Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 14[edit]

Template:2007 al Central Standings → Template:2007 AL Central standings[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2007 aL Central Standings → Template:2007 AL Central standings[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2007FrenchOpenEvents → Template:FrenchOpenEvents[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Documents a pagemove but as with several of the nominations below, the pagemove was executed by the page creator. If that editor has been contacted and confirms that there is no further use for the redirect, it can be speedy-deleted under {{db-author}}. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirect does not produce the desired outcome when used. Target isn't even used and there has only been the one significant contributor to the target (the creator and page mover). Anyone wishing to find out info on the 2007 French Open can go to the 2007 French Open page. mattbr 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:20th → Template:RomanCentury[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. Mattbr's argument regarding expect results is persuasive. As for pagemove history, the history is still maintained in the target article's history. -- JLaTondre 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Documents a pagemove (and pagemoves are generally considered useful history according to "avoid #1" above). Though currently unused, it does not appear to meet any of the "delete if" criteria above. Note: I qualify this as a "weak" opinion because it was moved by the same person who created it. If the creator/mover affirms that there is no remaining use for this redirect, it could be deleted under {{db-author}}. Have you asked that person for an opinion yet? Rossami (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Content - make this template useful and change the content to 20<sup>th</sup> (ex. {{1st}}, {{2nd}}, {{3rd}}, etc). ChrisDHDR 11:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not produce the desired or expected results when used, making it harmful for a template redirect. No need to change the content, we have the generic {{th}} for that so that we don't have hundreds of not-particularly-useful templates. mattbr 11:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:2006 bosox season game log → Template:2006 Boston Red Sox season game log[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:2006 AFL season/"Simple" Ladder → Template:2006 AFL season/Ladder[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Redirects are cheap and why make it hard for people who have used this in the past to find the new location? Causes no harm and meets the "keep if useful" clause. -- JLaTondre 16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Documents a relatively recent pagemove (and as was noted above, pagemoves are generally considered useful history under "avoid if #1" above). Does not appear to meet any of the "delete if" criteria above. The page history also shows that many of the original contributors have not yet edited at the new location and may be unaware of the move. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anyone who wishes to find this the template, or more likely the contents of the template, can use the search (2006 AFL ladder will work), and any past contributors can check their contributions where the "new" name will appear or check for transclusions (2006 AFL season is not that difficult to guess). I very much doubt there will be many further transclusions of this template and it is highly unlikely to be linked to at this name. It doesn't meet any of the "keep if" criteria above either. mattbr 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:1901 AL Standings → Template:1901 American League Standings[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as requested by author (db-author). Page deleted by MZMcBride. Non-admin close. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Documents a pagemove (though the edit histories of the two pages shows that the user moved the page via cut-and-paste). "Weak" because the original creator is the person who executed the move. If the creator affirms that this page has no remaining usefulness, it can be removed under {{db-author}}. As with the case above, have you attempted to contact the creator yet? Rossami (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On second thought, these are not high traffic enough to keep. Go ahead and remove. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:1902 AL Standings → Template:1902 American League Standings[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as requested by author (db-author). Page deleted by MZMcBride. Non-admin close. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep for the same reasons and with the same qualifiers as the 1901 template immediately above. Rossami (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as above. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:12-years → Template:X-years[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. As with several immediately above, this documents a recent pagemove. But in this case as well, the mover was also the creator. If that person affirms that the page has no remaining use, it can be deleted under {{db-author}}. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The target isn't even used, so I doubt that anyone will be looking for this. No "confusion" for past contributors either. mattbr 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Afrocentrist Egyptology and Afrocentric Egyptology → Afrocentrism or Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first, "Afrocentrist Egyptology", is merely a typo of the second and no such discipline or name exists, it is a misnomer. The second redirect page is useless as it is based on bias and pov-driven discussion which lead to its creation, it spite. User dab creates the article after complaining about pov on another article with a totally distinct title and different subject matter. [1].. He tries to edit it to impose his view, and even though it's protected, he still made the edit[2] , though he reverted self once he realized this, but still makes edits based on redirects. All the while, participating in a pov-fork of the page which eventually got deleted, and redirected. I'd assume due to frustration and insistence to impose his view, he makes up a totally false name of an imaginary discipline (the redirect pages in question), and tries to redirect them to the initial page in which he tried to dispute, but discussion, verification, and justification on his part was lacking,not to mention that the page's name and vast majority content have anything to do with that page. Yet he still imposes his own pet label on the article for redirect. He follows a consistent pattern on other articles also, exposing his bias which is why a case is made on him on the incident boards.