Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2008

John Hunter (physician) → John Hunter (surgeon)[edit]

The result of the debate was deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (user requested delete) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles that link to this redirect both refer to a John Hunter (1754 to 1809) about whom I don't think there is an article. The article incorrectly targeted by the redirect is that of the more famous John Hunter (1728 to 1793). G Stewart (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • One of those two inbound links is a disambiguation page whose entry was created on the basis of the other inbound link - so it's really only the Thomas Willis Fleming article that's relevant. That article only mentions "physician John Hunter" as a minor genealogical footnote. The birth/death dates are close enough that this could be error rather than evidence. I'm not sure that we can trust that footnote as a sole source to show that this is really a different person. Mind you, I have no evidence that this is the same person either. Does anyone have access to a definitive genealogical history of 18th century Scottish academics? Rossami (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created that redirect. That was definitely an error on my part, thanks for catching it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Interstate 15 and State Route 15 (California) to Interstate 15 in California[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This name is made by page-moves when they not suppose to or made by mistake. This names seems too long to type. SR 15 have enough information to be on a seperate page.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it helps to document the pagemove. The move itself appears to have been made by you in good faith. The fact that it was overturned and the page returned to the original title is still part of the page's history. If had been a vandalism pagemove, I'd agree that the automatically-created redirects should be deleted. This redirect, however, helps future editors figure out what we did and why. That's not a strong reason to keep but there is no benefit to deletion. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, it documents the page move, and there is no strong reason to delete. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It documents the page move, as said above. Midorihana みどりはな 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Helmut Fischer → Werner Drechsler[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. I'll replace it with a stub on the actor with hatnote pending translation.Tikiwont (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Helmut Fischer mentioned in the redirect target has nearly no encyclopedic relevance, while de:Helmut Fischer is relevant. Most links to Helmut Fischer refer to the latter. --89.55.58.165 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So be bold and overwrite the redirect with content about the other person. You do not need to delete the redirect before creating the article. (It might be appropriate to add a hatnote disambiguation at the top for those few links referring to the Drechsler article, though.) Rossami (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My English is too poor to write an article. The only link referring to the person mentioned in the Drechsler article isn't in the article namespace. --89.55.2.34 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Eighth studio album → Cradle of Filth[edit]

The result of the debate was R3 by Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the artists who do eight or more albums, why does any one in particular get this redirect? And I don't think we want to start any sort of disambig or list of everyone's eighth album, so it just does not appear useful to me. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If every single band suddenly produced 10 albums, would we have to put a humongous disamb for the 8th ones? That would basicly be bigger than this article. (For people with old browsers, don't click it as it will crash your browser. It's the largest page on Wikipedia.) TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-evident junk. JuJube (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe an R3. No one would possibly type this in. It was originally a WP:HAMMER-violating article that got retargeted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Tanolis (or Tanawalis) (Urdu تنولی ) are a prominent and famous Muslim Pashtun tribe residing mainly in Amb, Hazara Division of the North-West Frontier Province Pakistan → Tanoli[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted per CSD R3 (implausible redirect). Kylu (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was listed for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an implausible misnomer, and a POV redirect, the title being a phrase that is inserted in Tanoli by a number of IPs", but doesn't make WP:CSD#R3 due to age. Is nearly impossible to accidentally type. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD R3 TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete but as probable vandalism, not by inappropriately stretching R3. The pagehistory shows that this page was created as a POV-fork in order to avoid blocks and other actions being taken to protect the target page. (The title is the same as the entire first paragraph that had been repeatedly inserted during the content dispute.) The POV-fork was properly and promptly pointed back to the main article. If it had actual history and evidence of any good-faith contributions, I would argue to keep it as part of history of the dispute. This page, however, only had one edit which was identical to the versions which were repeatedly posted and reverted in the main page's history at around that same time. The case for vandalism seems strong. Rossami (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge history, then delete as the redirect was created by a page move. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the page that it was moved to, The Tanolis, was the POV fork and was redirected without merger one minute after the pagemove. (Several days later, both pages were bot-updated to avoid the double-redirects.) I don't think there are any GFDL concerns or even history concerns in this case. Merging the histories would have the unintended consequences of cluttering the existing article's history with extraneous entries which would give the appearance that the article was (briefly) a redirect to itself. This would create more confusion for future editors, not less. Rossami (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chosen one → The One[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget to The Chosen One (disambiguation). Tikiwont (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "chosen one" redirects to a disambiguation page for the phrase "the one." This is completely useless for anyone who want to look up any term associated with the phrase "chosen one" (movies of that title, fictional characters like Buffy Summers, etc.). "Chosen one" should probably also be a disambiguation page, I suppose, but it shouldn't be confused with a phrase that is ostensibly similar but ultimately has nothing to do with it. Minaker (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is to retarget to Chosen One which is an article about an album as a plaubaple mispelling. --76.71.212.47 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't solve the problem, because then you would only learn about the album, not the other uses for the term "chosen one." I did what I could by turning the page you mentioned into a disambiguation page, although it probably needs some formatting revision. There is also too much of an emphasis on the album, but it's better than the previous version, which didn't allow any way to look up other uses of the term. If anyone wants to add to the page or help with formatting, etc., please do! Minaker (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and create a new disambiguation page. Midorihana みどりはな 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a "The Chosen One (disambiguation)" page. I'll add in the additional things Minaker added to the song page and revert his edits to Chosen One, if that's okay. Midorihana みどりはな 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all done. The Chosen One (disambiguation) now also has a note at the top to also see The One. Should I redirect Chosen one to The Chosen One (disambiguation)? Midorihana みどりはな 00:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In fact, I've just done it. Close this discussion, as the issues raised by the nominator have been resolved. Terraxos (talk) 02:14, 6 August 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_July_29&oldid=1142588145"