Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 31

January 31
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2011

Elizabeth II



 * 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 Keep and do not retarget (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four  ♣ ← 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Elizabeth II (links to redirect • [ history] • )

At the moment this redirects to Queen regnant. However everybody who uses the term is doing so as an abbreviation of Elizabeth II. I suggest it be altered to direct to Elizabeth II. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Editors may wish to identify uses of the term which they link to a specific queen, such as HM The Queen, or to a specific monarchy (e.g. "In the UK, Parliament can be dissolved only by HM The Queen ") but this should be done on a case-by-case basis. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Support (rather obviously) DBD 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for two reasons: First, we've had no evidence that no one uses the term to refer to other queens. Even if they do not, it is equally unclear that it is never used to refer to Queen Victoria. If anything, it probably should just redirect to Queen or something like that because its application is not limited to Queens regnant. Elizabeth's mother was HM The Queen, as were the other Queens consort going up the family tree through the time when the style "Majesty" was first used in the UK. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The term may be used to refer to any Queen. Tony Blair went to see HM The Queen when he wanted to dissolve Parliament, and Gladstone also went to see  HM The Queen. In the Netherlands, HM The Queen married German aristocrat Claus von Amsberg, which at he time cause a political crisis for HM The Queen. In Denmark HM The Queen had been less controversial, but her neighbours may recall that in the 14th century HM The Queen invaded Sweden.
 * Oppose per BrownHairdGirl. For that matter, U.S. President redirects to President of the United States, not to Barack Obama. A title should not redirect to its holder, and in this case it can't, because there are multiple holders of that title. —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Balystok



 * 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 keep all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

General cleanup on unsupported redirects - no general usage of terminology with common english. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * → Białystok (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Białystok (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Białystok (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * They seem to be reasonable transliterations of a foreign language-titled topic. I see no evidence of confusion created by these redirects.  Without some evidence of harm, redirects like this are generally kept.  Rossami (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Balystok, Byalistok and Bielystok  are auto-redirected by Google to the correct spelling - Ajh1492 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your "delete" opinion is implied by your nomination of the redirect above.  Please be cautious when making additional comments in a thread.  Formatting your reply the way you did can give the appearance that you are trying to "stuff the ballot box" so to speak.  In reply to your comment, not everyone navigates Wikipedia through Google.  In fact, I would venture to say that Google is probably a minority navigation technique.  But even if most people did use Google exclusively, that still wouldn't be a reason to delete a redirect.  There has to be some showing of harm or confusion.  Rossami (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So how am I hiding my opinion, I signed the initial request and I signed my comment. You need to watch your hypersensitivity. Google is a "minor navigation technique", considering it's the top-rated search site on the internet and provides favorable placement for Wikipedia entries it's pretty important to have reasonably accurate information in WP. Even if you don't navigate through Google the entries never had a significant set of links within WP, just work lists for orphan articles.Ajh1492 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Plausible enough. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wordwang



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → That Mitchell and Webb Look (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Redirect to broken section. Wordwang only occurred once but Numberwang several times. Unlikely search since it was just a one-off; very minimal usage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Corror



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Coronation Street (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I think it may have been created as a variant on the name, but it is not a name in common use. A quick search brings up no results for 'Corror' in relation to the subject. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Not a well known nickname at all. In fact, I've never heard it called Corror. Corrie, yes, Corror, no. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per TheRetroGuy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Scheduling of Coronation Street



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Coronation Street (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Pointless redirect to article section. I can't think of any circumstance where this would be used. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  01:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Um...I don't recall creating this, but it was nearly two yars ago. No doubt I had something in mind at the time. The most likely explanation is that I probably saw another article where something similar had been done so created it. No objections to its deletion though if that's what people decided to do. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have derived it from Scheduling of Emmerdale on which we have an article. Perhaps I envisaged a similar article for Coronation Street, but, as they say, I've been to bed since then. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Coronation Street Broadcast Timeline(UK)



 * 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 Keep (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four  ♣ ← 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Coronation Street (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Useless redirect, serves no purpose. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  00:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Created as part of the pagemove process.  As such, it serves several purposes and is explicitly not "useless".  Rossami (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Coronation Street broadcast timeline



 * 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 Keep (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four  ♣ ← 06:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Coronation Street (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Useless redirect. The article should have been deleted rather than merged. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  00:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep whether it should have been merged or not, it was and so this redirect serves the purpose of maintaining the attribution history as required by the license. Thryduulf (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see what you mean, but the content has in fact been deleted from the article anyway, as it was found to already be present in the appropriate section. The table therefore became purely decorative, and was removed. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the content has been removed currently, editorial decisions change and the content might someday be restored.  In the event that it is restored, however unlikely, we will need to preserve the attribution history.  In matters of copyright compliance, I believe we should be very conservative.  In the meantime, this redirect creates no apparent confusion or harm to the project.  "Useless" is a value judgement and not a valid reason to delete a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Subphrenic abscess



 * 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 stubbified. The redirect has been overwritten by a stub article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Pneumoperitoneum (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete - It doesn't make any sense (they are 2 very different entities), and it prevents the actual article to be written. Sanjilops (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Close I've made it to a stub.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)