Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2016.

Hostage work

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Hostage work

Fuezer

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) 19:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

(Eubot). Delete, WP:RFD#D8, not a Germanic umlaut Si Trew ( talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flin Flon--Northwest

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) 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the double-hyphen version got kept at an earlier RFD discussion, that had more to do with its being unwisely batched with a bunch of superficially similar redirects that weren't actually equivalent and had stronger keepability grounds. This is not the name of a Canadian federal electoral district, but merely an unofficial alternate name for a geographic region, so there are no grounds for it to use an em-dash or a double-hyphen as an alternative for people who don't know how to type em-dashes — the name is seen in reliable sources as either Flin Flon hyphen Northwest or Flin Flon space Northwest, and never as Flin Flon em-dash Northwest. The correctly spelled redirects now exist, so there's no need for these because virtually no prospect exists of anybody ever actually using them — if they were actually used before, that's only because they were the only forms that existed until I created the correct ones this week, and not because anybody actually spells it this way. Bearcat ( talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

House of Cars

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Allegedly a working title for the series, but not mentioned in its article. Google results are mostly for car dealerships. BDD ( talk) 18:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

GT (TV series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 27#GT (TV series)

Untitled Amazon motoring show

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. Nabla ( talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The Grand Tour is not untitled, and this will become misleading if there are ever even rumors about another motoring show from Amazon. BDD ( talk) 18:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

!?Revolution!?

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 no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 17:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

(Eubot). Here we have a translation of the title plus a conversion of the punctuation. However, the "¿¡" has somehow been bot-converted to "!?", i.e. not just inverted the glyphs but reversed the order. Inverted_question_and_exclamation_marks#Mixtures of question marks and exclamation points says (for Spanish) "Normally, four signs are used, always with one type in the outer side and the other in the inner side (nested) (¿¡Y tú quién te crees que eres!?, ¡¿Y tú quién te crees que eres?!)".

" ?!Revolution!?" is red. The proper transliteration would be just to discard the front two characters, surely!? Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, I think. Si Trew ( talk) 21:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Oh wait, missed that it's "revolution", not "revolucion", which makes it nonsense to punctuate by Spanish convention. Delete. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 22:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The stats tool was down so I couldn't check that. Sorry not to make it clearer that Revolution was translated. Si Trew ( talk) 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Not your fault, you made it as clear as you should need to if I would just pay attención to the nominacións. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
¡Haha! Si Trew ( talk) 23:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 17:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bibliothèque

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 27#Bibliothèque

World Chess Championship 2015

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 the first, no consensus on the others. -- BDD ( talk) 17:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

This is misleading; there was not a World Chess Championship in 2015. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to List of World Chess Championships which clearly shows that there was no event that year. There appears to be no standard pattern to when the events are held so any given year after the first seems like a reasonable search term. If the article was organised into headed sections rather than one long table I would recommend targeting the "World Chess Championships (2006–present)" section but I don't know if anchors work in table cells? Thryduulf ( talk) 21:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I would oppose a retarget there. A redlink would clearly show that there was no event that year. We shouldn't make our readers read a list to figure that out. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply
See my reply to AngusWOOF below where I explain why a redlink does not show anything other than "We don't have an article at this title. There are several reasons why this could be the case, you could try searching for other articles or there might be some page history, a log entry and/or a deletion discussion somewhere which might (or might not) explain why - but you have to know to look for these, and how to find them." Thryduulf ( talk) 15:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you for looking in to that! I've added the other two as well. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I think the correct solution here is to create redirects to the relevant sections of the list for those years and retarget the existing ones per my first comment. Deleting these redirects will not help our readers. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply
It's better to see a redlink, which tells our readers that there wasn't a championship that year, then confuse or disappoint them with a bluelink. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply
A redlink doesn't say that though. It simply says "we do not have an article about this topic", that might be because the topic doesn't exist, wasn't notable, or simply that the article hasn't been written yet. A redirect to the list of championships however does clearly show which years did and which years did not have championships. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, we don't have an article on this subject because this subject does not exist. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply
But the person arriving at the redlink has no way of knowing which reason it is - we are here to educate people not make them guess why we are not. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
What would be the relevant target section ? A redirect should at least be a remotely acceptable alternative name to the target article or section. If there was a section that gives some information on why championships happen on such or such year, that would be an acceptable target, but I do not see any. Place Clichy ( talk) 02:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Navigation in the target article is appalling at present, but I would prefer to target the relevant section of the list. e.g. for 2015 target the section that contains 2014 and 2016 (as it's as much a plausible typo for both of them as it is wanting to know who won the next/previous year). Ideally I think the article would be far better structured with different sections for each of the different formats rather than the current massive single table (which I'm guessing will have very poor accessibility levels) but that is outside the scope of the RfD discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Sideways713: Our articles on the 2010 and 2012 don't have anything mentioning that they were scheduled for 2009 and 2011. If you could add information on the scheduling change, I would also support keeping those two as {{ R from error}} and {{ R from former name}}. Otherwise, delete them all. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 14:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Patar knight: I added a brief note about the schedule change to the 2010 article; the 2012 article did already mention (in the Timeline of changes) that that match was originally scheduled for 2011. Both World Chess Championship 2009 and World Chess Championship 2011 are former article titles and should be tagged with {{ R from page move}}.
(The 2014 article was briefly called "World Chess Championship 2015", too; but that was a single editor's quickly corrected mistake and never reflected any actual schedule.) Sideways713 ( talk) 17:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Idrettshall

