Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2008

United States presidential election, 2002 → The West Wing presidential election, 2002[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In-universe" name for fictional election Shunpiker (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete potentially confusing redirect, particularly if the person researching Presidential elections isn't aware that there was no such election in real life in 2002. The last U.S. Presidential election not in a year divisible by 4 occurred in 1789. B.Wind (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this redirect is seriously confusing, if not downright inaccurate. If anyone does search for it, they're probably looking for something more like United States congressional elections, 2002 than this page. Terraxos (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, I would defer to the redirect since this is where the article existed for almost a year before being moved. But in this case, I agree that the old name has significant potential to confuse readers. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's confusing. It leads someone to believe that a 2002 US election actually happened, and that person says that the Democrats won, but Republicans have held office for 2 terms. This may happen for someone who accidently thought that there WAS an election in 2002, or a typo. Result for homework:F. DA PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely confusing, as it's in the vein of the real U.S. presidential elections. As BWind said above, even if it's an off year, it could be confusing to some. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Beastie (Paramount's Kings Island) → Fairly Odd Coaster[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-target to Fairly Odd Coaster (Kings Island). -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is incorrect, as it should point particularly to the Fairly Odd Coaster (Kings Island) article, not a dab page, but it's quite literally an offhand, one-phrase reference to a retheming of the coaster in 1996. The coaster was later rethemed again, and thus this theming is far too obscure to be useful. There is also an article called The Beast (roller coaster) which seems to be about a altogether different coaster at King's Island which has never changed its theme, which really makes this redirect not useful. MSJapan (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as useful disambiguation. The name was prominent in Kings Island promotions a couple of years after Paramount purchased the park from Six Flags; the mention of the name in the target article is another justification for keeping the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeted per suggestion by nom. Keep as former name of roller coaster (as stated in the target article). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Beastie (Kings Island) → Fairly Odd Coaster[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-target to Fairly Odd Coaster (Kings Island). -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the redirect is incorrect, as it should point particularly to the Fairly Odd Coaster (Kings Island) article, not a dab page, but it's quite literally an offhand, one-phrase reference to a retheming of the coaster in 1996, and thus far too obscure to be useful. There is also an article called The Beast (roller coaster) which seems to be about an altogether different coaster at King's Island which has never changed its theme, which really makes this redirect not useful. MSJapan (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - same justifications as I posted above. B.Wind (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also retargeted; keep for the same reason I gave above. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Buccinum → whelk[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's normal to redirect from a genus to the common name for the members of that genus, whelk is not a common name only for members of genus Buccinum. The result of this is that clicking the link for genus Buccinum in the article for Buccinum undatum confusingly leads to a page that does not only describe members of that genus. I think this should be redlinked to encourage the creation of an article for this particular genus of organisms. deranged bulbasaur 04:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be bold - To the poster, all you need to do is remove the redirect material and add some article material. Even one sentence is better than an incorrect redirect, and if there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the page title, you can just change the content. MSJapan (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • done. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nicely, too, I must add. If we have some other ambitious editors who know their biology, that red sea should turn blue quickly enough. As it is, this article is far superior to a general term redirecting to a specific. Keep new article and close discussion. B.Wind (talk) 22:33, 22 June 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_June_22&oldid=1138575406"