Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 17, 2012

Coleen Daley[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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect essentially creates a circular reference with readers at the target page, following a link that leads them back to the target page.Better to leave it as a Red Link until an actual article can be justified Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you saying that Tweenies has a link to Coleen Daley? In that case, no deletion required, just remove the link. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every other cast member on Tweenies has a red (or blue) link, none of the rest of them redirect back to tweenies, and it's there that an editor is most likely to click on a redlink "Coleen Daley" in order to start an article. In short I don't see removing the link as improving the situation, it simply encourages editors to recreate the link and the problem. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:58, 25 October 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.

Immanuel College (England)[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 Immanuel College. Tikiwont (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Immanuel Colleges in England with Wikipedia articles, the one in Bushey and the one in Yorkshire. See Immanuel College, the disambiguation page. This redirect is therefore misleading. Changing it to point at the disambig page is also a bad idea as it's an implausible typo. I'd speedy it as an implausible typo, but it's been here since 2010, and therefore not "recent"... so here I am. Dweller (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is this an implausible typo? Retarget to Immanuel College as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. TimBentley (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and tag per TimBentley. This is neither a typo nor implausible so speedy deletion would be gregariously wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's implausible that someone would search for "Immanuel College (England)", given that no such institution exists or existed. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anyone familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions might well add the disambiguation term. Siuenti (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I thought there were many Immanuel Colleges in the world, but only one in England, I might put "(England)" after "Immanuel College", hoping to go directly to the English one. Siuenti (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Immanuel College disambiguation page. If we have a more precise title and a less precise title that are both disambiguation pages, it's common to redirect one to the other if we don't want both to remain disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 25 October 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.

Saint Léonard[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 both per nom. Ruslik_Zero 14:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargetting both of these titles to the disambiguation page at Saint-Léonard for consistency between different abbreviations and punctuations. Saint Leonard redirects there as well, as do several other forms [1], strongly indicating that there is no primary topic for this saint's name. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems a better idea than my redirect suggestion. Crusoe704 (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I think that "St. Leonhard" and similar with the "h" should redirect to Leonard of Noblac as you suggest below, but names without the "h" should point to the dab page. I added a hatnote to the L of N article yesterday[2] which should catch those looking for a Leonard searching Leonhard. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 18 October 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.

St. Leonhard[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Leonhard is not mentioned in the Salzburg article's text and there is no discernible reason for this redirect. A better target would be Leonard of Noblac, since Saint Leonhard already redirects there. Crusoe704 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - No issue there. Chris (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.213.186 (talk) [reply]
  • Support. There will be few occasions when redirecting "Saint X" and "St. X" to different places will be the best thing to do. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 17 October 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:ALM[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 12:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template redirects that are no longer used (no transclusions and no links on talkpages) as they are old names and naming styles. Propose deletion for general housekeeping. SeveroTC 12:19, 17 October 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.

Palestinian territories/NPOV version[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clutters up the search page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Golan Heights and Artificial consciousness redirects as obviously no longer useful, the latter possibly qualifies as a G6 speedy. The Palestinian Territories one needs a bit more investigating of where content ended up which I don't have time to do atm so I reserve judgement for now. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as disruptive. If any of the articles in question aren't NPOV, they should be fixed, not subverted with parallel versions. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 24 October 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.

W291BD[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 14:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted as no translators with these callsigns are currently licensed. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if there have been such in the past, then they are valid redirects. I notice that back last year, the article listed "W291BD". The article should include the history of the radio station, not just its current status, since Wikipedia doesn't just document what it, it documents history as well. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, That would be fine if a reliable source could be provided to show when the translator operated, and that it did in fact repeat the programming of WBYO. In fact none of WBYO's translators are listed on their website. The FCC lists a few of the translators that are owned by Four Rivers Community Broadcasting Corporation as repeating the programming of a "The Word FM" station, but not all. --Tdl1060 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_17&oldid=1039428566"