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) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

“Idrettshall” is Norwegian for ‘sports center’, but sports centers have no specific association with Norwegian, so delete. Gorobay ( talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Saint Mary of the Cistern

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 withdrawn - see note below. ( non-admin closure) Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Doesn't appear to be mentioned at the target. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

SCC theory

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Posted as an X1 Neelix redirect at AN but doesn't seem to qualify. However, I can't tell what SCC is meant to stand for. Googling shows it could stand for many things which might be considered theories, so I suggest deletion per WP:XY. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. "SCC" is an invented abbreviation for "self-creation cosmology", a marginal theory of physics which tends to take Brans-Dicke theory as a starting point. It's not the same thing as the target, and not discussed there, though there are a lot more redirects along these lines. It's possible there should be an article on the specific topic of self-creation cosmology; in any case these redirects shouldn't point somewhere confusing. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Update: For clarity, I also urge deletion of the "selfcreation" redirects I have added above, most of which would be dubious even as a redirect directly to an article on self-creation cosmology. Pointing to an article not specifically on that topic is worthless. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Most of those that were added should be tagged as wp:x1. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I've just removed some from the nomination which were X1 deleted. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think that perhaps the "self creation cosmology" redirects can be kept and tagged {{ R with possibilities}}, there does seem to be some scholarly writing about it. The redirects which are extensions of that topic ("... theories", "... theorists", etc) should be deleted, since the article does not mention particular scientists other than the theory's namesakes. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
    I'm pretty sure the search engine can take care of most of those. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete all. Self creation cosmology (or Self-creation cosmology) have possibilities of having an article, but the current target has no mention of 'self nor 'cosmology'; also the few pages I found about Self creation cosmology do not mention Brans–Dicke's (but I have not searched much). So we are better of with red links. The remaining are the usual Neelix stuff, which even WP's poor search engine should be able to deal with. Nabla ( talk) 17:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bilegt haan

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) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

...this barely even resembles the target. Missing diacritics, missing the letter that's supposed to have the diacritics, a misspelling (e instead of i), a pseudo-phonetic misspelling (haan for Khan) and a missing capital. No incoming links and all of two pageviews in 90 days. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 09:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mp3codec.exe

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) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Not at all helpful, not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 07:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vörösmarty utka

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) 19:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete all. I think "utka" an unlikely misspelling for "utca": first, in Hungarian "c" is pronounced like English "ts", not "k"; second, someone not knowing the Hungarian word "utca" ("street") is likely to take care to spell it properly. No internal links; each has just 1 hit in 90 days (all on the same day, 8 November: the target got 4 hits that day, near its median.) The harm comes from a reader or editor potentially assuming it's the correct spelling. Si Trew ( talk) 06:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the third, as ö → oe is (per previous RfD's) not correct for Hungarian. Do the same thing with the first and second (i.e. keep them both or delete them both) but I don't know enough to have an opinion which at the moment. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Budapest Metro

