Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 26

PAGENAMEE → Help:Page name
The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This is a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace to the Help namespace. It has no significant edit history and the only incoming links are from lists of XNRs. I do not believe it to be a plausible search term nor do I think it discourages the creation of duplicate articles (unless PAGENAMEE is an acronym of something). I thought of redirecting to Template:Pagename, but again, it seems an implausible typo and, moreover, we do not have (nor do I think we need) a redirect from Template:Pagenamee. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Certainly no use for it.DGG 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - highly implausible search term ALTON   .ıl  03:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Carpenter Middle School → Plano Independent School District
The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Should not be redirected. The redirect page does not have enough information about the specified topic. A new page should be created for the original topic. Joepercussion1 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong keep, the target does have enough information to justify a redirect (a simple mention is quite sufficient). The redirect appears to have been created by consensus at AfD.   The overwhelming majority at that discussion disagreed with your assertion that a page should exist for the topic.  If you have new evidence to challenge the consensus, you should take it to WP:DRV.  Otherwise, even if we did delete the redirect, any article created there would probably be speedy-deleted.  Xtifr tälk 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Many middle school AfDs are now closing with the compromise of redirecting to the district, and some articles are even being handled this way directly without bothering AfD. This is an enormous improvement over the incessant debate over each of the hundreds of schools, and it should  be encouraged. It should be enough to have just directory content in the section. DGG 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theory → fringe science
The result of the debate was re-target despite the shown desire to delete this page, it is far more useful as a redirect that as a deleted page. Remember, redirects are here to help and they're cheap. I feel the option to simply re-target the page wasn't considered here. Please contact me if you have major problems with this closure. John Reaves (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An alternative theory is not synonymous with either fringe science, a pseudoscientific theory, or a conspiracy theory. An alternative theory is simply that, an alternative. Here are two examples of alternative theory being used within the scientific community for competing theories:,. --01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC) JLaTondre

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Agree redirect is improper. Better to delete article entirely if we have nothing worth saying right now then to do an incorrect redirect. --Shirahadasha 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- The meaning is contextual as an alternative to something as e.g. in Alternative set theory. Something general could be said at Scientific consensus. But then we should also delete Alternative Theories which redirects to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts--Tikiwont 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or turn into a disambiguation page. J. D. Redding 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it will be very difficult to get consensus on a disam page. There will be no harm in deleting it. People will usually have some specific theory in mind. DGG 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it really doesn't fit at the current target at all, and nobody has suggested a better target. Similarly, I can't imagine what it might point to as a dab page.  The one place where it is currently used (in Akhenaten) looks like it's either weasel wording or just unnecessary overlinking—your choice.  In general, I would think is an unlikely search term and an unlikely link target.  Agree that Alternative Theories should also be included.  That's only linked from Theory of everything, and its use there looks even more strongly like weasel wording.  Xtifr tälk 04:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Confuses two very different thigs.--Simul8 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bounce to theory, simple solution.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Haimowitz → Heim (onomastics)
The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Procedural nom. Redirect proposed for Speedy Delete, resending to RfD without prejudice --Shirahadasha 01:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 *  Weak delete, the target article seems to have been merged into Chayyim, which would ordinarily not be a problem (we'd just fix the double redirect and get on with our lives), except that "Haimowitz" does not appear in the "Haim" section of the Chayyim article! The closest is "Haimovitz".  Change to keep and retarget to Chayyim if someone familiar with the topic can assert that "Haimowitz" really should be listed in that section.  (Is there a Wikiproject we can ask?)  Xtifr tälk 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. See WP:SU. I have been cleaning up several onomastics pages of this (now banned) user who created masses of inappropriate redirect pages and have requested countless similar redirect pages for speedy deletion in the (my) cleanup process. These redirect pages should all be deleted as other non-controversial "housekeeping" tasks (db-g6) to make room in case someone ever wants to create a page about a notable person with such a surname. I just started cleaning up Chayyim, and will nominate similar redirect pages (prod or Speedy), just in case someone is wondering. – sgeureka t•c 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, not sort of domain expert I was expecting, but certainly convincing. Thanks, Xtifr tälk 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation)
