Trichome

thcscience_admin

June 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 26, 2014.

Micheldever Station[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 procedural close, as the redirect has been expanded into an article. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the best course of action is on these grounds:

  • Micheldever Station is the name of a village in its own right. However, this village has no article of its own.
  • The Micheldever article doesn't actually say anything about the Micheldever Station village, other than listing it as one of the villages in the parish.
  • Micheldever railway station, on the other hand, does have an article, and is what some people will come looking for.

As such, should we keep it redirecting to Micheldever, redirect it to Micheldever railway station or delete this redirect? Of course, if somebody knows enough about the village of Micheldever Station to write an article about it, this would be an alternative resolution. — Smjg (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article Micheldever covers not just the village of that name but the parish as well; and that parish includes the village of Micheldever Station. That it is a distinct village is true: on the southbound A34 road, the turning is signposted "Micheldever Station". There is a related discussion at Talk:Micheldever railway station#First automobile journey. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index make it a two entry WP:SIA with the village being a redlink Micheldever Station (village) and the rail station also listed. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a disambig page would be more appropriate than a set index. Biscuittin (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine by me -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Micheldever railway station, as long as we only have one place where such a station is discussed. There's no real sense in making it more difficult for readers to get to this station just to point out a nonexistent article to them. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page - a reader could be looking for the station or the village; it would be incorrect of us to assume we know what they're looking for when they search for "Micheldever Station" WaggersTALK 14:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry but we don't have a disamb page for a blue link and a red link. If an article was written on the village then that would be a different situation, of course. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:35, 26 June 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.

ΒOΥΤΡΟC BOYTPOC ΓΑΛΗ[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) 18:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This name is Coptic and should properly be spelled ⟨Ⲃⲟⲩⲧⲣⲟⲥ Ⲃⲟⲩⲧⲣⲟⲥ Ⲅⲁⲗⲏ⟩. Moreover, the current title is a mix of Latin and Greek and is only attested on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Gorobay (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Judging from the Greek WP article this isn't even close to how his name is spelled in Greek, even if we should have such a redirect (which we shouldn't). Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It definitely isn't Greek, since Greek doesn't have a "C". —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought at first it was supposed to be Cyrillic but that's not the right spelling either, never mind the lambda. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 27 June 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.

Western niger area[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 speedy deleted as hoax. Non-admin closure Ego White Tray (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Western niger area" is not a defined place (nor is it cap'd correctly). Part of a bigger problem with the creating user. See User talk:Africamr and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Country of Western nigeria. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see the problem. I redirected it to a section of the Niger Delta article that already existed, breaking the Delta states down into three groups, including the Western group, which largely coincided with the list of states originally given in this article. As for capitalization, allowing for searches under alternative capitalization (including typical incorrect capitalizations) is a common reason for which redirects are created. It isn't a reason for deleting them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Western Niger and Western Nigeria PRODs. The delta is at the southeastern terminus of the river. No reason to try to accommodate an article that shouldn't have been created in the first place. If someone needs nav redirects for commonly-referred-to-and-sourced cardinal-direction-described parts of these countries and river, let them be created then. Why bend over backwards to keep the work of someone who clearly doesn't grasp what we're doing here and insists on continuing to waste our time? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's bending over backwards? You're the one raising a stink, in this case over a page created in isolation, with no evidence of any nefarious pattern, and to which I applied a frequently used alternative approach to deletion almost five years ago. And then it was done, it was over, and I probably never thought about it again until you brought it up today. I have no investment in the existence of this redirect, but unlike the case with Western Nigeria, this title seemed to carry correct information that indeed corresponded with another article's similarly named section that at that point had already been in existence for a year and on which the editor in question had (and has) never laid his hands. So I see nothing wrong with this redirect when evaluated in isolation, and I don't share your view that because this editor has created some bad articles, that every single article he has ever created must suffer the same fate rather than being evaluated on its own merits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK – regardless of who created it and when, it's wrong. "Western niger area" means the western part of the country of niger to anyone you ask. Even if you want to stretch it to mean "western Niger Delta area", that's what it should be called, not something that leaves out a word that makes it mean something totally different. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Anyone I ask? Have you conducted a poll? This respondent here thinks that when people are referring to the western part of country X, they say "Western X", not "Western X area". I mean, it's an odd construction anyway, I'll grant you that, but please spare me the hyperbole. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:18, 27 June 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.

Western Nigeria[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 speedy deleted as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Western Nigeria" is not a defined place. This was changed from an unreferenced hoax article to a redirect for some reason. See User talk:Africamr and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Country of Western nigeria. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question I'd say Delete if there is no concretely defined place known as Western Nigeria. However, the Nigeria article twice mentions a "Western Region". Is that not a real thing? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not seem to be a real defined place, any more than western any_country (note lower-case w because it's a description, not an actual name). According to the article, prior to formation of the existing states: "In 1914, the British formally united the Niger area as the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Administratively, Nigeria remain divided into the northern and southern Protectorates and Lagos Colony."
    Northern Nigeria redirects to Northern Region, Nigeria and the other article is (inconsistently) called Southern Nigeria Protectorate. Based on the prose, assuming it comes from a source, Northern Region, Nigeria should be moved and then redirected to Northern Nigeria Protectorate.
    There's mention of a Western Region but no source, and no real reason to think it means anything other than the western part of the country, or that it is commonly referred to. Note there is also mention of a southwestern region, which is also undefined and correctly has no link.
    Remember all three of these articles were created by the same guy pushing some sort of micro-nation hoax/fantasy and then converted to redirects apparently because it was more expedient than deleting them.
    —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:45, 26 June 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.

Western Niger[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 speedy deleted as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Western Niger" is not a defined place. This was changed from an unreferenced hoax article to a redirect for some reason. See User talk:Africamr and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Country of Western nigeria. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd treat "Niger" as a reference to the river and redirect this to the same destination as Western niger area. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's supposed to refer to the river, it should be "Western Niger River", but that would actually refer to a large area of Mali and Guinea, according to File:Map of River Niger.svg, nowhere near the delta, which is at the southeastern terminus of the river in Nigeria.
    If it's meant to refer to western Niger, we have the same problem as Western Nigeria above.
    No reason to keep this redirect unless there is a source that refers to it and a specific article that it can be accurately redirected to.
    See above about the source of the article to begin with.
    —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:55, 26 June 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.

Kim Jin-Sun[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 to Kim Jin-sun. Right now, the politician is the established WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That may or may not be as it should be, but while that stands, this variant in capitalization should not point to a different person. Sawol wasn't wrong to bring this up, as another editor contested it, but policy is clear here. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re-targeting: Redirect to Kim Jin-sun. Kim Jin-sun is prior to Kim Jin-sun (fencer). Sawol (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-target to Kim Jin-sun per WP:DIFFCAPS: "Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases." Different capitalisations, hyphenations, and spacings of Korean names with the same spelling should redirect to the same place to avoid confusion. quant18 (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and retarget per nom. There's no need for confirmation of obvious, uncontroversial editorial decisions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:47, 27 June 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.

Seung Na[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) 18:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible redirect. Surname and second syllable of given name of a fictional character Seung Mina. Neither the character nor anyone else in Wikipedia is actually called by this name. Nonsense redirects like this promote confusion & misunderstanding about how Korean names actually work. quant18 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_26

Leave a Reply