Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 1

June 1[edit]

Christiansen → Friedrich Christiansen[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 16:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created a wrong title. The redirect is too general to be usefull as there are many notable Christiansens. Eluchil404 20:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. As the nominator says, there are plenty of notable Christiansens who can be listed. Gavia immer (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismabiguate. With an easy search, we can create a disambiguation page to various articles whose title, forename, or surname is Christiansen. I'm up for the challenge. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

HD 154345B → HD 154345 b[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete as {{db-redirtypo}}. It was apparently created at the wrong name by mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extrasolar planet designation 'b' should not be capitalized. BlueEarth 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't sound that implausable a typo to me...—Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me to be sort of a combination of {{db-author}} (no versions of the article had a capital "B", other than in the title) and {{db-g6}} (housekeeping). {{db-redirtypo}} may have been a mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indeterminacy in computation → Indeterminacy in concurrent computation[edit]

The result of the debate was converted to disambiguation page – Gurch 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Carl Hewitt vanity name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets over 500 google results, so I turned it into a dab page. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I think we can probably close this as already dabified. Xtifr _tälk 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gatekeeper physician → primary care[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Managed care. This term is used in several articles and is defined in US Federal & State government documents (see [1] & [2]). I have re-targeted it to a article that at least discusses the term, but I have also tagged it with {{R with possibilities}}. -- JLaTondre 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the term in the target article, and it's not at all a synonym. It may deserve an article, but not a redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suspected neologism — possibly pejorative, given the connection to HMOs. There is already a term to describe the subjects this term refers to – primary care physician. --Aarktica 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a term used in the Health care industry in the United States to describe the person that determines the level of medical care needed. It can be a physician, but is more often used to describe the family member who decides whether or not to seek medical care in the first place, with cost often being the primary factor. Group29 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Policies and guidelines → Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. The consensus appears to be that such redirects are unhelpful and may lead readers to stumbling upon non-encyclopedia content by accident. The disambig links on policies and guidelines seem to have been judged sufficient to ensure easy navigation for those looking for Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines. WjBscribe 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. The incoming links can be fixed. –Pomte 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While most regulars will know the difference, new users will not have a notion about namespaces. That means that they will look for "Policies", "Policies and guidelines", etc. There is no plausible encyclopedic topic about policies and guidelines, so there is no net benefit to deleting the redirect. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are disambiguation links at the top of policies and guidelines. I think it's less plausible for someone to search for "policies and guidelines" in that way without knowing about the Wikipedia: namespace, and the desired page is near the top of the search results anyway. Perhaps a soft redirect could be appropriate. –Pomte 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean a "hatnote"? I think these types of links are probably the best way to direct someone from articles to other namespaces, but I couldn't find any reference to this on its MOS guideline. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There is a possibility of a real article, but this isn't it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is not unique to Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Perfect example of a CNR occupying space for a generally used term, and therefore a plausible future article. Users who wish to create an article on policies and guidelines might be turned off when they see the space is used to redirect to Wikipedia stuff. Let's not forget that the article namespace is the most important part of Wikipedia, and therefore should maintain the highest priority over the use of terms. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What article could you create about policies and guidelines? Some examples would be nice. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a good disambiguation candidate, since there are many other organizations and companies who also use the term. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 04:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What kind of disambiguation page would you create? As I said above, there's a page on policies, and a page on guidelines, so I don't see the point of a dab page for two relatively different concepts that don't even share a name. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are relatively different yet commonly used together. Since this is a growing project, there might be future articles on a specific organization's policies and guidelines, or a published book on management with that title, etc. I'm not saying there's an article waiting for this article space right now, I'm just arguing that these are terms which are commonly used together, as evidenced by Google, and that CNRs should not occupy such spaces when there are other established means to direct to different namespaces, such as "hatnotes". In fact, I'm adding them now. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 05:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, when/if there is that book (because I don't see why we would want to write an article about a specific organization's policies and guidelines, as it would unencyclopedic), the redirect can be hijacked. There is no pressing need to delete the redirect now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another pointless cross-namespace redirect. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are never more than two clicks away from anyone viewing a Wikipedia page. Xtifr _tälk 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CNR which might be a possible dab page as has been stated. I cannot imagine anyone using it anyway; anyone who knows that WP has both policies and guidelines will know about the Wikipedia namespace. There should be compelling reasons and common usage for a CNR to be kept. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pronouncement of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq → Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as a redirect to a deleted article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target article was just deleted. Korny O'Near 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Green Youth (disambiguation) → Green Youth[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguated page to redirect to a main page is usless and not called for. Delete Green Youth (disambiguation) GreenJoe 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, it is a redirect not a dab page (see WP:Redirect and MOS:DP; they're totally different), it is doing no harm and it is "called for" by WP:DAB#Links to disambiguation pages. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not called for because the page already had a unique name for a dab page. The DAB at the end isn't needed. GreenJoe 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not "needed", but it may be useful for linking (for instance, some dab templates assume that Foo (disambiguation) exists along with Foo) and for documenting that the target is the proper dab page. There are many redirects like this. Gavia immer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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