The result of the debate was Move request. This has been listed at WP:RM and additional discussion is occurring at Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation). As this is really a move request, the WP:RM listing should have precedence. I will make a note at the talk page that additional comments can be found here. -- JLaTondre 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I know this redirect was considered fairly recently- see Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 14 but a no consensus result is highly undesirable. The status quo is clearly against present disambiguation policy. I believe a consensus was starting to be formed towards the end of the debate, so I will repeat my proposal for further debate: This seems the best way to facilitate navigation. It ensures that those using "Las Vegas" a search term reach the right article while also making sure that links to this page are modified so they arrive at the correct article and not a disambig page (especially not via a redirect). WjBscribe 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * 1) Las Vegas to be deleted
 * 2) Las Vegas (disambiguation) to be moved to Las Vegas
 * 3) This will allow for links in articles to Las Vegas to be disambiguated to the correct articles
 * Support. Let's put this to rest.  Vegaswikian 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think I said differently last time, but this makes sense. Las Vegas needs to be disambiguated, and the Scribe has proposed the right way to do it. YechielMan 06:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I know I said it differently last time, but this is the result I intended to end up with. --Scott Davis Talk 13:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - use the proper channels, to give people a chance to input as they should. This should go through Requested moves, not here. And, if it's already been done and rejected, then that's the answer. This being said, I completely agree with your move suggestion. 64.178.96.168 18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a requested move. It's the deletion of a redirect and an explanation of what will happen afterwards. The redirect is in high use so many people will have seen the rfd notice. If you agree with the outcome- why are you opposing? That seems to be advocating process for the sake of process. WjBscribe 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. It should be discussed at Requested moves. That board is populated by people who are versed in proper naming conventions. This is not process for the sake of process - it's to get a proper community consensus. To be honest, although I can't assume so, this redirect discussion struck me as a backhanded way of getting around a requested move when you were worried it wouldn't work at the proper board. 64.178.96.168 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And you think these pages are full of people who haven't a clue about naming conventions? You seem to be rather assuming bad faith on my part, which I object to. I propose to delete a redirect, so I brought it to WP:RfD- that still seems logicial to me. Besides few requested moves get commented on- the request was bound to get more attention here. I've added a link to the discussion at WP:RM as any additional input would be welcome. WjBscribe 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't assuming bad faith, because I know you're an administrator and could really get around it. That's why I said struck (past tense). However, I do think that WP:RM is the proper place for discussion 64.178.96.168 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict:2x) Question. Are there regulations which bar admins from unilaterally moving such pages? --Aarktica 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have regarded it as within the ambit of WP:BOLD had it not been for the fact that an admin had recently closed an RfD that discussed this idea (though it came up at the end) as "no consensus". If I had just gone and done it, I would effectively have been overruling his close. Instead I started a fresh discussion (which was probably why it didn't occur to me to bring it up at WP:RM. WjBscribe 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's nice to know. Thanks for the info. --Aarktica 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking here from WP:RM makes it appear that the request is for the page Las Vegas to be moved to Las Vegas (disambiguation), which is not the case. I suggest that this discussion be closed and that an RM-formatted discussion be set up on the talk page of Las Vegas (disambiguation). Aside from that, I think it's quite clear that Las Vegas should redirect to Las Vegas, Nevada, and that there should be a note at the top of that page pointing people to Las Vegas (disambiguation). Was there an argument that many people searching for "Las Vegas" wanted to be pointed to a different page? It's not clear to me from the dab that any of the other results are common search terms. Dekimasu よ! 04:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've read the old RfD now, and I see what the problem is. I still suggest creating a full RM request, perhaps noting here that this discussion has been superceded. Dekimasu よ! 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, works for me, both sides clearly agree on this. No reason to discuss it further. Kicking it from venue to venue would be a waste of time. — CharlotteWebb 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This clearly belongs at requested moves, as it's not deleting a redirect on its own merits, it's deleting a redirect for a non-trivial move. And my opinion on it, as a requested move, is that for a term with multiple uses where one use is in far more common usage, the primary term should point to the primary article, which can carry an otheruses at the top.  &mdash;dgies tc 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)