Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 9

October 9[edit]

Misspeling and Misspel → Spelling#Misspellings[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely that anyone would misspell on purpose the info what they're looking for. And I can't see how this is a common mistake either. TheBlazikenMaster 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jim Nash → Centenary Diamond[edit]

The result of the debate was Convert to article. Although the articles mentioned in discussion may have notability issues, an article about James Edwin Nash, the MLB pitcher, does not. I have created the article as the least contentious choice, leaving the option for editors to include disambiguation links and hatnotes once other notable articles are created. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and trivial redirect. Current Wikipedia links through this redirect concern: the cofounder of Wax Trax! Records (2 links), a current reporter for KTLA news (1 link), a 1966 Sporting News Rookie of the Year (1 link), and a WikiProject_AFL subpage referring to a 1930s Australian Football League player. None concern the Jim Nash who was an assistant cutter for the Centenary Diamond. All Jim Nashes seem equally obscure, making the redirect seem equally unhelpful to a generic user. rynne 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are that many notable Jim Nashes, then it seems like the page should be converted to a disambiguation page. That does not require deletion of the redirect from pagehistory. Just overwrite the current contents of the page. Rossami (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I guess my concern is that none are particularly notable. The news reporter and two athletes, for example, only show up as parts of partially-wikified lists of names, while the diamond cutter doesn't show up anywhere else on Wikipedia. Furthermore,
  The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  . A search for "Jim Nash" only results in 19 total hits on Wikipedia; is a dab page necessary for such a small search result, especially considering no Jim Nash has a Wikipedia article? -- rynne 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ogawara Station (Kyoto), Ōgawara Station (Kyoto) → Ōkawara Station[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the station on the Kansai Main Line is not Ōgawara but Ōkawara. Tigers boy 10:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a plausible misspelling, especially since it's a translated name - if someone sees this mistranslated elsewhere and searches on it, they should still be able to find the right information. The other Ōgawara Station does have a hatnote for Ōkawara Station, after all, and vice versa; also, the (Kyoto) in both links makes it clear where they are intended to go. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only are they plausible transliterations of the foreign language name, these were also the former sites of the article before the nominator moved the article (which only happened earlier today). Now, you could argue that the middle link is deletable as {{db-author}} since he/she promptly moved it to a new location but the original location should stay - and I think that even the middle mistake is plausible. Rossami (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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