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.
Delete. I doubt anyone would search for that. Müdigkeit (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible typo.--Launchballer 20:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not sure if I could call it a typo and apply a speedy deletion- that is why it is here.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You probably could, because it was a recently created redirect; don't bother applying a speedy tag yet because I've tagged Hope in transition for AfD, and this should go with it.--Launchballer 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (keeping in mind that the article's deletion would result in this being speedied). I see nothing implausible about this redirect, so as long as the target exists, so should this redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. This is a valid short-cut with WP:SHORTCUT not barring short-cuts to essays. As several commentators have said the essay can be challenged at WP:MFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion: This redirect falls under confusion and self-promotion/spam. This is no policy limiting "redirects from foreign languages" but this redirect patterns itself as though this proposed policy were already settled law. It is bupkis, but it is being cited over 60 times in current discussions on this page, with no mention of the non-policy nature of the page at any of the initial links (and not always appearing even in the rebuttals). This proposal should not have a WP:~ style redirect, misleading editors into posting or positing it as though it were policy. — LlywelynII 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum: of course Wikipedia essays are allowed to have shortcuts and are forced to use "WP:" prefix (see WP:SASC). This one is "accessible" rendition of WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 sub-criterion, and it is used over 60 times because it also represents common practice on RfD, and foreign name redirects are frequent here recently. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They should have a separate designation that prevents users (such as yourself) from misleadingly employing them as authorities: Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. That said, if it's currently completely standard to use WP:~ as the prefix for essays, granted, there's nothing special about this use and we should just have the admins who wander this page slapping more hands. — LlywelynII 04:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misleading you, but it is your fault: shortcuts' prefixes are not supposed to mean anything but namespace. Seeing T:WPFS you know this is redirect to template. Why seeing WP:FORRED you imply policy? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum/keep. The nominator's quarrel isn't with the redirect, but rather its target page. Take it to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. My quarrel isn't with the target page at all. It's with the redirect allowing editors here to pretend that it's a policy in their arguments: WP:DONTCITEESSAYSASPOLICY. — LlywelynII 04:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still sounds like an WP:MFD issue. Yeah sure, it's an essay, but editors can cite it. If you don't agree with it, nominate it for deletion. If this redirect doesn't exist, the essay still will, and editors will just cite the entire name of the essay. I'm not seeing how deleting this redirect is going to assist your cause. By the way, keep given what I just said. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do you realize that you cited an essay to dispute citing an essay? The point attempted here kind of collapsed on itself. Steel1943 (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue here is that the essay is based on the eighth entry as reasons for deleting at the top of the page If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created. I may be wrong but I don't think that was recently added so the idea that we don't want foreign language redirects created is not bupkis made to look like a policy. For that reason I doubt that a MFD will be successful. Finally, if this really was an essay masquerading as policy with no actual support I am sure that one of the administrators that have closed RFD's of this nature would have realized this by now, disregarded comments that used WP:FORRED as a rational, and kept the redirect due to the deletion views being discounted.--76.65.43.92 (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The redirect is perfectly appropriate for the target page. As others have advised, if you have a problem with the target page then MfD is the correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to MfD; your qualm is with the policy, not the redirect.--Launchballer 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which I also firmly disagree with as the essay is an accessible version of the policy.--Launchballer 08:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We would need to remove several long standing and commonly used redirects to essays if we decided to do this. What would have to go would include WP:SNOW, seveal redirerects to WP:ATA suck as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX, not to mention the often used WP:BOOMERANG etc.--76.65.43.92 (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 retargettoCyprus Popular Bank. The consensus is to keep this redirect as a plausible misspelling. I am closing as a retarget because the misspelling should go to the same target as the correctly spelt redirect (Laiki Bank) and I am taking no position as to which is the better target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CPB Bank is a product of consolidation of several banks including Laiki Bank, which is mentioned in article text. Regarding odd『ï』in page's name: I couldn't to find any reference to the bank's name with "ï", but that was the name the target article had for nearly a month (apparently there was a time in beginning of 2013 when CPB was called "Laiki Bank"), so this typo is evidently plausible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not understand how you conclude that "this typo is evidently plausible", as you admit that there is no reference to the name of the bank with "odd" "ï". However, I see the substantial meaning of your claim. Thus, I suggest that one of the following is done: 1. Laiki Bank will become a disambiguation page with two options, Cyprus Popular Bank and CPB Bank, 2. CPB Bank will be merged into Cyprus Popular Bank. No matter what the final choice will be, option 1 could be a temporary solution. In any case, this page (Laïki Bank) must be deleted as soon as possible for the reasons which have been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.136.141 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that the target article was moved to this name shows that this typo happens. The fact that the article remained under this name until it was moved to its current location indicates that this typo was not spotted, which (sort of) contributes to plausibility. More importantly, we need a good reason to delete redirect after page move. Merging articles is out of scope of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Greek term is Λαϊκή with the dieresis, so it's unsurprising some people spell it that way in English. Google finds quite a lot of English language results using the term. Siuenti (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This (ï) is not an english or a greek character. Typing what on their keyboard will some people spell it that way in English? (This is the greek character: ϊ. On the page there seems to be no difference, but on the editing the difference is obvious.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.157.67 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand the issue and stop insisting on the deletion of this redirect page. If the final decision is to keep it, then we must fix another issue, which may be out of the subject. Laiki Bank and Laïki Bank are the same and have to do with both Cyprus Popular Bank and CPB Bank. Thus, I suggest that one of the two options described above is implemented. According to option 1 Laïki Bank will redirect to Laiki Bank. According to option 2 Laïki Bank will redirect to Cyprus Popular Bank.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.157.67 (talk • contribs)
