Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

La Mesa Dam → Reservoir[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. --- RockMFR 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not even mention the La Mesa Dam, a dam in the Philippines. I think the original author of the redirect made it because there is no real article for the said dam. 上村七美 | talk 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot. The original author may have also created the redirect for convenience. He might just be lazy make the article about the dam. - 上村七美 | talk 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to Shakespeare in performance[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a tangled mess of redirects, several of which having been created very recently in the course of a CFD discussion and which all end up eventually at Shakespeare in performance. None of them are particularly necessary or intuitive. Otto4711 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep all. This is one of the silliest RfDs I've ever seen. The article Shakespearean performances was only yesterday retitled Shakespeare in performance per a talk page discussion. I attempted to fix all the links to the new article but missed a few. Can't believe that oversight resulted in an RfD. Also, this RfD messed up the main redirect for that article, which due to the recent title change has not yet been picked up by Google and other search engines.--Alabamaboy 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, thanks for the assumption of good faith and civility there, buddy. Appreciate it. In point of fact the two "acting" and the "actor" redirects didn't exist before yesterday so your claim that this was based on your "missing a few links" is, um, false. Otto4711 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "missing a few links" comment was in reference to the Shakespearean performances redirect, not the others. Apologies for the misunderstanding. In addition, I did assume good faith on your part; that doesn't mean I have to agree with your reasoning on this RfD, espcially with regards to the Shakespearean performances redirect. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't remove the {{rfd}} tag while the discussion is still open. I have put it back on all four, though I've left them all as pointing at Shakespeare in performance. BigNate37(T) 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the closing directions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Closing_notes, this is not a "valid redirect discussion request" since it was related to a move request. In addition, As it says at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#The_guiding_principles_of_RfD "Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept." All of these redirects are extremely valid. In addition, Shakespearean performances was the original article's title, was once on the main Wikipedia page, and is how Google and all the search engines list the article. I am removing the AfD from Shakespearean performances to fix this problem but will keep it on the others. Please do not reinsert the RfD on that article. Unless there is a legitimate objection, I also suggest we speedy keep all these redirects. --Alabamaboy 22:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the nomination calls these "[not] particularly necessary or intuitive," whereas move requests (insofar as RfD is concerned) pertain to deleting a redirect to open a title as a move destination. The nomination makes a legitimate deletion request; you're misapplying policy here and confusing part of the nominator's rationale for his entire rationale. A speedy keep may be a good choice and you're certainly within your right to ask for one, but you're out of line removing the RfD tag. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but removing an XfD tag is never the correct thing to do unless you're closing the XfD discussion (or if there is no discussion). Someone who hasn't commented should close this RfD if a speedy close is appropriate—you should not. BigNate37(T) 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm wasn't going to close the RfD b/c I have commented here; I do suggest, though, that some one close this RfD as a speedy keep. You are correct about the move but the second reason I gave is a valid reason to speedy keep. But having the template on Shakespearean performances means messing up a major redirect (after Shakespeare in performance, Shakespearean performances is the main way people know this subject). I prefer removing said template over confusing readers. I don't see that as out of line.--Alabamaboy 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've asked WJBscribe to address the issue, since he's often closing RfDs anyways, because I respect his judgment, and because he's around quite often. I suspect that he will close this discussion or at least de-list the former title, and I encourage as much. As far as the search engine indexing, distracting readers on this one page for a short period of time isn't a big deal—I can't see it being a high-traffic page and I think you're opinion of the importance of this page is a little skewed. That and the fact that you're assuming your opinion is the correct one and acting on it before the discussion is closed... that's pretty poor conduct in my eyes. Oh, and I changed your indentation again—bullet points are more compact, and they're also consistent with the first comment in this thread. Hope you don't mind. BigNate37(T) 22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine with me (and it looks like he did delist the former title). I don't mind having the discussion about the other redirects, but bringing the former title up for a RfD the day after the title was changed created too much confusion for my taste and was, in my view, extremely poor conduct (or at least ill-considered conduct). You are correct--this isn't a high traffic page. But it is a very legitimate article and I want interested people to be able to find it. Still, I apologize for causing trouble. