march down a road I do not think Wikipedia should go. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? That's no reason to delete. Redirects are cheap. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a pretty poor argument. Mhiji 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST nullifies the reason for the redirect to exist, and it is recently created by an editor who has few, if any, constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact an editor has created the redirect shows that someone finds it useful - that's definitely a reason to keep. No-one has yet provided a valid reason to delete... Mhiji 17:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The editor who created it has few, if any, constructive edits to his credit. I don't believe we can assume that his creating it means that even he (would) find it useful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a reasonable thing to search for and the year is a logical target for the search. I can see no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and disambiguate It is not wholly implausible that a reader might type in the number as a word. Obviously, if they do that then we don't know if they are looking for the number or the year, and in that case a disambiguation page would be appropriate (unless consensus is that the year is the primary topic). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (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/2011_January_3&oldid=1143528302"