Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

Sedum reflexum → Sedum[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redlink in target article, which links back to redirect. SEWilco 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect unless it can be turned into a stub. Self-pointing redirects are an independent problem - I think there's even a bot for detecting them - and should be removed from within the Sedum article. YechielMan 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Destruction of Korean Royal Palace → Gyeongbokgung[edit]

The result of the debate was delete as redirect appears misleading. DGG is correct, you can just change a redirect into an article as an editorial decision... WjBscribe 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and, Gyeongbokgung is not the sole example where a Korean palace was destroyed, and the title seems to be referring to the Japanese-era destruction of Korean palace... should be more precise & there should be a separate article on it. Adding the redirect won't be any more helpful in leading info seekers in a more right direction or to an interesting point. Wikimachine 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe you can simply right the article right now, as an editing change. DGG 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Welsh Empire → British Empire[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator: English Empire is not nominated
Also nominated Irish Empire, Irish empire, Scottish Empire. I don't know if these terms can legitimately be redirected to British Empire; I thought these might be a bit confusing, so I thought I'd get some input from the community. Each of these terms gets ~1000 hits each but they refer to these empires as separate entities or to fictional works (as far as I can tell.) - TwoOars 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. English Empire goes to British Empire and the Irish, Scottish and Welsh were just as much part of the home nations as England was. - Johnnai 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnnai, I get your logic but are all these empires equivalent to British Empire? Are these terms often used to refer to the British Empire? - TwoOars 19:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes they are terms to refer to the British empire as all 4 countries are in the British isles. Johnnai 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Copied from my talk page):Twooars, British Isles refers to Britain and Ireland. England, Scotland and Wales exist on Britain and Ireland is it's own island. British Empire refers the British isles, not 1 of the 4 countries. The reason I created those articles was because English empire has the same validity of Irish, Scottish and Welsh empire and it would neglect the other 3 countries and ignorantly proclaim it was an "English Empire" alone.Johnnai
          • But redirects should not be created based on a "sense of fairness" or to not neglect the other 3 countries. The question is whether any of these terms are actually used to refer to the British Empire. - TwoOars 20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Deindent)(Copied from my talk page):If this is the case Twooars then "English empire" should be removed as it is never used.Johnnai
  • Comment I've never heard of these being used instead of British Empire. GDonato (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in replacement of British empire, but in acknowledgement of the other British peoples role in them, also see English Empire. Johnnai 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not appear to be in use. GDonato (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that these are in common use. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • partial delete keep English Empire, delete the others--no evidence for their use, except DGG 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except English: this may be biased, but it's the world that's biased, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia documents the world as it is, not as people might like it to be. A quick google search reveals many instances of "English Empire" being used to describe the British Empire, while the other terms are used quite differently. Xtifr tälk 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English Empire is not nominated. GDonato (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There never were Welsh, Irish, or Scottish empires and the redirects may create the impression that there were. "English Empire" may deserve to stay and see additional review for the sole reason that the English have for centuries been the dominant group in the British Isles. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply because the phrases 'Scottish Empire', 'Welsh Empire' and 'Irish Empire' are never used to refer to the British Empire. In fact, I don't think anyone uses those phrases at all. It is legitimate to redirect 'English Empire' to 'British Empire', as the latter grew out of the former; but Scottish, Welsh and Irish Empires never existed in the first place, and I don't see how the British Empire could be considered predominantly Scottish, Irish or Welsh. Terraxos 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mormonism and mainstream Christianity → Mormonism and Christianity[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not useful. If it's really "mainstream" no one will feel the need to search with the term inserted. Red Baron 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and the next three redirects. They are not useful, and potentially misleading. YechielMan 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on all threeDGG 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yechiel. → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

LDS and mainstream Christianity → Mormonism and Christianity[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not useful. If it's really "mainstream" no one will feel the need to search with the term inserted. Red Baron 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mormons and mainstream Christianity → Mormonism and Christianity[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not useful. If it's really "mainstream" no one will feel the need to search with the term inserted. Red Baron 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mainstream Christianity and its offshoots → Christianity[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not useful. If it's really "mainstream" no one will feel the need to search with the term inserted. Red Baron 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Edit conflicts → Help:Edit conflict[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Help: namespace from article space. Confusing Manifestation 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XNR per now-familiar precedent. YechielMan 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Edit conflict" is not an potential encyclopedia article, and shouldn't be linked to from the encyclopedia. --Rbraunwa 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_18&oldid=1138574739"