Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 24

File:X.gif



 * 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → File:Red X Symbol.gif (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Image retitled to allow salting of a short filename, Unable to 'speedy' as does not fall within the current CSD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom, and salting decisions at WP:FFD on highly generic titles. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, how would this not fall under housekeeping/maintenance? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


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

Shearling boots



 * 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 to shearling. ~ Alison C. (Crazytales)  07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Ugg boots (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Is this really used to refer to Ugg boots? (I admit ignorance; one credible "yes" and no indication it's used for other boots would mean I'd be fine with keeping it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-target to Shearling. Although Ugg does apparently make shearling boots the term should not be directed to one particular brand as this item is generic. Seems best to re-target it to Shearling, where the item is briefly mentioned along with a photograph. France 3470  ( talk ) 02:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Boots with the fur



 * 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; current target is kind of ORy and there's no precendent for redirecting lyrics to the song article. ~ Alison C. (Crazytales)  07:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Ugg boots (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete or retarget to a new article at fur boot. I'm mean, REALLY? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-target to Low (Flo Rida song). It's a reference to a line of the lyrics, which is briefly mentioned at Low (Flo Rida song) and likely what people are searching for. Maybe a silly redirect but pretty harmless. France 3470   ( talk ) 19:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not sure why this redirect is needed, but since I've learned that many people around here think that a redirect not serving a purpose or being necessary is not a valid reason for deletion, I suppose another alternative is to re-target it to the Flo Rida song Low (Flo Rida song). But is it really acceptable to have redirects that are solely snippets of a song lyric? Keeping it kind of sets a bad precedent. If they want to find out what song a lyric is from, people can search any number of websites devoted to that purpose. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The lyric is at least sort of mentioned in the article: "..."Shawty" in a club who is wearing Apple Bottom jeans and boots with fur", but it does not explain what these "boots with the fur" are or anything like that. Just because (presumably) some editor thought Flo may have been referring to Ugg boots or similar style boots is not a valid reason to have this link there.
 * Btw, I don't think that Fur boot would be an appropriate target. The boots he is referring to in the lyric are more likely Shearling boots. -MsBatfish (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Omega (Cyrillic) and Ot (Cyrillic)



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Omega (Cyrillic) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, since the redirect string is a superset of the target string, so people are unlikely to use it.  It Is Me Here   t / c 16:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. Side note: last several months the stats are at noise level, redirect from move, which was reversed. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Toltequity



 * 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 Speedy close, no deletion needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → Toltec (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Eliminate redirect on “Toltequity” to Toltec the spanish article “Toltequidad” is translated and ready to upload. Raúl Gutiérrez 14:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can overwrite the redirect yourself. Like so. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

South Cyprus (Greek Cyprus)



 * 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. Lack of neutrality is not a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects are not supposed to be neutral. The absense of incoming links is not valid reason for deletion either. Ruslik_ Zero 16:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Cyprus (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Procedural move from AFD. Rationale below. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The redirect goes to Cyprus. Term should be on a separated article to extend the Turkish and Turkish cypriot point of view on the terms `South Cyprus` and `Greek Cyprus` as official policy of the self-declared `North Cyprus` and the Turkish Republic. Secondly as a minor significance geographical term. The actual redirect can not be an encyclopedic information and can not be reliable. After the creation of the article, the term could be also add at Cyprus (disambiguation) Vagrand (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a weird name for an article. I would prefer something like Controversy over the status of Cyprus. That would be the valid place for both POV on the question. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note As I suggested at first, the term 'South Cyprus' and 'Greek Cyprus' as it redirects to 'Cyprus' can not describe those terms. Turkey and his Puppet state, occupy an worldwide sovereign recognised country, member of the EU, and those terms are used as a propaganda and only by them for them. It is like their is a redirect of South Germany to Austria (South on German language), New Mexico to Mexico, Britain (France province) to Great Britain. It is not encyclopaedic correct as those terms can only be described to an separate article or into an appropriate article with a part for the disputed term.--Vagrand (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If those used in someone's propaganda, it's also a valid search term, more reasons to keep. BTW, in Russia it is primarily known as Южный Кипр (South Cyprus). Anyway, redirects don't have to be encyclopaedic. They just have to route reader to the content he's looking for. In this case the content is clearly the current target. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "South Cyprus" and "Greek Cyprus" may be valid search terms, but "South Cyprus (Greek Cyprus)" is quite implausible. --Lambiam 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did You see the stats? Don't look like the definition of "implausible". &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not linked to by any article in mainspace, and useless as a search term. --Lambiam 08:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note There are no entries "South Cyprus (Greek Cyprus)", "South Cyprus" or "Greek Cyprus". They are very few uses of the words "South Cyprus", and when they are used, is to show the Turkish point of view OR these words are used as adjectives. Wikipedia in English is not only for Turks English-speakers and for favour of the Turkish propaganda. Same result for "Greek Cyprus".
 * @ Czarkoff (On russian wikipedia their is none entry with "South Cyprus" as an entry or two words together .For "Greek Cyprus" only ones ). --Vagrand (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Russian Wikipedia is in a sorry state on anything. Does this prove something? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.