Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2011

Nguyen Van Hung (athlete)[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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Rossami (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The disambiguator (athlete) refers specifically to track and field athletes—participants in other sports are disambiguated using the name of the specific sport—so this is not an appropriate redirect for a martial artist. Additionally, the two current article-space incoming links refer to a Vietnamese triple jumper, so deleting this redirect would create a useful red link. ShelfSkewed Talk 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Write a stub about the triple jumper at the (athlete) title and add a hatnote to the martial artist. The redirect is inaccurate, and I would suggest a deletion to leave an encouraging redlink, but it's getting lots of views so I think having something at this title is the best course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, why not? Done. Anybody know how to close this thing? --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dittmannsdorf[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 10:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrong redirect because wrong town 77.235.181.33 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does appear to be a mistake. The german name for that Czech town is Dittmarsdorf. The mistake would be plausible except that there is a Dittmannsdorf in Sachsen, Germany (northwest of Dresden). Unfortunately, I couldn't find enough reliable sources to do more than prove the existence of the placename. So overwrite with content if anyone can find enough for a stub before the closure of the discussion, otherwise return to redlink. Rossami (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:*Kat*/sandbox[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 speedily deleted as it's in userspace. Next time, you can just tag it with {{db-u1}}. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I use this sandbox for other things....and because while today was the first time I've forgotten that it redirected to a for-real article, it probably won't be the last. *Kat* (meow?) 06:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cairo Intercontinental Hotel[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 10:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, possible misleading. IQinn (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This and the next two redirects were created by a user whose contribution history is currently under discussion here. In light of that discussion, perhaps the nominations should be deferred temporarily? If the discussion here does proceed, the similar nature of the cases would suggest that the nominations should be merged. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing similar between this RFCU and this redirect discussion. The discussion here is about the content (redirect). Nothing else. IQinn (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The similarity I saw was between this nomination and the two immediately below. Apologies for my sloppy wording. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete - The redirect is misleading and is not needed. It is akin to redirecting building to Empire State Building. It makes no sense.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tunisian guest house, Afghanistan[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 10:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. IQinn (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The redirect is misleading and is not needed. It is akin to redirecting building to Empire State Building. It makes no sense.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Egyptian guesthouse[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 WP:CSD#G7 at author request. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General term that should either be deleted or redirected to an Egypt related article. IQinn (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wang-t'an-shih[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 Wang Tanzhi as suggested. Ruslik_Zero 10:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Wang-t'an-shih", which is Wade-Giles for "Wangtan Shi", or Wangtan City, implies that this Wangtan is a city, when it is in fact a town (王坛镇; Wangtan Zhen). See this link, if you can read Chinese. HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article says it is a city. If the article is wrong, you should have corrected it first, but as it stands, from your interpretation of the meaning of the redirect, it correctly targets the article. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should have given me SOME time to correct the original mistake, instead of pouncing. I was in fact editing that page when you came in baring here. And thank you very much for attempting to illegitimately speak for me. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, you should have fixed the page first. You nominated the redirect first, and when I checked the page, it was still valid. As it was valid when I registered my opinion, I saw no reason for it being deleted. You had time to correct the article before nominating the redirect. After nominating the redirect, you should be expecting people to lodge opinions based on the state of affairs at the time you lodged the request for deletion and afterwards. The period for lodging opinions opens immediately after you file, not some unspecified waiting period after you file the request. It's also not like you slapped an {{underconstruction}} on it to indicate you were changing the article. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • ok. in light of this misunderstanding, I have retracted that rant. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed my objection since the article has been changed. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The distinction between city and town is to a degree arbitrary and changeable over time. In this case, external sources such as this and this explicitly identify the placename as Wang-t'an-shih. Other sources such as this, this and this identify both names as variants. (Of the sources identified so far, I consider the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's page to most authoritative.)
    Having said that, google turns up a number of scholarly references such as this to a 4th century high official of the same name. If the notability of the historical person can be confirmed, the best answer may be to overwrite with biographical content and hatnote the placename. Rossami (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in China is the distinction between city and town arbitrary. The Chinese terms should be very clear in this case (镇 vs. 市). Not translating correctly would do a flagrant injustice to the native name. As any 市 (city), 镇 (town), or 村 (village) can be mentioned without those respective terms, the potential for falsification, like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency does, arises. And, per WP:BALL, we should not be predicting that this town will ever grow to such size that is called a "市" in Chinese. Lastly, I haven't even mentioned that there are certain standards on which a regular prefecture needs to become a prefecture-level city.--HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your search, as I was writing 王坦之 in the search-bar of my Chrome browser, there was indeed an autofill suggestion, which implies that this official does have some notability. Indeed, there even is an article on the Chinese Wikipedia on him. In light of this, I still oppose any hatnote or mention of Wangtan Town on the new biography. That would be an outright factual inaccuracy. And finally, though you have stalled me twice, I thank you for the suggestion. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to new article, Wang Tanzhi (王坦之), per Rossami's suggestion and my arguments on the distinction between "city" and "town" in China. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A retarget would be fine, provided a stub is created first. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the new article was created, can someone retarget this to the new article and close this? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is procedural bad practise to remove the RFD template of a nominated re-direct when the corresponding RFD has not been closed. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an expired RFD (it timed out on the 25th of March), therefore someone uninvolved (ie, not you or me) can process the redirect and close the discussion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:58, 31 March 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_March_18&oldid=1142587634"