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) 19:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

(All Eubot) *Delete all, WP:RFD#D8, the "ö" is not a Germanic umlaut but a letter in the Hungarian alphabet. Each station already has a "correct" misspelling redirect, with "ö" → plain "o"; some have other reasonable variants, too. Si Trew ( talk) 05:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Guacman

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) 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

A pejorative nickname for Mr. Bush used by some conservatives who opposed his Presidential campaign. Such non-neutral redirects are allowed if they are in commonuse or discussed in appropriate sources, but this does not qualify either way. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 04:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Japanesе

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) 19:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Got here from the Eubot redirect, I don't get this. I suppose one of the characters is wrong, but I can't tell. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

via www.branah.com/unicode-converter (the best one I found for doing whole strings with no fuss), this is \u004a\u0061\u0070\u0061\u006e\u0065\u0073\u0435 — it's the last " е" is U+0435 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER IE. Delete. Si Trew ( talk) 06:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
That depends on the glyph used to render the character. They could well be rendered absolutely identically in many typefaces. Si Trew ( talk) 16:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Japanesie

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) 19:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Appears to be some slang term, not plausible. Ha! Didn't realise this was another Eubot redirect. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The plot thins. More likely, it was created by transliterating "ie" for the Cyrillic letter in Japanesе, listed immediately above. Si Trew ( talk) 06:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chinese and English compared

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) 19:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 16#Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English. No information is given at target, misleading and confusing at best, the wording is also somewhat vague, as what comparison does this mean? - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

  • The previous discussion really didn't get going, even after relisting. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. While the target does make some specific comparisons with English, e.g. the use of articles, and sounds in some Chinese dialects, this is not a systematic comparison as implied by the redirect title, it's just an everyday comparison with nontechnical terms. The high-tide mark of stats is 4 a day, total hits between them 31 in 90 days: I don't think there'd be any inconvenience to readers by deleting this (more likely it would be a convenience for them not to be misled). Si Trew ( talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. These are useful search terms, in that they are search terms people will use to find encyclopaedic content. As we apparently don't have that content though, we should delete this to avoid misleading people that we do (and hopefully encourage someone to create it, as I'd be quite interested to read it!). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - both the nom and the above 2 editors have said it appropriately, while useful, because of the current lack of a correct target article, it is misleading. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:XY and vague. Are they comparing romanization methods? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

South Koreans

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#South Koreans

Coreanic

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 Coreanic to Koreanic languages and Retarget Coreanist to Korean studies. ( non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 20:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Invented terms, not plausible. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mike Ponce

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. It's possible this is a WP:BLP violation so this needs to be deleted as soon as consensus develops, and it has. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Not a plausible typo, too far on a QWERTY keyboard. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Also possibly derogatory with "ponce" meaning "beggar" or "homosexual" in Br. English. Si Trew ( talk) 03:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Nocopyright

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) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Unused, overly ambiguous, could just as easily imply {{ PD-author}}, {{ Attribution}}, {{ PD-US-no notice}}, etc FASTILY 02:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:NoCopyright

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) 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Unused, overly ambiguous, could just as easily imply {{ PD-author}}, {{ Attribution}}, {{ PD-US-no notice}}, etc FASTILY 02:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Президент.рф

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Unused redirect to copyright template. The Russian language redirect is unnecessary IMO, because this is in fact the English Wikipedia FASTILY 02:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep per WP:RFOREIGN - This has a clear affinity for the Russian language. Weak however, because it doesn't help the readership as something of this nature would in the mainspace, and I wouldn't support using this to transclude the license to files as the non-Latin characters aren't contributor friendly. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:CC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Template:CC

Template:CC-BY

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 27#Template:CC-BY

Internet-based

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) 18:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Partial title match, internet based what?. Not a likely search term on its own. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tlus

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) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It would be one thing if the game was known by this acronym, but I can find no evidence of that (although it's a loooong article). If there were an article on 'Teaching and Learning in Urban schools' that would be an appropriate target, but as it stands now, simply delete. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Intarnut

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) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Appears to be an invented term. Google only show results of pages obviously mirrored from this redirect. Not plausible as a typo. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_16&oldid=1088109967"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE