Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 25, 2012

Runescape Private Servers[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. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. KidXap (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely redirect. I think it would make more sense if points to Runescape.--Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is it an unlikely redirect, I don't see it becoming notable enough in its own right to exist as a standalone article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:59, 4 November 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:Non-free advertisement[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 18:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used at Wikipedia:XfD today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that this "usage" was brought about by this RFD nomination? — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Piotrus. It's useful and in use, and redirects are cheap. No need to delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:09, 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.

Multiple: Possibly faulty bot-generated redirects from romanised chinese characters[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 18:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are a sample of a set of redirects created by the bot User:Eubot in March of 2008. It looks like the intention of the run was to provide redirects from Wade–Giles romanised equivalents of titles containing Chinese characters. While much of the set appear useful, it looks as if the bot failed to recognise cases where characters had been manually romanised. For example based on the (pre-existing) redirect from Wu (無) to Wu, the bot decided to generated a redirects from Wu (Wu ) and Wu (Wu) to Wu (無). I believe there to be between 100 and 150 redirects of this nature, and am looking for concensus in principle to delete any that have no incoming links, substantive edits or other apparent virtue. - TB (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete as bad spaces, and the last one is just weird. Wu (Wu), Xun (Xun),Xiong (Xiong), Yun (Yun) are ambiguous, so could potentially be used as redirects to the disambiguation pages. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible all those with non-standard spacing. I can't see any usage or likely usage of the others listed here, so they can be deleted. I oppose deleting any non-listed redirect with standard spacing using the given rationale though - "no apparent value" is just too woolly and vague. How many redirects are left when the badly spaced ones removed from the list? Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eubot created many redirects containing extra (or missing) spaces around brackets - it seems to have variously created redirects to titles like Wibble (U.S.) from Wibble (US ), Wibble (U S ) and Wibble (U. S. ) in addition to more feasible Wibble (US). The set I'm discussing here does contain some of these (for example Wu (Wu )), but I'm far more interested here in testing RfD's opinion of the redirects containing duplicated Wade-Giles romanisation, i.e. Wu (Wu) generated to supplement Wu (無). - TB (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I can't imagine why anyone would search for something like Wu (Wu). Siuenti (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eubot made a lot of faulty redirects to star articles as well... Where a Latin-Letter + Constellation was redirected to Greek Letter + Constellation star article, except that this in unacceptable in astronomy, because the Latin Letter form is a different star according to the Bayer designation nomenclature, which uses both Latin and Greek letters to name stars (and upper-case and lower-case latin letters are different names under this system) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a few examples, I'll try and run off a report listing such redirects. We can then decide how best to put things right. - TB (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Self-reply) I've checked for these now; there are no redirects of the form "Latin letter + Constellation" -> "Greek letter + Constellation" in the database, regardless of case (typographical or grammatical). If Eubot created any, they've already been deleted. - TB (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's been a something of a headache to WPAstronomy for years (with someone finding one and correcting it on the spot, or bringing it for deletion, piecemeal) As the last one was reported this summer, I had expected some to still exist. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:21, 29 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.

Axl Rose Party[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. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd one. The redirect was created in 2007, then turned into what appears to be a joke page lampooning Axl Rose, then re-redirected. Then it sat for 5 years, before it was blanked and tagged as an AFD this morning. I restored it, but can't shake the feeling that it has absolutely no value whatsoever. More importantly, the term is not referenced and does not appear at all in the target article. If it's just a joke term playing on the lead singer's name, then WP:BLP comes into play as well. I'm not a GnR guy, so I have no idea if this is a valid search term for the band (or associated with it), and google is less than helpful. I'm inclined to recommend that this be Deleted, but am certainly open to being set straight if there's something I'm missing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unlikely redirect. Based on the nom, this was based on a joke article rather than actual common use.--Lenticel (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
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.

45 years war[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. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per deletion criteria #8: neologism of no value Constantine ✍ 12:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have a general aversion to new coinages of the form 'X Years War'. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:57, 27 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.

XI Century Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars[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, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per deletion criteria #8: neologism of no value Constantine ✍ 12:26, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_25&oldid=1138578506"