Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 10

The result of the discussion was Keep, as it was retargeted. Ruslik (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Wikipedia space to article space. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cross-namespace redirect. No one is going to start searching for an article in the WP mainspace, in any case. Killiondude (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither needed nor useful, and could be confused with a wikiproject-style shortcut. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've boldly retargeted it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force to avoid a CNR. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list in question is nowhere to be found on the Avatar: The Last Airbender page (and it shouldn't since it's in universe). Pointless redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures also exists. --76.71.208.23 (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - the original nomination and the variant noted by IP 76.71.208.23 above. There's no content to be found at the target that justifies this redirect, and without such content, they are both unlikely search terms. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep to both. List of creatures of Avatar: The Last Airbender was moved to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures, which was then deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures). The problem is that there are incoming links which would then go red, encouraging recreation. The redirects at least discourage that. --Rumping (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the problem with having redirects like this is that they cause people to think the target page actually has some content related to the redirect, which in this case just isn't true. In response to Rumping's concerns, if the list is repeatedly recreated, it can always be prevented from creation using the WP:SALT process. Terraxos (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather more than that - if redirects are deleted then those who support their deletion have a moral duty to remove the incoming links, so as to discourage recreation. That should have happened when the the earlier content was removed. You don't usually salt the target of a redlink. --Rumping (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No articles link to this redirect, searching for ‘square kms’ results in the target article, single page creation and edit history. johndrinkwater (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - foreseeable (albeit incorrectly abbreviated) search item (as would "sq km"), for many English-speaking people incorrectly add an "s" to "pluralize" an abbreviation. Lack in incoming links is not a valid reason for deleting a potentially useful redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - highly plausible search term. Reyk _YO! 05:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful and does no harm --Rumping (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Disambiguate. There are several possible targets. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Parks Association (based in Australia) is not the same as the National Parks Conservation Association (based in the United States). There is no article for the would-be article. +mt 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are intersted in creating an article it can be done without deleting the redirect. --76.71.208.23 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Target is a separate and distinct battle from the event described by the redirect's name. No information on the Battle of Arras in either the current version of the target article, or the version that existed at the time the redirect was created. --Allen3 ^talk 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement. There is currently no Battle of Arras (1918) written content on wikipedia and it would be wholly inappropriate to redirect the page to a completely separate battle in a geographically separate area of the Western front.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to have been a name given by some to the 26 August 1918 attack in what some others call the Battle of Bapaume 21 August - 1 September <ref>http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_bapaumeII.html</ref> which was part of what Wikipedia calls the Second Battle of the Somme (though others think that that was fought in March/April). The following also redirect there:
  • Second Battle of the Somme
  • Battle of Avre
  • Battle of Rosières
  • Battle of Bapaume
  • Battle of the St Quentin Canal
  • Battle of Rosieres

  The names of battles were by 1918 hopelessly varied. --Rumping (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the Battle of Arras dab page refers to Battle of Arras (1918) as "part of the Hundred Days Offensive". While Arras is mentioned in three places on the latter page, there is no "Battle of Arras" there; in addition, changing the (1917) disambiguation to a (1918) could be a conceivable typographical error here as well. So, the key question is "was there an actual documented 'Battle of Arras' (as identified as such in WP:reliable sources), or do sources disagree?" I have no recommendation in light of this conundrum. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To complicate matters, MSN Encarta lists two different Battle of Arras's in 1918. In terms of dates, their Fourth Battle of Arras does not overlap with the Second Battle of the Somme while their Fifth Battle of Arras does. The source provided by Rumping seems to be referring to what MSN Encarta calls the Fifth Battle of Arras. The best option might be to disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.