[3].. Both pages were already deleted initially, but he went back pleading to admins to have it restored[4], which is was because the admin says evebn though he doesn't necessarily agree with the edits, it doesn't fit the citeria for "speedy" deletion for redirects. Which I disagree with as it concerns the first misnomer at least. The second redirect page cited, "Afrocentric Egyptology", would indeed make a slightly better case to be redirected to "Afrocentrism", which he did go back and fourth, I guess trying to decide which is appropriate (indicating to me that the page is useless and such edits belong in the sandbox) however, it really isn't even notable to afrocentrism since that is an approach to data and doesn't cover merely one discipline in its analysis, as the article explains, but not fully as even that article needs improving and is protected as of Sept 14th. One would also have to create a redirect for "Afrocentric history", "Afrocentric science", "Afrocentric literature", and on and on and on, none of these disciplines even exist since again, "Afrocentrism, like "Eurocentrism", is just an approach to data but I guess his bias is against Afrocentrism and he has no beef with Eurocentrism, which is quite strange, as both are based on centering (hence, centric) on one particular geographical/ethnic construct at the expense of others. In any event, they both are useless, especially for where they were originally intended, but overall it was demonstrably created out of spite, pov-pushing, and bias. Nor are they notable or make sense as a page title that should link to anything.Taharqa 20:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Woody Guthrie Folk Festival → Woody Guthrie[edit]

The result of the debate was Resolved as it's been converted to article. -- JLaTondre 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start an article for the Woody Guthrie Folk Festival Kmzundel 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I got the above backwards. I've read extensively about Redirects, and everything seems to pertain to articles that already exist. But this is a strange case....I want to start an article for the Woody Guthrie Folk Festival, (which doesn't currently exist) but I can't because when you search for it (the festival), it redirects to the Woody Guthrie article... which seems pretty dumb to me. Maybe I'm missing something here.... Please leave a message on my talk page if anyone can help. Thanks. Kmzundel 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the title of the redirect discussion, since the Festival page redirects to Woody, not the other way around. It seems user Mark H Wilkinson already provided the link necessary for editing Woody Guthrie Folk Festival [5]. Just erase the # REDIRECT [[Woody Guthrie]] from the page and write the article. No reason to bring discussion here. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Reporter / Newsreader 3 / US Newsreader → List of Doctor Who supporting characters#Other recurring or significant humans[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect had previously been speedily deleted, but was recently recreated so as to "allow the recurring character to show up in the Category:Recurring characters in Doctor Who". Currently, the redirect doesn't point to any relevant content, for there is no consensus in favour of mentioning this exceedingly minor character on the target page (she ranks slightly above cameo status, and has no independent coverage). And it's highly unlikely that anyone will want to search on a character name such as this. As such, there is no good reason for this redirect. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for reasons given here. Wolf of Fenric 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves no purpose as the character is far, far too minor to warrant an entry. (It is questionable as to whether it is even intended to be the same character, or just the same actor playing three minor parts.) Beyond that, the title isn't appropriate and may not function properly (due to the "/") in all browsers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ketorolac (Ophthalmic) → Ketorolac[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre 01:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a consequence of a merge, no need for this redirect anymore. This article was only ever a redirect. Its old target (Acular) was just merged into Ketorolac, which now includes "ophthalmic" in its scope. --Jdlh | Talk 05:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination is being made by the creator and only significant editor. Speedy-delete under {{db-author}}. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Binomial (disambig) → Binomial (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page "Binomial" also exists. This is A non-standard DAB page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. JohnI 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Documents the page move from the old "disambig" standard to the newer "disambiguation" standard. Does not appear to meet any of the "delete if" criteria above. Rossami (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Rossami, thanks for keeping me honest. My main reason for requesting these deletions is that I regard these (disambig)s as confusing (See point 2 above). Newcomers may think these are still an acceptable standard. If a Wikipedean found them useful, that would sway my opinion the other way. If you want to "document the page move", would a merge history to "Binomial (disambiguation)" be acceptable to you? Regards, JohnI 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "history", he's not referring to the edit history but to the history of having an article at this name. In general that's a good reason to keep, but in this case, I think the chance of confusing veterans is extremely minimal, while the possibility of a bad precedent being followed by newbies is somewhat higher, so delete. Note that we have extensive precedent for deleting these "(disambig)" pages. At this point, block nominations might be preferable to this piecemeal approach. Xtifr tälk 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • History-merge is a requirement under GFDL if the history was not automatically moved but in most cases, that's not the primary concern. Xtifr is correct in my opinion of the value of history. We merely disagree about the potential for harm from these old pages. Most of them have been around for years now and have not yet caused harm or confusion that I can find. It is true that in the past few months a half dozen or so have been deleted but hundreds more still quietly exist. Despite that, no one is creating new disambig pages following that old pattern because they all redirect to the correct naming convention. They should be left alone because 1) with these old pages, we have no way to know what external links were created that refer to them and 2) because the cost of deleting them exceeds the cost of ignoring them. Rossami (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are only about 15 (disambig) pages left that I can find. If they are deleted, the discussion will be over and no more resources will be used discussing their usefulness or not. The following are (disambig) pages created in the last few months:-
          • Chongju (disambig) to Chongju (disambiguation) - 2007 September 04
          • Claude Rains (disambig) to Claude Rains (disambiguation) - 2007 Aug 19
          • Gleichen (disambig) to Gleichen (disambiguation) - 2007 Aug 04
          • George Hoadley (disambig) to George Hoadley (disambiguation) - 2007 Aug 04
          • Copper Canyon (disambig) to Copper Canyon (disambiguation) - 2007 Jul 15
          • Regards, JohnI 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous comments. There is no useful history here and no links unrelated to this nomination. mattbr 18:52, 20 September 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_September_14&oldid=1083285916"