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespearean performances speedy kept. On the basis that this was until recently the article's title I can see no basis under which this should be deleted - it is important to aid navigation and the {{rfd}} tag will only confuse readers who have little knowledge of these sorts of meta discussion. No opinion on the appropriateness of the other redirects, though the nomination appears valid in their regards. WjBscribe 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: these are all valid and useful redirects. Someone who searches for, say, "Shakespearean acting", would obviously want to be redirected here rather than told, wrongly, that we don't have an article on that topic. "Not particularly necessary" is a very weak deletion rationale. Redirects still cheap. AndyJones 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - doesn't seem to be making any harm, not confusing and redirects are cheep --ChrisDHDR ( • contrib's) 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in this context 'acting' and 'performance' are clear synonyms and a search for Shakespearean actor or acting is an obvious request for information on the performance of Shakespeare's plays, which the article provides in some detail. While there is some scope for the bifurcation of the article along the lines of these redirects, in lieu of their composition all the redirects are necessary. "Acting Shakespeare" and "Acting in Shakespeare" should also be pointing to this article. DionysosProteus 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very useful links, since these are closely related, widely used terms. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sandox → Sandbox (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator Flyguy649 talk contribs 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect for an unlikely spelling error that is obvious upon closer inspection ("B" omitted), and thus the redirect is unnecessary. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, tagging with {{R from misspelling}}. As I've said before, any misspelling that is only one letter off is plausible—there can still be reasons to delete, but "unlikely spelling error" is not one of them. BigNate37(T) 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BigNate's explanation. Being "unnecessary" is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. This one's been around since 2004. It's not doing any harm and may be doing some marginal good. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I don't see the point of this kind of misspelling redirect, but there certainly is no harm in having it. I'll withdraw my nom. Flyguy649 talk contribs 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sonic Adventure 3 → Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Heroes was a direct sequel to Sonic Adventure 2. Shadow The Hedgehog was also a direct sequel to Sonic Heroes. Therefore, because of multiple contradicting evidence to even allow a redirect, I say remove Sonic Adventure 3 redirect completely. The redirect in question would be Sonic The Hedgehog (2006). ChibiMrBubbles 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - Firstly, THE REDIRECT IS TO SONIC THE HEDGEHOG (2006 GAME). Secondly, retarget it to Sonic Heroes, since that is the 3rd installement of the series. --ChrisDHDR ( • contrib's) 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig or delete, preferably the latter. The name is unofficial and has only been used in a few places as a method of comparison or to describe the gameplay/story of the post-SA2 Sonic games. From my searches, 1UP.com has used this term when talking about Shadow the Hedgehog, and EGM has used the term when talking about Sonic Heroes. --- RockMFR 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Trails → Template:Infobox Hiking trail[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. --- RockMFR 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Trails}} was renamed {{Infobox Hiking trail}} as it was only intended to be used with hiking trails. Removing this redirect will aviod people using this templates for other types of trails in the future. {{Trails}} is not used in any articles. Patleahy (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, to deter inappropriate usage of the template and to avoid deterring editors from using hiking-trail-specific terms in the template. BigNate37(T) 19:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was the original creator of the Trails template. Though I have been away from the project in recent times, I am happy that the basics survived in the new template and support the decision to delete it. -- VegitaU 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per BigNate37 --ChrisDHDR ( • contrib's) 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to European Goldfinch[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator and redirected both to goldfish. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are unrelated topics; the creator does not have English as a first language, so may not have realised that fish and finch are very different.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to goldfish. Apparently, after some googling, it seems that there is such a thing as a European goldfish. Hence, these would be worth tagging as {{R from related word}}. BigNate37(T) 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BigNate37. A web search shows that the term "European goldfish" is fairly common in reference to populations of goldfish in Europe specifically (funny, that). — Gavia immer (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm happy to withdraw, for a redirect to Goldfish per above.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:56, 23 August 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_August_23&oldid=1071886488"