Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2011

Yerushalmi Berakot[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete --Taelus (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect was found only once, in Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg, and I split it into two links. One to Yerushalmi ([[Jerusalem Talmud|Yerushalmi]]), and another to Berakhot ([[Berakhot (Talmud)|Berakhot]]. In simple words, this redirect should not exist, as it refers to two different things: one of the two talmuds and the name of a specific tractate of either of them. Note that although there are over 30 tractates in the talmud, no other like redirects exist. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have alerted the creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Debresser is quite right. Thanks for catching this. That is indeed a much better way forward. Jheald (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (Creator of this redirect).[reply]
  • Delete - I am persuaded that this is misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Oswald Jones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep, relevant info now present at target. --Taelus (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article, no reference to Oswald Jones in the text, only some character called Oswald, and Welshness suggesting Jones, perhaps? 90.197.91.201 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 'Oswald Jones' was the precasting name of 'Oswald Danes' - I have clarified this in the target. 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reasonable Doubt (album)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy closed as wrong forum. Sorry, this needs to go to WP:RM#Requesting a single page move requesting the move of Reasonable Doubt to Reasonable Doubt (album). This does not look non-controversial to me and will need a full discussion. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't exactly sure how to post this situation, but...this is a rather confusing redirect. I feel that everything that is currently listed at Reasonable Doubt should be moved to Reasonable Doubt (album), and then Reasonable Doubt should be redirected to Reasonable doubt (as is often the case with capitialization). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sequoia 301[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep with new target. --Taelus (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as the former does not relate to the latter Petebutt (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sequoia 300[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep with new target. --Taelus (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as the former does not relate to the latter Petebutt (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I notice that the nominator has removed content, here, from the target but since I don't have access to the source I am not able to comment on the appropriateness of the removal. I think that we need more expert input or better sourcing to determine the future of these redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have left notices about this discussion at Talk:Sequoia Falco#Sequoia 300 and Sequoia 301 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Redirects to Sequoia Falco. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89, pp. 596–567, the Sequoia 300 and Falco F.8 are not the same aircraft or variants of the same - the Model 300 is larger, much more powerful and has a completly different structure - the Falco is wooden while the Sequoia 300 is made of metal/glassfibre. The only link seems to be that Sequoia Aircraft sells kits of both the older Falco (designed in Italy by Selio Frati in the 1950s) and the much more modern Sequoia 300 - therefore the redirect is incorrect and should probably be Deleted.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to MilborneOne for writing a proper target.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_29&oldid=1039424651"