Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 25: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 27: Line 27:
****With nom withdrawing, this may be a candidate for '''[[WP:SK|speedy keep]]'''. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
****With nom withdrawing, this may be a candidate for '''[[WP:SK|speedy keep]]'''. [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr]] <sub>[[User talk:Xtifr|tälk]]</sub> 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
*****Indeed, that appears to be the case. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
*****Indeed, that appears to be the case. [[User:Digwuren|Digwuren]] 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' - bad faith attempt to circumvent the consensus now emerging at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland]]. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


====[[Eestimaa Hertsogiriik]] → [[Estland]]====
====[[Eestimaa Hertsogiriik]] → [[Estland]]====

Revision as of 01:56, 27 May 2007

May 25

There is already an extensive disambiguous page named "ADS", including a link to advertisements. The current redirect is confusing for people typing the ADS abbreviation in lower case letters. Erik-jan otto 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I retargeted Ads to ADS and reworked the latter slightly. As a consequence, the concern expressed by Erik-jan otto doesn't really apply anymore (but we shouldn't delete it in any case, since it helps with linking). Gavia immer (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language redirect; does not belong in English Wikipedia. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation of old German documents (correct would be Duchy of Estonia). Never referred, unlikely to be used. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Duchy of Estland, but this is foreign-languaged, too. (And even so, mistranslated; a correct translation would most likely be 'Eesti hertsogkond'.) Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An old and infrequently used (AFAIK, never in modern texts) name for Lithuania. Appears to have been created under the same mistaken deliberations as the others listed above. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland. Digwuren 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, "infrequently used" seems like an adequate excuse for keeping, since redirects are so cheap. This looks to me like one of those borderline cases that probably shouldn't have been created, but as long as it has been, we might as well keep it. Xtifr tälk 18:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The exact spelling is used by Wikipedia articles in other languages. --Aarktica 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actually a very good reason for keeping. Other languages are, well, other languages; this is the English encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to see what it's called in the German Wikipedia can click on the inter-Wiki link from the main article. Xtifr tälk 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have to agree with Xtifr. This is the English Wikipedia. --Random Say it here! 23:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe, however, that this should follow the same policy as Estland currently being considered for deletion, so these two should be deleted together, or kept together. (Estland, if kept, will probably be a disambiguation page instead of redirect, though, due to some historical confusion over borders and administrative control.) Digwuren 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria for keeping redirects are much different than those for keeping articles. Generally, we try to keep redirects if there's any reasonable excuse to do so, because redirects are so cheap, and you never can tell who might find one useful. For me, the deciding criteria here would be: are there English sources that use this term? You implied that there are, which is why I argued to keep. I believe that "Estland" is similar, but not necessarily identical. Xtifr tälk 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Estland would become a redirect if not for the ambiguities involved. The consensus on the deletion page is that there is no independent article-worthy content on Estland now. Unfortunately, there is not a single page it should reflect to, hence the disambiguation.
      • The reason Estland is not a redirect now is that somebody thought -- incorrectly -- that it is an exact translation of an Estonian word 'Eestimaa' in a *particular*, old meaning of that word. It isn't, and this word in Estonian has more meanings.
      • As for English sources referring to the name; I believe they're almost all referring to history of Lithuania, or to old documents discussing Lithuania. So, they exist, but they do not make independent references to 'Litauen'.
      • If Estland or Litauen were to be kept; I think the main reason for this should be the idea that these countries' name in neighbours' language may "leak" into English discourse, and may thus be worth preserving, as per the discussion above. Digwuren07:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-per being a valid language redirect, and for other keep reasons above. Alphablast 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have converted Estland into a disambiguation page and, as per my view on these two article's similarity described above, I now believe Litauen should be kept. Digwuren

I mistyped the genus name when moving the page from my sandbox to article space. MeegsC | Talk 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]