Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 4

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard about this Engrish example. I think that this one should be redirected to Hero. David Pro (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Herro" is not an example of Engrish, but a phonetic representation of "Hello" in an outdated Japanese stereotype. Clearly it is inappropriate as a redirect pointed to Engrish; I am not sure whether it is more desirable to delete it or retarget to Hero as a plausible typo, so I'm neutral - for now - on that issue. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Herro isn't even the phonetic way of spelling it. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not really a likely typo for "hero" IMO. Graymornings_(talk) 04:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From the article "although the Chinese language frequently sees the "l" substituted for "r" in foreign loanwords.", one would have thought that hello being a commonly used word that it would commonly be mis-spoken as "herro" if the above is true. 81.104.227.11 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was waste of time. If the article is kept, this is a useful redirect. If it's not, it'll be deleted anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redir to a soon-to-be-deleted article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Haste: The Letter Carrier Game Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First: wait until the AFD discussion has actually run before presuming what its conclusion will be. Second: Don't waste the limited resources of RFD with things that are simple housekeeping matters at the conclusion of an AFD discussion (such as, in the case of a deletion outcome, deleting redirected duplicates of the article that is deleted). Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that if the target is deleted (and the AfD is slated to run at least until 8 February), all redirects to it will be subject to speedy deletion under CSD G8. Until then, there is an option for a bold retargeting if someone deems it appropriate (note: a Wikipedia search of "post haste" and "post-haste" in articlespace didn't turn up anything worthwhile aside from the current redirect and target, but I didn't check all of the listings, either). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No references in the target article, and I couldn't find any sources that use this as a term for cows. Richard⁰⁶¹² 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it doesn't appear in a single reliable source. I couldn't tell if this term was used in an old The Flintstones episode or not (if that can be sourced, then a retargeting to the article about that animated series is appropriate). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am nominating this is simple. If the article has a single issue, the original template has be used instead. This redirect creates confusions like this one or this one. I noticed that many editors use it to tag a single issue (example). Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Normally, I would support keeping such a trivial variant, but the nominator's rationale makes a great deal of sense. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a harmful redirect. On the {{articleissues}} description page, a blunt message in bold should be placed to emphasize that this template is not suited for only one issue and should be used in this fashion (I know it states as such under "common mistakes" but this needs to be as subtle as a jackhammer). It would seem to be that the template itself should also give a "warning" if only one issue is listed (see similar "warnings" for improperly placed PROD tags on talk pages, etc.). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice idea. I'll check if I can do it. I already requested and AWB replaces this template this the original one if there is a single issue. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - retargeted to Template:Article issues to fix a double redirect. I was unaware that the template itself was renamed.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was just done by an experienced editor, but without discussion :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's well-reasoned explanation (and kudos for providing diffs) for not having a redirect from a plural in this case. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was retargeted to Bruce Barrymore Halpenny per consensus and agreement by nom (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the original articles been merged, this is an unlikely search term. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect as I thought it would close the issue and seemed the most logical solution. The original article has, as Ryan4314 says, more or less been merged. As for it being an unlikely search term, not sure about that, as long as it leads people to the Avro Vulcan article, but in anycase it can be closed.--BSTemple (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bruce Barrymore Halpenny as the citations at the bottom of the current target list him as the author of the book... and make sure to include the title in the list of Halpenny's books at the new target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Bruce Barrymore Halpenny is a logical solution. He did write the book and so any search of this title should be retargeted to the author.--Artypants (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the best thing if the article is not to stand on its own, is to redirect to the Vulcan or Author. As its been shown, maybe the best thing is to redirect to the author. It does make sense. I leave the choice to an Administrator. --SteveKSmith (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, redirect to author. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted as unneeded. The article on the subject was deleted in August, and the redirect was created because "he is one of the radio station's hosts", though none of the hosts or shows are mentioned by name in the target. MSJapan (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no context for the redirect in the target, but if someone decides to add a section about the station's programming and on-air personalities, then that would be a different issue entirely. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no context for the redirect. I agree with the IP's comments... if, at some future point, the WEWN article includes a section about on-air personalities, then such redirects might be appropriate. But until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would be confusing to the user to redirect a name to another page when there is no mention of that name on the target page. •••Life of Riley (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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