Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 29, 2008

Taoism by country → Buddhism by country[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism=/=Buddhism Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confucianism by country → Buddhism by country[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confucianism=/=Buddhism Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

East Asian religions by country → Buddhism by country[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian religions=/=Buddhism Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all three of the above. None is correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as incorrect without prejudice for recreation as actual articles. –Pomte 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

German Universities Excellence Initiave → German Universities Excellence Initiative[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error accident on move Initiave >> Initiative emerson7 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Occupation Forces Redirects[edit]

The result of the debate was Israeli Occupation Forces kept & remainder deleted. Israeli Occupation Forces was previously nominated and closed less than a week ago. It is too soon to renominate. The creation of the other Occupation Forces redirects was clearly done as a WP:POINT violation. If someone objects to the original close determination, they should take it to deletion review. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Lebanon Occupation Force & Syrian Occupation Forces have also been deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli Occupation Forces → Israel Defense Forces[edit]
Lebanon Occupation Forces → South Lebanon Army[edit]

Non-existent term, apparently created to prove a point RolandR (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syria Occupation Forces → Military of Syria[edit]

Non-existent term, apparently created to prove a point RolandR (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If Israeli Occupation Forces is a valid redirection, then this should be a valid redirection as well. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally non-existent term, with just 10 Google hits (two to this page, and five to different phrase "Syria's occupation forces without capitalisation). Page and redirect created solely to prove a point, as the rationale above for deletion clearly shows. RolandR (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a WP:POINT creation. EJF (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanese Occupation Forces → South Lebanon Army[edit]

Non-existent term, apparently created to prove a point RolandR (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If Israeli Occupation Forces is a valid redirection, then this should be a valid redirection as well. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally non-existent term, with just 5 Google hits (two to this page, and three to separate phrase "Lebanese occupation forces" without capitalisation). Page and redirect created solely to prove a point, as the rationale above for deletion clearly shows. RolandR (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a WP:POINT creation. EJF (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanese Occupation Force → South Lebanon Army[edit]

Non-existent term, apparently created to prove a point RolandR (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Osteopathic medicine → Osteopathic medicine in the United States[edit]

The result of the debate was kept. The original nomination has been withdrawn & there is no consensus to turn it into a dab page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The osteopathic medicine should not refer only to USA! Vlad|-> 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Osteopathy (I already did, but this might need more discussion). It seems like the Osteopathic medicine in the United States article is a recent split that may or may not stick, so targeting the main article is the best approach in my opinion. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC) As noted below, I misread part of the history here. Changing my preference to: disambiguate the two relevant senses of "Osteopathic medicine", since it appears that pointing at only one of the two articles is not appropriate. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are two separate topics (osteopathy worldwide and osteopathic medicine in the US) that could each be known by either title (osteopathy and osteopathic medicine). With this logic, both osteopathy and osteopathic medicine should be disambiguation pages. However, the most common usage of "osteopathy" is osteopathy worldwide, and the most common usage of "osteopathic medicine" is osteopathic medicine in the US. This has been brought up in discussion previously. Additionally, almost all Wikipedia links to osteopathic medicine are intended to direct to the US osteopathic medicine, and conversely, almost all Wikipedia links to osteopathy are intended to direct to the worldwide complementary medicine form of osteopathy. Therefore, per Wikipedia:DAB#Primary topic, the articles should be located at their respective locations without disambiguation pages - which is not necessary for only two items to be disambiguated (per WP:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries). --Scott Alter 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. Where is a diff to show that this is a "recent split"? The distinction (and therefore necessity for a redirect) is clearly stated at the top of the article:
    • This page is about a branch of the medical profession in the United States. For the form of complementary medicine practiced worldwide, see Osteopathy.
While the distinction is not always clearly made in ordinary speech, there is a big difference between the alternative medicine practice of osteopathy, as originally practiced (and still practiced everywhere, but especially outside the USA), and its modern version in the USA, which is a "cleaned-up" version and is now classed as modern medicine without the quackery and unscientific practices and ideas still associated with the old method of practicing osteopathy. The US version officially distanced itself from its quackish origins and beliefs many years ago, while the European version is still just another form of alternative medicine, and not even a doctoral profession. Thus the two articles are about basically different versions of osteopathy and the redirect should be retained. -- Fyslee / talk 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further look at this article shows that it was first created in 2003; I made a mistake based on the history of one of the other pages involved here. I've struck my original comments as a result. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. I ask that everyone take a moment to actually understand this topic before jumping to any conclusion. Consider that there are disambig pages already in existence:
A great deal of effort has been made to sort through all the articles that point to these articles, and insure that internal links appropriately point to osteopathy when referring to the worldwide practiced type of complementary medicine and to osteopathic medicine in the U.S. when referring to that branch of the American medical profession. I understand this is highly confusing, but the loose consensus that was established here is the one that's being followed. This is a confusing topic, but I think the current convention can be clear and workable, if we follow it. Bryan Hopping T 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. The question has been raised before whether or not the term "osteopathic medicine" is used outside of the US. I do not think anyone has definitively stated that the term is used. Osteopathic medicine in the United States used to be named Osteopathic medicine; however, this was moved because of complaints that the article was US-centric. Currently, there are 2 related topics mentioned on Wikipedia: osteopathy (worldwide) and osteopathic medicine (in the US). If, in fact, the term "osteopathic medicine" is commonly used in other countries, then further discussion is needed. Based on previous discussion, it seems as though "osteopathy" is most frequently used to refer to the form of complementary medicine. In contrast, the term "osteopathic medicine" is most frequently used to refer to medicine practiced by D.O.s. If a reader inadvertently ends up at the wrong article, the current assortment of hat links should be sufficient to direct a reader to the desired article. (I just changed the hatnote on Osteopathic medicine in the United States to mention that Osteopathic medicine redirects there.) Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Disambiguation pages with only two entries, a disambiguation page is not necessary if there are only two items to be disambiguated. This is why there are hatnotes. --Scott Alter 18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for having created such a controversy. I'm also afraid that not being a native English speaker must have created this confusion. Obviously, if there are at least 3 people that consider this redirect to be valid, I withdraw my inital proposition. --Vlad|-> 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Willie Scott → Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to delete this redirect, since there an article about a former American football player for the Kansas City Chiefs and New England Patriots named Willie Scott. I think that this page must changed into a disambiguation page. David Pro (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_29&oldid=1085562046"