Target somewhere as mentioned, an article was created with the ï so it obviously means something to someone, and is therefore a plausible redirect. I am not going to pretend to know the history of the banking system of Cyprus, but the redirect should be targeted somewhere.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression that there is a consensus to keep it. I would like to express my intention to proceed to the implementation of the above mentioned option 1, after the closure of this discussion, as long as there is no opposite decision. (I think that it is obvious, but I would like to clarify it to avoid any misunderstanding. I am the (sole until now) nonuser involved in the issue.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.81.73 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is unlikely to be closed before 22 June. Please, before proceeding with your plan make yourself comfortable with WP:MERGE – there is a process for such things, and this discussion is not a proper place to discuss it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 procedural closure: the page is no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSC somehow excuses lists from this duty. I didn't check the size of the list though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recently i've added info and references Babitaarora 08:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 no consensus. Number57 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day-this is not an English-usage term, it is not listed in the Persian Gulf article as an alternate name, nor is it in the article on the Gulf naming dispute. Holds no currency in English, just someone's wishful thinking Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending some need to dab the namespace. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's made up. — LlywelynII 16:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are three GBook hits for this linkage, but there are also 1200-odd other GBook hits. Web hits are as lopsided. My impression is that this is mostly a poetic turn of phrase; we shouldn't be implying that it always means the Gulf. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that poetic meaning does not warrant redirect. Still, I don't see how this fact discards the obscure historic reference to the gulf. After all, aren't redirects supposed to help readers reach the article from alternative, less common terms? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it seems very unlikely that people who would look for this phrase would specifically be looking for that meaning. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? I doubt people will be looking up poetic metaphor on Wikipedia, and no other use was demonstrated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular reason to believe that if people are searching for this phrase, they want this meaning. Mangoe (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a reason: this is the only encyclopedic meaning we (participants of this discussion) could gather so far. We can safely assume that readers of online encyclopedia are searching for encyclopedic meaning. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
DeleteWP:NOT a translation dictionary. And the translation is incorrect anyways, as Mexican area codes are not the only area codes in existence. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of other countries speak Spanish, but the concept of the "area code" is specifically a reference to the North American Numbering Plan. NANP has only operated in two Hispanophone countries (Mexico and the Dominican Republic), and Mexico, being far larger, is definitely the primary usage, even though they now use a different plan. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "area code" is a common translation of "código telefónico", as well as "код города", "pozivni broj", etc. See es:Lista de códigos telefónicos for the use of title on Spanish Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iceland is not, and has not been, a communist country. No particular affinity for this topic in Icelandic. This is a general topic, not an Icelandic one. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is - on the other hand, Russia, heading the Soviet Union, was by far the most powerful and influential communist country that ever existed. For that reason, I'd say that it is particularly Russian. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, being from Russia I know what you mean, but it was "Socialism" in USSR, not "Communism". Also note: China was building communism for longer period of time and is still doing so. Regardless, the abstract concepts just can't have language-specific ties. Mongol Empire was (at least arguably) the largest and most influential in the world, but that did not lead to Гүрэн redirect pointing to Empire. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because as far as I can tell, no such organization exists. I'm finding at Atlanta Boys Baseball Association and an Atlanta Ball Association, neither which seem notable enough for an article. Atlanta Braves is also a terrible target. Just delete it, there is no article to write. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 I understand Chinese and that is not the right way you pronounce it. Thanks TheChampionMan1234 04:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What dialect is your knowledge from, and what dialect is this transcription supposed to represent? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: implausible search term, not really a word in any language, and not phonetic transcription.per WP:FORRED: I see no connection between the concept of Taoism and whatever language. I would not oppose redirect to Taoism from original name in Chinese, but it does not appear to be the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC) (updated 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
It does not, because this redirect's name combines IPA of variant of pronunciation of "道", the first letter in 道教, and all but first letters of "taoism". This is not a real phonetical transcription, neither foreign language variant, rather a synthesis of several loosely concepts, making it absolutely implausible, useless search term that even bots are not interested in (as stats reveal). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as these titles can potentially become articles--Lenticel(talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. The clear consensus reflects redirect policy. Redirects from misspellings are generally kept as they provide useful search aids. In addition, this is a long-standing redirect, nearly 8 years old and deleting could be harmful due to breaking long-standing external links. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects from misspellings to the correct title are encouraged. This is a very likely misspelling, so if will help users who forget how to spell it. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plausible typo.--Lenticel(talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
