Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 5, 2008

July 5[edit]

Catholic Bible → Catholic Biblical Federation[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget to Bible#Christian Bible. Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is confusing. The Catholic Biblical Federation is not the same thing as the Catholic Bible. Rclocher3 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Bible#Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books. see below. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bible#Christian Bible. Unless there's a specific version of the Bible that church uses exclusively. I oppose the above retarget, the "Catholic Bible" is more than just those books. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bible#Christian Bible per UsaSatsui above. The current target is manifestly incorrect, redirecting solely to Bible is potentially confusing (the top content is specific to Judaism), and Bible#Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books might well convey an incorrect impression that the "Catholic Bible" is some separate scripture distinct from the Old Testament, rather than a more expansive version of it. This proposed target is the most correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the last two entries. Indeed, as Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books is a subsection of Christian Bible in the target article Bible anyway, any misunderstanding can be avoided by redirecting to the main section rather than a subsection. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either Bible#Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books or Bible#Christian Bible. I don't really see a problem with the former - I think most intelligent readers will know to check the context when they see they've gotten a section redirect - but the latter is acceptable and in any case much better than the current redirect. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Oklahoma City Outlaws → Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. There are several rumors floating around, but no reliable sources. It can be recreated if it becomes reliable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator) Redirect was created as a result of page-move vandalism. No indication the Outlaws name is even being considered, so the redirect is very unlikely to be used. 5:15 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the time being. "Outlaws" is indeed one of the nicknames considered for the Oklahoma City franchise, and, according to at least one source, the one most likely to get adopted. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote your so-called source "Clearly the best name of the four. Not only does it sound cool, it's perfect for Bennett's team. Just think of the potential free agents a team called the Outlaws could attract down the road: Ron Artest (too easy), Stephen Jackson, Ruben Patterson, Jamaal Tinsley—the list of former Portland JailBlazers and Indiana Fightin' Pacers could go on forever. And last I checked, former Bengals WR Chris Henry isn't playing football anywhere, so sign him up! Plus, wouldn't it be perfect to have the coach that got strangled by Latrell Sprewell coaching a team called the Outlaws?" Sound Reliable to you?5:15 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact remains that this name is under serious consideration, being one of the four "finalists". I don't think the redirect should be deleted until the name is finally chosen. What I will say is that, for the time being, Oklahoma City Outlaws should not become anything other than a redirect. Once the team picks its name, then this redirect should be deleted and the article moved to the proper name. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting it. That site is pure crap. I could jsut as easily register and post an article saying it isn't being considered. 5:15 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am getting your point. What you fail to consider is that if the name Outlaws had not been a serious contender, that site, as crappy as it is, would never have existed in the first place. Remember, we're talking about a redirect here, not about the article itself or its content. There are people who apparently believe the name Outlaws is a done deal. Keeping the redirect is a good way of telling them, "Not so," since the target article makes no mention of it. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't make articles (or redirects) everytime an average joe coins a term on his blog or free bleacher report account. Okiefromokla complaints 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Five Fifteen is right. There is no talk of what the NBA team in OKC will be named, so this is an example of crystal balling. The source listed above is Bleacher Report, where anyone with a free account can write an article. It's an opinion piece anyway. Okiefromokla complaints 15:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "where anyone with a free account can write an article". Sound familiar to anything?... This is why you can't use another Wikipedia article and/or language Wikipedia as sources, even though they are probably 10 000 times more accurate. happypal (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed my point, but Bleacher Report is a place for individuals to write un-edited articles and doesn't have the standards for verifiability that Wikpedia does. Okiefromokla complaints 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of it being officially considered as a name for the franchise. The cited editorial from a webzine offers noting indicating more than one person's opinion as to what the name should be. Had this been an editorial in the sports section of the New York Times, it would still merit deletion. B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep The very fact it appears someplace on the internet suggests that people will search for it. WP:RS doesn't apply here, and even if that wasn't a nickname at all, but osmoene accidentaly said it was, we should have a redirect because people will, after seeing the linked article, type that into the search box here on wikipedia.--Serviam (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, when discussing a redirect, there is only one thing worthy of consideration, and that is what will people be looking for. What will people type in the search box? And we have evidence that a significant number of people will be looking for Oklahoma City Outlaws at least for a while, rather than the cumbersome Oklahoma City National Basketball Association team. So, in this situation, blogs are perhaps more reliable than even the team's front office.
