Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2009

Gallery of Pompeii and Herculaneum[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a gallery on this article, so the redirect isn't correct or needed. Tavix |  Talk  22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here's that same phrase, though. Anyway, history shows it was, indeed, a gallery eventually moved to Commons. Linked articles indicate an article that should be named Art in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Compare Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum, which is discussed in the external link above. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect is not needed and the article probably should have been deleted instead of redirected. The only text content appears to have been description and evaluation of the works of art, which was moved to Commons by File Upload Bot while preserving attribution to User:Eloquence (the user who added the text content) in the upload log. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lake of Venezuela[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List of lakes#Venezuela ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the official "Lake of Venezuela" or the only lake so this redirect is incorrect. Maracaibo is not known as the Lake of Venezuela Tavix |  Talk  22:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of things described as headless[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted because it suggests that the disambiguation page to which it redirects is an indiscriminate list to which partial title matches may be added. Neelix (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; unlikely title, and no mainspace incoming links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; presumably an article in the past, has solid view history; no edit history now. I can't think of anywhere to send the external visitors Josh Parris 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from the target's history "12:17, 27 November 2009 JHunterJ (talk | contribs) m (2,503 bytes) (moved List of things described as headless to Headless (disambiguation): return to dab, clean up) (undo)". Two weeks after a page move is far too soon to get rid of the redirect without a really good reason. Keep it for now, reassess in a couple months. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I wrote that edit summary, I believe there were still incoming mainspace links to it. It was a dab page posing as a list, now it's a dab page and the links have been fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator I don't see what good it would do to put off the deletion for a couple months. It seems to me that really good reasons have already been provided for why the redirect should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

No, Luke, I am your father[edit]

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 Luke's father, Retarget others to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, along with Luke's father, Luke I am your father, and Luke, I am your father. Implausible, can't see why anyone would expect these string of words to have articles. Fail to see why a line of dialogue should redirect to a character. Declan Clam (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rh blood group system[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep Josh Parris 10:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion; I moved the article Rhesus blood group system to Rh blood group system since the latter is the correct name and the former is a misnomer. All steps are clearly explained in the talk page of the article. I did not realize that there was already a redirect from Rh blood group system to Rhesus blood group system, which created a cycling dual-redirect. I temporarily renamed the target of the Rh blood group system redirect to itself which would work as a work-around; however, I undid this myself to allow you the proper solution. Please delete the Rh blood group system redirect to Rhesus blood group system without deleting the original article page with the content. Thank you. Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: In contrast to many people's believe, Rh is not an abbreviation of Rhesus. It is the real name of the blood group system. Therefore, it makes sense to keep this name as the name of the article and keep Rhesus blood group system just as a redirect as currently implemented. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it with {{db-self}} and it will all go away. Josh Parris 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the proposal is back to front. Josh Parris 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extensive internal linking and large number of external hits. Josh Parris 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I mentioned above. Rh blood group system is now the main article. I am just asking to remove the redirect to Rhesus blood group system which leads to a cycling double redirect. It is just a technical problem that I cannot solve myself but have to ask an admin through this process here. The article will still be available through both key words. Thanks for understanding and solving the technical problem soon. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I understand now. Is this what happened? You found Rhesus blood group system and realised it was titled incorrectly, so you hit the move button and moved it to Rh blood group system, the correct title. But it turns out that there were a bunch of redirects pointing to Rhesus blood group system, and now they're all double-redirects (as Rhesus blood group system became a redirect when you moved the article to Rh blood group system), and as such not working, so: you've come here, asking for an admin to make the double redirects go away? If that's the problem, just wait a bit and a WP:bot will come along and tidy everything up. I'm pretty sure I've seen a double-redirect bot running around here somewhere. Josh Parris 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly what happened. I would have asked an admin first to delete the redirect and then move the page (move request) if I had realized that there was already a redirect from the new name to the old name. I learned something: check first. So, if you have already seen a bot running around, then it hopefully will be at this no longer used redirect soon. :-) Otherwise I am glad if an admin can solve the problem manually. Thanks. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just had a look, and there's no double-redirects. Josh Parris 10:48, 8 December 2009 (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/2009_December_6&oldid=1138576608"