Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2012

Insidious ( 2011 film)[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 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly improbable spelling. There's a space after the first parentheses. uKER (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (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.

Northwest Coast[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 as disambiguation, allows for potential other uses. Salix (talk): 21:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. This page refers to the "Northwest coast" as a region of California, while this article uses the term to mean the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. Presumably various other states and nations also have northwest coasts. So shouldn't this be a dab? But perhaps British Columbia's is the only northwest coast which merits an article, in which case I guess this is fine. – hysteria18 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am not sure either, but would probably go for Delete as a very ambiguous term. You might as well be referring to the north west coast of Scotland or the north west coast of France or the north west coast of Canada. I cannot see that it is a useful search term for someone who wants to find out about north west coasts, but then on the other hand I cannot see how someone would search for that. It just seems odd that the particular one in California takes precedence against all the other north west coasts in the world, and perhaps it should be deleted sooner rather than later. The question is, does it help or hinder a search? California was the 8th biggest economy in the world, I am not sure quite now where it is but will still be somewhere there, but Californians don't rule the planet any more than I do. So I think the question is does it help or hinder searching for things? Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation. The definition used is US-centric. What about North West England's coast? [Disclosure: I am British.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguated I've made a dab for articles related to the redirect term. I'm not that familiar with this geographic term so feel free to add any other landforms that matches this term --Lenticel (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (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.

Miles Out[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. Salix (talk): 21:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page (with correct name) has been created for episode. No need for re-direct. Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Common jargon in British English, to mean completely missing the point, and if no other useful target I see no harm in keeping it. Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that would make it a misleading and incorrect redirect. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew's findings. I think keeping this would only confuse our British readers who are looking for the jargon itself. --Lenticel (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2012 (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.

Magician Ishamudin[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 per France3470 Salix (talk): 20:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible misspelling, the name of the magician should be Ishamuddin Khan. From a Google search, Ishamuddin Khan is not known as Magician Ishamuddin. The article did not mention it either. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 14:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to get quite a bit of use. Not sure what search method you used, but when I typed the names into google, it seemed to me that the results were all about the same person; and as far as I can see "Magician Ishamuddin" and "Magician Ishamudin" are just alternative (perhaps more colloquial) names for Ishamuddin Khan. Although "Ishamuddin" is a more common spelling, "Ishamudin" does seem a used alternative spelling. In my experience, Indian words, names included, are often spelt many different ways. France3470 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2012 (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.

Komsomolskaya (Metro)[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 and add {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Salix (talk): 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect with no prospect of being useful. Artem Karimov (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2012 (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.

Template:Fairuseair/doc[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 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. Redirect was left behind when the author of the template redirected it and then deleted the redirect. Forgot to delete the redirect of the doc page. Routine housekeeping Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Having checked, nothing links here. Seems very much a stub article. Seems to serve no useful purpose. I am an Inclusionist but we are here to make others searching the encyclopaedia easier to find useful articles, and I can't see that this does. Also probably under self-referencing rules, Wikipedia does not refer to itself. Si Trew (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (or at least somehow delete since it's more then 7 days here): indeed routine housekeeping. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (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.

Template:Administrative subdivisions of Quebec/doc[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 Salix (talk): 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. Redirect appears to have been corrected by an author reverting a page move. Appears to be uneeded. Routine housekeeping. Kumioko (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful redirect to useful template. Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it useful? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as routine housekeeping. The only use of this name is to get intercluded into parent template. As the parent doesn't exist, no need in this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (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.

Template:Administrative divisions of Cuba/doc[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 CSD G6, routine house keeping ~Crazytales (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. Redirect appears due to the author self reverting a page move. Uneeded. Routine housekeeping Kumioko (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2012 (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.

Template:/Ety/Part/doc[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 CSD G6 routine housekeeping ~Crazytales (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. Is a redirect to a documentation page that appears to not be used. Kumioko (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2012 (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.
I am the author of this template. It was created as an attempt to standardise the form for etymologies. If it is a redirect, it should go, as it was probably created mistakenly or moved and I forgot to ask the redirect to be removed. But may I please have a quick look and then give you my opinion. The series of {{ety}} were created by myself and another contributor, in the best Wikipedian fashion of contributing together. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I did not mean to modify the discussion. It is right that it is deleted, if it is a redirect. I would have preferred the shorter name but after consensus we went with the longer. There are probably others around there too at {{etymology}} and so on that can also be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think by deleting the redirect you have broken the documentation at Template:Etymology/doc. I will check but it would be handy rather than swiftily deleting a redirect to check what links to them. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_31&oldid=1078791785"