Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 24

Delete as an invented synonym. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment there is an Ecuabrit website, but most of the google hits for the term relate to it. PaulJones (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not in wide enough usage to be a credible search term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an invented synonym. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not in wide enough usage to be a credible search term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - improper redirect to userspace of an abbreviaiation of a rude and bitey comment. DuncanHill (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled, unlikely to lead anyone to the article.. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No dude, that's not a mispelling, see WP:ENGVAR (or Judgement). Giselbertus did what is I'm fairly sure remains the most famous sculpted Last Judgement, at Autun. What puzzles me is I only set this up to replace a 2-line stub, which I can't now see in the history. Odd - ok now I see it's in the history here. But since the nom seems to rest entirely on the nominator's ignorance, I see no reason for the redirect not to remain. Neither Autun nor Giselbertus are hugely well-known names, and the redirect is as likely to be useful as many. Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as "judgement" is an alternate spelling of "judgment", according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. B.Wind (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually I see the "mispelling" might have related to Giselbertus, as well as "judgement", but that is also wrong - see Getty ref now added to the article. In fact both are found, as well as Ghiselbertus Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The redirect is a problem because this is (now) a conventional type of sculpture which requires its own article (or which ought to point to a section of some other article describing it-- I haven't gone to check for that). I would question whether this example is the best known (I'm more familiar with those in Amiens and Vezelay) but in any case a redirect to the creator of one example gives the misleading message that he created the type. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point. We don't have any very suitable article, though one could certainly be written, and probably will be one day. Last_Judgment#Artistic_representations is pretty poor, but it could redirect there, or those you mention, & Moissac etc, could be added to Last Judgment (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the target article itself has the same spelling for the name of the sculpture itself. This would make it a valid redirect for someone who is searching for the sculpture per WP:RFD#KEEP. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudicing a change of target Given that Judgement is not a misspelling [1] and at least one sculpture of this subject exists, this is a valid redirect. Perhaps the good people at WikiProject Visual arts could assist with finding an appropriate target? (I have not contacted them) --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]