Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 21

February 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 21, 2008

%27%27Kaiserlich und königlich%27%27 → Kaiserlich und königlich
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) A completely useless redirect (note that those are multiple single quote marks in the redirect title, not double quotes) that has been deleted before but has a history of being recreated. The most recent recreation, by User:Toby Bartels, claims that it existed at this title from 2004, but this is incorrect; it was previously at K.u.k. and was at this title for approximately two weeks. It ought to be deleted per the previous discussions and because it's not a useful typo; however, despite being technically a speediable recreation (WP:CSD), the history of frequent disputation means that it should not be speedily deleted (and the discussion should not close early). If it is deleted, I would ask that the title be protected from recreation as well, to discourage the unfortunate warring over this title. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete nothing links through here anyway. Time for it to go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Quotes are useless. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Gavia, thanks for clearing up the history (I got confused because page moves are not recorded on the log of the new target) and for requesting a long discussion time (although the first deletion unfortunately did not really reach a consensus even after 8 days). Now that the timing is cleared up, I won't actively oppose this. However, I still think that it's bad practice to delete redirects —however useless— when there is no actual reason to delete them; even a very small possibility of external incoming links justifies retaining them (because Wikipedia is not paper, cool URIs don't change, database storage space is insignificant in the Wikimedia Foundation's budget, etc, etc). But these are general comments, and on this particular matter (where I have been boldly acting in the past) I will now abstain. —Toby Bartels (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rugburn Flower → Pilosella aurantiaca
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Strongly suspect that this was a hoax. Can't find any trace of this terminology. Pichpich (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Agreed.  Enigma  msg! 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Town of whitby → Whitby, Ontario
The result of the debate was Kept. Standard redirect from misscapitilization. No harm. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC) This redirect "Whitby" is not capitalized from the letter W. All cities are each capitalized on every first letter. This redirect must be deleted. Steam5 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. This has been around for two years and isn't causing any harm; it doesn't meet any of the reasons for deletion. There is certainly no "must" here; only if it were a non-redirect article title could one say that it "must" be moved (but still not deleted). —Toby Bartels (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This redirect uncapitalized "whitby" on every proper name on every city name that suppose to be a caplital letter on the first letter. The redirect has to be deleted. Steam5 (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)