Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 10

Energy payback → Solar cell
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Net energy gain. Ruslik (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

this was marked for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify. It's not a good redirect either, so here we are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Net energy gain which is a general discussion of this topic. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Rogerb67. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How to add a page → Wikipedia:Your first article
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect; not necessary as Your first article would come up on the search —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Lets  drink  Tea  22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another CNR Tavix (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary cross-namespace redirect --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 11:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Where'd You Go Promo CD → Where'd You Go
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as R3 by. Listing it here for them as R3 cannot be applied to old redirects.  So Why  15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Implausible redirect. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Petrified/Remember The Name (Vinyl) → The Rising Tied
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 

Tagged as R3 by. Listing it here for them as R3 cannot be applied to old redirects.  So Why  15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Implausible redirect. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlinked and implausible search term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman Numeral to Year Redirects
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. Ruslik (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * MLII → 1052
 * MLIII → 1053
 * MLIV → 1054
 * MLVI → 1056
 * MLVII → 1057
 * MLVIII → 1058
 * MLIX → 1059
 * MLXI → 1061
 * MLXII → 1062
 * MLXIII → 1063
 * MLXIV → 1064
 * MLXV → 1065
 * MXI → 1011
 * MIII → 1003
 * MVII → 1007
 * MVIII → 1008
 * MXII → 1012
 * MXIII → 1013
 * MXIV → 1014
 * MXVI → 1016
 * MXVII → 1017
 * MXVII → 1018
 * MXIX → 1019
 * MXXI → 1021
 * MXXII → 1022
 * MXXIII → 1023
 * MXXIV → 1024
 * MXXV → 1025
 * MXXVI → 1026
 * MXXVII → 1027
 * MXXVIII → 1028
 * MXXIX → 1029
 * MXXX → 1030
 * MDCCCLXIX → 1869
 * MDCCC → 1800
 * MCMXXX → 1930
 * MCMXX → 1920
 * MCMX → 1910
 * MLXX → 1070
 * MLXXX → 1080
 * MCXX → 1120
 * MCXXX → 1130
 * MCXL → 1140
 * MCLX → 1160
 * MCLXX → 1170
 * MCLXXX → 1180
 * MCXC → 1190
 * MCCX → 1210
 * MCCXX → 1220
 * MCCXXX → 1230
 * MCCXL → 1240
 * MCCL → 1250
 * MCCLX → 1260
 * MCCLXX → 1270
 * MCCLXXX → 1280
 * MCCXC → 1290
 * MCCCX → 1310
 * MCCCXX → 1320
 * MCCCXXX → 1330
 * MCCCXL → 1340
 * MCCCL → 1350
 * MCCCLX → 1360
 * MCCCLXX → 1370
 * MCCCLXXX → 1380
 * MCCCXC → 1390
 * MCDX → 1410
 * MCDXX → 1420
 * MCDXXX → 1430
 * MCDXL → 1440
 * MCDL → 1450
 * MCDLX → 1460
 * MCDLXX → 1470
 * MCDLXXX → 1480
 * MCDXC → 1490
 * MDXX → 1520
 * MDXXX → 1530
 * MDXL → 1540
 * MDLX → 1560
 * MDLXX → 1570
 * MDLXXX → 1580
 * MDXC → 1590
 * MDCX → 1610
 * MDCXX → 1620
 * MDCXXX → 1630
 * MDCXL → 1640
 * MDCL → 1650
 * MDCLX → 1660
 * MDCLXX → 1670
 * MDCLXXX → 1680
 * MDCXC → 1690
 * MDCCX → 1710
 * MDCCXX → 1720
 * MDCCXXX → 1730
 * MDCCXL → 1740
 * MDCCL → 1750
 * MDCCLX → 1760
 * MDCCLXX → 1770
 * MDCCLXXX → 1780
 * MDCCXC → 1790
 * MDCCCX → 1810
 * MDCCCXX → 1820
 * MDCCCXXX → 1830
 * MDCCCXL → 1840
 * MDCCCL → 1850
 * MDCCCLX → 1860
 * MDCCCLXX → 1870
 * MDCCCLXXX → 1880
 * MDCCCXC → 1890
 * MCMXVII → 1917
 * MDCCCXLVIII → 1848
 * MDCCCXCVI → 1896
 * MDCCCXII → 1812
 * MDCCCLXV → 1865
 * MDCCCLXI → 1861
 * MDCCCLXXVI → 1876
 * MDCCCLXXVII → 1877
 * MDCCCLXXXVI → 1886
 * MDCCCXCVIII → 1898
 * MCMXVI → 1916
 * MMXXXI → 2031
 * MMXXXII → 2032
 * MMXXXIII → 2033
 * MMXXXIV → 2034
 * MMXXXV → 2035
 * MMXXXVI → 2036
 * MMXXXVII → 2037
 * MMXXXVIII → 2038
 * MMXXXIX → 2039
 * MMXL → 2040
 * MMXLI → 2041
 * MMXLII → 2042
 * MMXLIII → 2043
 * MMXLIV → 2044
 * MMXLV → 2045
 * MMXLVI → 2046
 * MMXLVII → 2047
 * MMXLVIII → 2048
 * MMXLIX → 2049
 * MMLI → 2051
 * MMLII → 2052
 * MMLIII → 2053
 * MMLIV → 2054
 * MMLVI → 2056
 * MMLVII → 2057
 * MMLVIII → 2058
 * MMLIX → 2059
 * MMLX → 2060s
 * MCMXLI → 1941
 * MCMXLII → 1942
 * MCMXLIII → 1943
 * MCMXLIV → 1944
 * MCMXLV → 1945
 * MCMXLVI → 1946
 * MCMXLVII → 1947
 * MCMXLVIII → 1948
 * MCMXLIX → 1949

