Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 21

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

January 21

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2010

Bomb attack on danish embassy in Pakistan on june 2th 2008

edit
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a useful redirect, one case of misspelling, but there are many ways for misspelling this title. There are no wikilinks to the redirect. It was created by moving a misspelled current event substub. If we need any redirect, I think we need not this very special lower-case-june/2-th-combination. --Diwas (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wanessa Camargo (2st album)

edit
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a useful redirect, one case of misspelling, but there are many ways for misspelling this title. There are no wikilinks to the redirect. It was created by moving a misspelled article. Diwas (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a useful redirect, one case of misspelling, but there are many ways for misspelling this title. There are no wikilinks to the redirect. It was created by moving a misspelled article.--Diwas (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

T:cite news

edit
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects from article space, recently created, unused (and weren't ever used, as far as I'm aware), should be deleted. Amalthea 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created these because I found typing out Template:cite news and the rest a big bother when I wanted to look at their documentation. I was fixing references for a country article with over a hundred references so it was useful to be able to look them up quickly. Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces seemed to support a more straightforward shortcut to the template namespace so I created the redirects. I created a discussion about it here: [1]. I find them useful. If Wikipedia wants to adopt and standardize another format they can be changed later. In the meantime I think they help more than not. Lambanog (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shortcuts are good and well, but if they interfere with the actual encyclopedia, they need to be outstandingly useful. In this case, if only one editor appears to be using them, then I suggest to create bookmarks in your browser instead. Amalthea 15:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do they interfere with the encyclopedia? I imagine they are not used that much because people aren't aware of them. Lambanog (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or use with some scripts that could be added to your monobook or any skin you are using right now. In my three years in Wikipedia, I have never seen redirects for templates starting at "T". I always see template redirects as given by differences in language or it was formerly moved. For example, Template:Otheruses4 is redirected to Template:About. Template:Underconstruction, which appears to be longer that cite web, cite paper or cite book, has no shortcut T:Underconstruction or T:UC whatsoever. Then, this diff from WP:CROSS says that, basically, Template: namespace is named or created different from Wikipedia:, from File:, from User:, User talk:, Talk:, and so on to avoid confusion for the first place. Now, since only one editor uses it now, I agree with deleting it. Then, it is also justifiable to delete this: because only one editor uses it right now, it is almost uncertain to see that it can be into use in the future. --JL 09 q?c 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Archstrone Fox Plaza

edit
The result of the discussion was speedy delete WP:CSD#R3. Amalthea 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy delete....mis-spelled emerson7 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cite blog

edit
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog is not a reliable source Quest for Truth (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there are acceptable forms of blog that may be used for sourcing. Some news websites name their editorial sections as "Blogs", such as the BBC for example, yet these are still kept to high professional standards and are reliable, and only BBC reporters can publish to these blogs after going through an approval process. See WP:V, specifically WP:SPS, and the third cite-note present on the page. --Taelus (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you might also want to cite a blog to, for instance, support a direct quotation from the individual.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a common and baseless misconception that blogs cannot be reliable sources. The fact is that there are many blogs that are cited, and that should be cited, and this redirect serves to facilitate that. I created this redirect in the process of improving the William Gibson article – a BLP – to featured article status. That alone should allay any concerns about the appropriety of such content.  Skomorokh  22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable people sometimes have blogs where they state their opinions, and these opinions are sometimes worth citing. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 99% of blogs fail WP:RS 99% of the time. On the odd exception that this is not the case there is no advantage of this particular redirect since it does nothing that {{cite web}} will not do if called directly. However the mere presence of this redirect can be viewed as encouraging blog citations even when that cite is clearly inappropriate and "it's there" used as justification possibly with an appeal to WP:IAR to attempt to sidestep WP:RS. In my view it's better to stop those problems before they arise. 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

P.E. Complex

edit
The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion of this redirect as linking an incredibly generic term to a very specific instance. Redirect or even disambiguation seems inappropriate simply because of the sheer number of possibilities. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

TC, Take Care

edit
The result of the discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the logic in take care being a redirect, but not this one. NJA (t/c) 09:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Goddard (driver)

edit
The result of the discussion was deleted per WP:CSD#G8 Thryduulf (talk)

Delete, as you can see it's redirecting to a redlink. Why is it there? --Falcadore (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like an article was created at (driver), moved to (racing driver), and deleted on the ground, "biography unreferenced for over 3 years," but the redirect left behind was never cleaned up.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per db-G8. I have tagged it as such. (a redirect to a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion.) --Taelus (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Metroplitan district council

edit
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not a useful redirect, one case of misspelling, but there are many ways for misspelling this title. There are no wikilinks to the redirect. Diwas (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Note: The correct redirect Metropolitan district council is existing. --Diwas (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2010 (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/2010_January_21&oldid=1257873519"