Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
====<span id="Corey Delaney">[[:Corey Delaney]] → [[:Big Brother Australia 2008]]</span>==== |
====<span id="Corey Delaney">[[:Corey Delaney]] → [[:Big Brother Australia 2008]]</span>==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"><!-- Template:Rfd top-->The result of the discussion was '''delete'''. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 00:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Redirect redirects to page where the term doesn't crop up again under any circumstances, nor is there a reason for the redirect to exist. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 03:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Redirect redirects to page where the term doesn't crop up again under any circumstances, nor is there a reason for the redirect to exist. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 03:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 56: | Line 57: | ||
**It ''does'' show up, as "Corey Worthington", his other name! [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) |
**It ''does'' show up, as "Corey Worthington", his other name! [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', regardless of the name confusion, if he's mentioned in the target article, I see the redirect as useful. <font color="Purple">[[User:Raven1977|Raven1977]]</font><sup><font color="Blue">[[User Talk:Raven1977|Talk to me]]</font></sup><sub><font color="Purple">[[Special:Contributions/Raven1977|My edits]]</font></sub> 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''', regardless of the name confusion, if he's mentioned in the target article, I see the redirect as useful. <font color="Purple">[[User:Raven1977|Raven1977]]</font><sup><font color="Blue">[[User Talk:Raven1977|Talk to me]]</font></sup><sub><font color="Purple">[[Special:Contributions/Raven1977|My edits]]</font></sub> 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''''The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'''''<!-- Template:Rfd bottom --></div> |
|||
====<span id="Alexander valamonde">[[:Alexander valamonde]] → [[:Alexander Valamonde]]</span>==== |
====<span id="Alexander valamonde">[[:Alexander valamonde]] → [[:Alexander Valamonde]]</span>==== |
Revision as of 00:46, 24 April 2009
April 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2009
Bhutan – United States relations → Foreign relations of Bhutan
Delete as a misleading and potentially harmful redirect. The only mention of relations in the article are: "Other countries, such as the U.S. and U.K, have no formal diplomatic relations with Bhutan", which proves that these two countries do not have relations. Tavix | Talk 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- All things considered, this is not a necessary redirect, since we do not have and should not create redirects from every possible bilateral relations page to a corresponding Foreign relations of (Country) articles. The only reason that these redirects exist is because Bhutan–United States relations was redirected to Foreign relations of Bhutan rather than deleted (see Talk:Foreign relations of Bhutan#Bhutan–United States relations). However, since no content seems to have been merged (i.e. no requirement to preserve page history per GFDL) and there are no useful incoming links to any of the four nominated redirects, I say delete per nom. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- normally for this type of redirect I would say delete. However, in this particular case because the target makes specific mention of the relations in question I say keep. Even though in this case the target says that there are no relations, the fact that it is mentioned raises the possibility that users may think that there are. This redirect will enable such a user to easily identify the actual situation. And no, I am not suggesting that such redirects, and lines added to a 'Foreign relations' target, for every pair of countries! PaulJones (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Since the question posed by the redirect is actually addressed in the article, I think it's a useful redirect. (And like User:Paul Jones, I would also add that this vote isn't a vote for redirects for every possible pair of countries, this is just my opinion on this one.)Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Diet coke + mentos = kaboom → Diet Coke and Mentos eruption
Sparrows Hearne turnpike → Sparrows Herne turnpike
This redirect is polluting the web. Last year I requested this page be speedy deleted as a mis-spelling. The request was rejected on the basis that redirects are cheap. If you now google "Sparrows Hearne" many of the hits returned are propagated copies of this redirect. You can barely find the genuine "Sparrows Hearne" in Essex for all the redirects to "Sparrows Herne" in Hertfordshire, many of them propagated from here. Bazj (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- comment the answer to this is not deletion of Sparrows Hearne redirect but to turn it into a stub for the Essex one. This will keep it seperate from the one in Hertfordshire with the similar spelling. A hatnote of each should link to the other. PaulJones (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did consider that, but apart from the school that's located on it, there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the street in Essex, and I have looked. Bazj (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- then how about a disabiguation page saying that it could mean either 1) Sparrows Hearne a road in Essex or Sparrow Herne turnpike in Hertforshire and linking to the latter article?PaulJones (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'd be starting down the road of creating disambiguation pages for every typo. In any case, that's not a reason to keep this redirect. Bazj (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to further add that disambiguation pages should generally be used when there are "three or more topics associated with the same term" (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?) and those topics are covered within Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links). So, for this case in particular, a disambiguation page is probably not warranted. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- which takes us back to stubs and hatnotes. To loose a redirect from a very plausible typo of one article because it is the correct spelling for something else, which may or may not be as notable, seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore keep and it can be turned into an article on the Essex usage, with 'not to be confused with' hatnotes to the other, if and when someone can be bothered to write it. PaulJones (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no Essex usage to make an article of. If we were discussing Sparrows Hearne → Sparrows Herne I'd agree with you, but we're not. There is no "Sparrows Hearne turnpike".
