Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 23

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2010

Harry Potter : movies

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Harry Potter (film series)~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget this one to Harry Potter (film series). David Pro (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: who's going to type "Harry Potter," space, colon, space, "movies"?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Making of temple of doom

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense. David Pro (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Po Wang

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't mentioned in the target page. David Pro (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 9, 1985

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Retarget to 1985, although a larger discussion would indeed be useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. There's nothing significant said about that date in the target article, nor was there any sourced material about the original creater's claim about it's the most Metal albums released in one day. Mistakefinder (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with Thryduulf's suggestions about those major dates that are significant in world events, including November 9, 1989 (not sure if this exists), but it seems silly to have ever single date in the 20th century to have a redirect. If we agree that it is to be done, then it'd become a big project and a rather low value one at that. Anyone looking for a specfic date can simply look in the year for the date they're looking for (unless they don't know what year). Besides, doesn't every day of the year have an entry? Someone searching for a specific date with year may often have the year wrong, so it may be helpful to redirect to the Day of Year entry (in this case, November 9 to help confirm the year or discover her/his mistake. In the case of September 11, a disambiguation link has been provided to the September 11, 2001 attacks. I guess the question is what constitutes signficant date in history. I'd say any date that is significant to the whold world, a continent, a large geographic region, or major contribution to knowledge or technology. For example the invention of the automobile, internet (if any one date can be pinned to that), the release of the first PC or Windows, etc. I'd say mainly for geopolitical events though. --Mistakefinder (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)--Mistakefinder (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should probably be having the discussion about which dates merit redirects elsewhere (I'm not sure where though - feel free to start such a discussion and link to it here), but of the dates I used as examples February 3, 1959 relates to western popular music/popular culture, while all the others are geopolitical events. Anything that cannot be tied down to a specific significant date (e.g. invention of the motorcar was), or where the common knowledge isn't of a specific year (for example in Britain the Gunpowder Plot and 5 November are inextricably associated with one another, but the year in which is happened is not nearly as widely known, so November 5, 1605 (or 5 November 1605) should not redirect there). We also need to try and be NPOV in what we include, so for example if there is an equivalent of February 3, 1959 in say Russian popular culture we should allow that. Independence days get tricky - while the USA's was a significant international event (at least looking back at it from a modern perspective), can the same be said of 6 March 1957 when Ghana declared its independence? The partition of Ireland in 1922 was very significant, but does the specific day retain significance in popular knowledge? What about natural disasters - December 26, 2004 currently redirects to December 2004#December 26, 2004 on the same day a language-use survey was published in China and in the Ukraine it was the day of the run-off vote in the presidential election - are these as significant? The 1989#October listing contains only one entry for October 17, 1989 should this redirect to the article about the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake? January 12, 2009 has lots of entries, is the Haiti earthquake the most significant? I don't know the answers here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:HebrewText

[edit]
The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Template Namespace is not employed in any useful fashion, but WP:CSD#T3 tag was declined and this venue was recommended by Shubinator (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Vectorize

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Template Namespace is not employed in any useful fashion, but WP:CSD#T3 tag was declined and this venue was recommended by Shubinator (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mccain John

[edit]
The result of the discussion was keep John Sydney McCain III, delete others. Jafeluv (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all unbelievable typos and/or implausible search terms. Nothing links to any of them. SE7Talk/Contribs 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Not in citation given

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Template Namespace is not employed in any useful fashion, but WP:CSD#T3 tag was declined and this venue was recommended by Shubinator (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • very strong keep - this is the phrase that is displayed in articles to which the template is applied, therefore it is very likely to be used by someone who has seen it on other articles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, makes perfect sense to me, I think I may have even used it in the past. Whilst this may not see widespread use, it is beneficial to new users. We don't want to get to the point where new users have to sit learning lots of specific terms because we have deleted the intuitive options. --Taelus (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. Rather more intuitive than the template's actual name if you want to use it and have previously seen it elsewhere. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rt. Hon. Kenneth Harry Clarke

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard Kenneth Clarke referred to with the name Harry, ever. I doubt anyone ever has. Totally implausible search term, especially with the overly complicated prefix SE7Talk/Contribs 13:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible search term, combining an abbreviated honorific and full personal name. Ken Clarke, as he is perhaps best known, does not routinely use his middle name. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Equus (play) as metaphor for horse and man

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search query Cybercobra (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Microsoft Hearts"

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations marks invalidate, as per numerous previous discussions. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Potter aur Aag Ka Pyala

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign names not a worthy redirect, per "Clarification of foreign language redirects", "Redirects from foreign languages", and the "Corée du Sud" discussion. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phoenix escapes

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any way an applicable redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy Potter 6

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal nonsense. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

HP^

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Retarget HP! and Delete the others. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm failing to see something obvious, this is complete nonsense. No links. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Snape kills Dumbledore

[edit]
The result of the discussion was No real consensus for deletion ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sentence, not a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Icklibõgg

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More fan fiction. Not mentioned in target article. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another work of fan fiction. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Potter and the Last Horcrux

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A work of fan fiction. Not a name by which the novel is referred to. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hogwarts Hallows

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the name of a fan site. The deathly hallows have little to do with Hogwarts, and are never referred to by any such name. The name seems to be confusing the Hallows with the Horcruxes, which are indeed connected with Hogwarts. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

All was well

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final words of the novel are not famous enough to merit a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The uber wand

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a name by which the elder wand (to which it refers) is called. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Potter2007

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable and poorly spaced. Looks more like a convention than a book title. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The book where fred weasley dies

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:G7: deleted by author. Non-admin closure. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary, improbable nonsense. Not to mention it is also The book where remus lupin dies, The book where tonks dies, The book where dobby dies, The book where bellatrix lestrange dies, The book where voldemort dies, The book where snape dies, and why not even The book where harry potter dies—and resurrects!. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

What happens in the last harry potter book

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:G7: deleted by author. Non-admin closure. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is yet another question redirect. Delete per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deathly mhallows

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep HarryPotterandtheDeathlyHallows, Harry Potter and the Relics of Death, Harry Potter and the Insignia of Death, Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death and Delete the rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All implausible misspellings or paraphrases that redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. None of these were working titles or rumored titles. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erin Hunter Plopy

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what Plopy means, and almost never used. Brambleclawx 19:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rarely used. Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry are two of the authors who write under the psuedonym Erin Hunter, but I highly doubt anyone would look them both up at once. Brambleclawx 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erin Hunter (disambiguation)

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rarely used. Also, nobody would type "disambiguation" into their search query. Brambleclawx 19:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Its not a dab anymore, so the disambiguation in the title would be misleading. Brambleclawx 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I meant, I meant the dab page (oldid 257785890) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the dab page is now unnecessary. Brambleclawx 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid breaking incoming links (WP:RFD#KEEP). It was a dab page for over a year; mirrors and other outside sources don't change their links instantaneously with Wikipedia. In addition, editors and other readers sometimes click links while looking at obsolete versions of articles. Keeping the redirect maintains the "user friendliness" of Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:56, 27 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_23&oldid=1148048128"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy