Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 7

11:11 → Synchronicity
The nominated redirect was Converted to disambig. What should be included is a content dispute which is outside of RFD purview. -- JLaTondre 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Er ...? Does not appear to be a sensible redirect. Chris talk back 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - Read the talk page and the page history. - ryan  d  09:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to article. Not a sensible redirect, but a sensible #See also.  Do not keep as redirect.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the editor who created the redirect. Please see article's discussion page for reasons for redirect.  It's a sensible redirect.TheRingess 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those reasons look more like reasons for not having a redirect than reasons for having one. There's nothing in synchronicity to suggest why visitors are directed there - there's even notes on the talk page from confused folk.  That it "can refer to a belief that some people have" seems a bit of a stretch when it comes to having a redirect in there.  Probably a perfect demonstration of how you can find hidden messages in anything if you set out looking for them.  Chris talk back 01:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to disambiguation page. The redirect makes no sense because "11:11" is not mentioned in the target article. Kusma (討論) 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And remove mentions of synchronicity per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11. Kusma (討論) 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to article. The reasons listed on the talk page for redirection (1, 2, and 4) are entirely faulty.  There are many reasons and many examples across Wikipedia of short topics that aren't notable for their own article but are suited to be grouped by a common topic (in fact, almost all of Wikipedia is this way).  Also, just because 11:11 can be mentioned on each songs page, doesn't mean it should ONLY be listed there.  By that logic, you could delete 30% of Wikipedia as "can be mentioned on X page instead).  There is nothing wrong with duplication, as long as its purpose is organization and navigation.  If I was looking for songs related to 11:11, how could I start with the song? -- Renesis (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous Minds(Xiaolin Showdown) → Dangerous Minds (Xiaolin Showdown)
The nominated redirect was Kept as likely typo. -- JLaTondre 13:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) This redierct fails the piping test. If there is a nontrivial edit history it is the result of a copy-paste move and can be safely merged. If this type of reasoning is flawed feel free to speedy keep. Jay32183 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * It appears to have been created independently of the correctly titled page (which was created first) and was then turned into a redirect in order to consolidate the efforts of the contributors. Looking at the edit history, it is clear that the content of this page was copy-pasted into the destination page.  Keep both to preserve attribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and because the points the original reader/editors to the correct page and prevents accidental forking.  Rossami (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What actually happened was the original page was turned into a redirect. The when pages were being made again the incorrectly named article was made and then copy-pasted over the orginal article. A history merge should be performed, that is the copy-paste repair. The page cannot accidentally be created again unless some one tried to build the page from scratch, the piping error prevents it from accidental linking. Jay32183 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects from subpages of the Wikipedia article
The nominated redirect was Deleted. Wikipedia/Building membership was moved to Building Wikipedia membership/Building membership to maintain edit history. Remaining pages had no edit history needing to be maintained (redirects only, a help request that was blanked before redirect, etc.). -- JLaTondre 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia/Building membership → Building Wikipedia membership
 * 2) Wikipedia/Date for Homepage → Bug report
 * 3) Wikipedia/Heirarchical Linking System proposal → Heirarchical Linking System proposal
 * 4) Wikipedia/Logos and slogans → Logos and slogans
 * 5) Wikipedia/Questions → Questions
 * 6) Wikipedia/Tendentious editing → Tendentious editing

These are all CNRs that predate creation of the project namespace. The target articles generally either have a well-formed shortcut, or are marked as historical (and don't need one); the only exception, Logos and slogans, has very few links. None is needed, and even if they were, this is not where one would expect to find them. Gavia immer (u|t|c)  19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep all because they predate the creation of the Wikipedia namespace and for the same reason that our guidelines explicitly tell us to keep the old CamelCase links. This preserves any external links and simplifies the tracability if/when older pages that used those links have to be restored.  It also makes tracing contribution history easier.  Rossami (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all (orphan first). If GFDL requires they be kept, move the source to somewhere else in Wikipedia: namespace.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Arthur Rubin. If I could be shown that Rossami's concerns are really a problem, I might change my vote.  But for now, it seems that it is better to clean up the article space than worry about "what if" scenarios. -- Renesis (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Pollution at Morgan’s Point (Bermuda) → Pollution at Morgan's Point (Bermuda)
The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Created in error this morning. Who on Earth creates two different type of apostrophe? They may look identical in this font, but ’ and ' are different characters... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephen Kenny (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as a plausible variant of the target. Redirects like this aid in searching and accidental linking, since they don't require a user to guess which style of punctuation is used. Gavia immer (u|t|c)  18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gavia immer. A user could legimiatly look for this and not be able to find it, without that redirect for punctuation. Hello32020 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, helpful and no need to delete it. If the author did it, someone else could! -- Renesis (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)