No one is going to enter any of these in the search box, or wikilink it. Articles not yet tagged, as I can't get AWB to work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. I still don't think they're helpful, but there appears to be consensus they don't meet the deletion criteria.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep all. 1. They do no harm (agreed, not a reason to keep, but good to know in contrast to "they do do harm". 2. Very handy when typed into the wikipedia search box - you get the article. In their absence, what do you get? (And, per a comment below, how do you know no-one will type them in. They appear at the end of thousands upon thousands of TV programmes & films. Why would someone not type one in?) 3. There will be links to roman numerals in wikipedia. Not all. Some. So. Some limited use. No harm. I can see no particular good in deleting them, so the balance for me is keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, most of them, when entered in the Wikipedia search box, would pick up the article on the year, from the roman numeral field. Please discuss on WT:YEARS as to whether they should.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you. MCMXVIII when typed into the search box, does indeed return 1918 as one of the suggested pages (it does not have a redirect, as you can see from the red link). But MCMXVII will take you to 1917 directly because of the redirect. And that seems a more sensible position to be in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all as many copyright notices, etc., show the year of copyright in Roman Numerals. I see no provision in WP:RfD applicable here, but as a search for a Roman Numeral year, it is worthy of keeping per WP:RfD. Omissions of Roman Numeral entries can be taken care of by creating the appropriate redirect as needed (note that WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid reason for either deleting or keeping an article or redirect). B.Wind (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all per the arguements by Tagishsimon and B.Wind. I can see these being used as search terms (although admitingly probably not frequently) and so it seems reasonable to keep them.  Lack of wikilinks to a redirect is not a reason for deleting as redirects are mainly for search terms not wikilinks.  Dpmuk (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all roman numeral to year redirects listed above perfectly reasonable alternative spellings of the years in frequent use outside Wikipedia. No counterargument for why these are particularly harmful is given; "redirects are cheap" so infrequent use is not an argument for deletion. Most redirects are primarily for searching and a lack of wikilinks is not a reason for deletion. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all. These are reasonable redirects; the main use of large roman numerals in modern practice is to indicate years. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep sorry you put this much time into it, but these are clearly useful. Tavix (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all Seems useful to have and no apparent negatives. SunCreator (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)