Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2014.

Florida State Road 176[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. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as well as buddies State Road 176 (Florida) and SR 176 (FL)). Per the references I added, the former unsourced information about SR 742 formerly being numbered SR 176 is false. NE2 21:57, 28 February 2014 (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.

West Sound (AM)[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. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created by me in error as part of page move, West Sound --> West Sound (AM), should have been to West Sound AM, which it is now. Only a couple days old. TJRC (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Perfectly valid and useful redirect. In fact, speaking of which, I'm now going to create West Sound (FM). Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps I am a blind squirrel. I have no objection to it being kept if it's deemed useful, I just wanted to clean up after myself. TJRC (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2014 (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.

Ба[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. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ancient Egypt is not related to whichever language this is. Gorobay (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to Wiktionary, this means "and" (pronounced /ba/) in Mongolian and, depending on context, "at", "to", "in" or "for" (pronounced bæ in Tajik. I'm guessing it's a phonetic transcription of Ba into some language using Cyrillic? The only Cyrillic-using language that has an interwiki link to the target article is Macedonian. That article is a stub and uses the word "Ба" so many times that it looks to be a function word similar to the words in Mongolian and Tajik. Completely implausible as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ancient Egyptian is not connected to Cyrillic in any meaningful way. Ancient Egyptian is transcribed with Latin letters in English-language Egyptology, and Unicode has an Egyptian Hieroglyphic code block, so Cyrillic is not needed for transcriptions. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2014 (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.

Ацетамид[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. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not related to these languages. Gorobay (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this chemical has no affinity for Cyrillic -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we are planning to have Cyrillic redirects for every article on the English Wikipedia. There is no reason for this redirect to exist. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2014 (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.

Асинхронна комуникация[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. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asynchronous communication is not especially Bulgarian. Gorobay (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the subject they're looking for. No rationale has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. WilyD 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per established consensus that foreign language redirects are useful only when there is a connection between language and subject. Issues created by random redirects include lack of verifiability, search engine pollution (this redirect makes the Bulgarian Wikipedia article harder to find) and Wikipedia not being a dictionary. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first argument depends on factual premises that is demonstratably false You and I have already verified that this redirect is correct, so there's simply not a problem with verifiability. Anyone else can verify it as well. As for extraordinarily poorly designed external search engines working even more poorly, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that it's our responsibility to place the usability of bad made search engines above the usability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but that's a complete non-sequitur, as this redirect is in no way acting like a search engine. It's acting like a card catalogue in a library (fuck, I'm old), or an index in the back of the book - directing readers to the content their looking for. Directing readers to the content they're looking for is an essential part of a reference source - the information is entirely useless if it can't be found. WilyD 17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This topic has no affinity for Bulgarian -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (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.

Geography of Crimea[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. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea is a primary topic; for consistency, "Geography of Crimea" should therefore be about the "Geography of Crimea", and should not redirect to a disambiguation page that has no titles matching "Geography of Crimea". Retarget to the section, Crimea#Geography and climate". bd2412 T 14:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nominator. People looking for information about the geography of Crimea will find it at that section of the Crimea article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (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.

User:Kalpana Patowary[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. [User can create a soft redirect or link if they so desire. The editor has not responded to the notification in a month. @Thryduulf: if you (or anyone else) wishes to make a link then that would be ok I guess - this argument is just dealing with the current redirect.] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from a user page to an article with the same name. The user's talk page also redirected to the article's talk page, but I simply deleted that redirect instead of listing (per WP:RfD, since such a clearly harmful redirect does not necessitate listing to remove). For this redirect, it appears to be just as harmful in my opinion for the same reason. Editors could visit the user page, be redirected to article namespace, and inadvertently leave a message intended for the user on the article's talk page. With this being my first WP:RfD issue, I'm listing it here, since I can't find explicit permission to unilaterally delete this kind of redirect in any of the policy pages.  —Josh3580talk/hist 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect is clearly harmful. Clicking on the userpage and then talk will end up with user comments at the article's talk page. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a soft redirect as this will remove all the harm the hard redirect causes without the necessity of deleting a user's user page or removing the link to the article the user apparently wants. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect was created automatically when the user moved their userpage into mainspace as an article 07:00, 16 June 2013‎ Kalpana Patowary (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (Kalpana Patowary moved page User:Kalpana Patowary to Kalpana Patowary). I don't see why the automatic creation of a redirect is an indication that the user apparently wants it. The user was using their userpage as a draft sandbox. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no indication that they don't want it. They've had plenty of time to do something else with it (or ask someone to help them do something with it) if they were unhappy. We should not be deleting pages in people's userspace if there is an alternative. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading and an WP:ASTONISH violation, absent an unambiguous declaration from Kalpana Patowary that this is desired. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's just a typo. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 19:29, 14 March 2014 (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/2014_February_28&oldid=1146310251"