It would be a different story if we were talking about article content, or if this were an Article for deletion. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I can sign up for a free Bleacher Report account, write an editorial that the OKC team's name should be the "Oklahoma City Dust Devils" and create a redirect page for Oklahoma City Dust Devils? Why don't I include 10 other possibilities in my Bleacher Report editorial? Would all of those get redirect pages, too? There are many possible names circulating around the internet right now, and I can provide links to dozens of blogs and even some additional Bleacher Report articles that have suggested names. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Perhaps it would be different if this was indeed a name suggested prominently by the New York Times, but this is a free webzine that anyone with an idea can write in. A glorified blog-hosting website. Okiefromokla complaints 14:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Absolutely not. Read my argumentation again. And read your own quote of the Bleacher Report. If you believe the author of that article is the one who first proposed the name Outlaws, you will certainly be interested in buying some proverbial bridge. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, your argument fails to address WP:RS and WP:V (and, before I continue, please remember that WP:NPA applies to all of us). Without any support from reliable sources (and none of them touting themselves as "the open source sports network," which declares that it is not a reliable source under WP:RS), the term has no place, even as a redirect page, in Wikipedia. Now, if you have an official source (connected with the team) that confirms that the Oklahoma City Outlaws nickname is getting more official consideration than the Oklahoma City Sperm, it might be different... but until there is confirmation from either the team or the local media of record (say, the local Oklahoma City newspaper - but not the editorial page!), it must stay out of Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at this point I will rest my case. Remember what I said, we're talking about what people will type in the search box. So, all we need to show is that it is significant enough a rumor. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated by B.Wing avove, without a reliable source, someone writing an article/blog with his free Bleacher Report account doesn't show anything but that one person had an idea. This falls under category #7 on reasons for deleting redirects: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name." Okiefromokla complaints 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 7 talks about "very obscure synonym". Clearly not the case here. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is a whole lot of crystal balling going on here. According to a USA Today article published today, WWLS-AM has been hearing similar suggestions for team names from prospective fans, and it seems that weather-related ones - "Tornadoes", "Thunder", and "Hurricanes" - seem to be favorites, but others like "Oz" have been mentioned... and none of these deserve redirects any more or less than the one in the RfD. None should be noted until/unless the team has spoken. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup: the official OKC site at www.nba.com has a quote from team general manager Sam Presti (July 10, 2008): "We're more concerned with what's inside the jersey than what's on the outside of it, but I'm sure we'll have a great name."[1] 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Marin City , California → Marin City, California[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created article which was a substantial copy of the original. I converted it to a redirect, but the nature of the "typo" (a space between the word City and the comma) makes me wonder whether this redirect should be kept. Neutral, leaning towards keep, but seeking a second opinion. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Page is useless as a redirect (typoed). It has a page history, but it's only copy paste from the original article, plus maintenance bots, hence no attribution needed. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I would never support the creation of redirects like this preemptively, once a page like this has been created in good faith, a redirect is the least bad answer. The redirect serves to politely point the creator to the page where he/she should have been editing and where his/her contributions will be appreciated. Deletion, on the other hand, too often has the unintended consequence of appearing to a new user as a database hiccup leaving them wondering where their article went and reposting the deleted content thinking that they are helping. The page then gets speedy-deleted as "recreated content" with increasingly hostile comments and we bite a new editor.
    The equation would be different if deleting a redirect cleaned up the database but it doesn't. Deletion actually adds database records. Unless a redirect is actively misleading or confusing to our readers, it's better to just leave these alone. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - entirely plausible typo. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hola/Chau (album) → Hola/Chau[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. No consensus for deletion and while the disambiguation may be unnecessary, it causes no harm. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator) Results from a move by myself, as the album was un-necessarily disambiguated; and thus wrongly named. There is no edit history, no incoming links, and the original page was created only a few days thirty minutes ago. The redirect serves no purpose. If One day the album needs to be disambiguated, then the page should be re-created happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This page was so named by its creator in an effort to disambiguate, but there is nothing to disambiguate it with. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is part of the documentation of the pagemove and will serve to point the previous editor (and any readers who found it in the meantime) to the page where their contributions will be appreciated. Admittedly, the value of this redirect is lower than if it had existed for a while but I don't see any evidence that the original editor has returned to the article to see the new location yet. Even if it has very minor value, deletion has less. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally, when I nominate a redirect for speedy deletion in a case like this, or a new page created with a blatant typo in its title, I notify the creator and give him a direct link to the page's new name. In fact, see the RfD just below this one. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I told the editor on the talk page myself about the move, and he has already found the page. He was the only editor to the page, and as I said, the page was moved about 30 mins after its creation, so I doubt anybody else is really concerned... happypal (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With that update, my opinion changes to "weak keep merely because there is no value to deletion". Deletion adds another record to the database and doesn't really 'clean up' anything. The redirect may now have zero value but ignoring it has zero cost. Server space costs us a trivial amount but that amount no matter how small is still greater than zero. Rossami (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Instruments used in vascular[edit]

The result of the debate was already speedy deleted by User:Gwen Gale per criterion R1 (implausible typo) (log). — Gavia immer (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page moved due to name typosarindam7 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_5&oldid=1146734970"