- This REDIR's only impact is to pollute the internet (through all the other websites which republish WP content) obscuring the little genuine info to be found on "Sparrows Hearne". On Google the first three hits are rooted in this REDIR, the first genuine hit is fifth on the list. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the role of an encyclopedia to share information, that it should not spread mis-information.
- As for the value of this REDIR to handle a plausible typo, I tried an experiment which I think adequately proves that REDIRs are not required to resolve typos. Bazj (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- which takes us back to stubs and hatnotes. To loose a redirect from a very plausible typo of one article because it is the correct spelling for something else, which may or may not be as notable, seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Therefore keep and it can be turned into an article on the Essex usage, with 'not to be confused with' hatnotes to the other, if and when someone can be bothered to write it. PaulJones (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to further add that disambiguation pages should generally be used when there are "three or more topics associated with the same term" (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?) and those topics are covered within Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links). So, for this case in particular, a disambiguation page is probably not warranted. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'd be starting down the road of creating disambiguation pages for every typo. In any case, that's not a reason to keep this redirect. Bazj (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- then how about a disabiguation page saying that it could mean either 1) Sparrows Hearne a road in Essex or Sparrow Herne turnpike in Hertforshire and linking to the latter article?PaulJones (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did consider that, but apart from the school that's located on it, there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the street in Essex, and I have looked. Bazj (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Prayer mat → Janamaz
Corey Delaney → Big Brother Australia 2008
Alexander valamonde → Alexander Valamonde
List of Books and DVDs → List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 Books and DVDs
After_the_Fall_(book) → Dragonriders_of_Pern
Deletion, Or Proper Article written. The reason i would like this to be done is the page that it is redirected to, doesnt have any information about that book but it has multiple links to that book in it, it would be nice if because there is no information the page is deleted because then people will see that, that page has not been created Joezach (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, since it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap. Anyone looking for information on the book will be better served by the redirect than an empty page. And people coming from the target article will still see that it's effectively empty if they actually click on the link. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It tells me the authors and the series it's part of instead of nothing at all, which has clear use to readers. I don't see all that much use in people being able to see that it's a redlink - is someone that likely to come and write an article on this as-yet unpublished book when they see the redlink? Is it even notable enough to deserve its own article? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- keep as After the Fall is mentioned in the target as a planned book (I am taking the target article in good faith on this point). If the title of an unwritten book is publically known then a user may try to find information on it - particularly if they do not know that it has not been written. This redirect could thus serve a useful purpose in allowing this fact to be found. Unless there is actually something encyclopedic to write about this, and the other unwritten books mentioned, then the target article itself really doesn't need to link to them, but that is not relevent to this rfd discussion. PaulJones (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- After the fall is the planned title of a book that probably wouldnt be out until 2010 or later, two titles were leaked in 2007 and here is a quote about the current progress of the book.
New Pern book by Anne put on hold! We would gladly bring better and more promising news but unfortunately Anne told us not too long ago that, at the age of 82 and with recurring health problems, it is very hard to find the energy to dedicate to the necessary writing and rewriting needed to get the book ready to send to the publishers again. We, as fans, need to be realistic and must resign ourselves to the fact that it might take much loger than expected for this book to materialise. News about this book (working titles: New Era Pern and After the Fall (is Over)) leaked out in 2007.