Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 23

Helmholtzium -> Ununbium
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by CesarB as a repost of deleted content. WjBscribe 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Cosmium's favorite term. I can't find any reference to this proposed name that is not a Wikipedia mirror. Georgia guy 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Basket brawl → Pacers-Pistons brawl
The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Basketbrawl. -- JLaTondre 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC) This term doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere else, not even in the target article Anthony Rupert 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Basketbrawl. --- RockMFR 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Basketbrawl as it is much closer to the name then the current one. Koweja 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Leu (currency) → Romanian leu
The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Before Leu (currency) was created, there were two articles, Romanian leu and Moldovan leu. Articles about two distinct currencies, like Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar. User:Moa3333 moved Romanian leu to Leu (currency), edit the "leu" disambig page so that it points to Leu (currency), which now has information about the Romanian currency. Leu (currency) was soon moved back to Romanian leu according to currency article style guide. And the biased disambig edit was reverted. Now Leu (currency) is not useful. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * At the very least, this should be changed to point to Leu. --- RockMFR 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

China) → China
The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) There are no pages linking to the redirect, and no reasonable assumption that it will be typo-ed in that fashion PaladinWhite 00:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete per nom --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely typo. --- RockMFR 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Implausible typo PeaceNT 08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC), JLaTondre speedy-deleted the page with the comment (db-redirtypo).  That is not a valid speedy-deletion criterion.  Undeleted and the discussion reopened.  Rossami (talk)
 * I'm not sure yet. This is clearly a typo but it was originally created with the comment "less time consuming than editing all 170~ pages that link here..."  It's an orphan now but apparently only because of someone's hard work.  If the original comment is true, that could be evidence that it's a somewhat common typo even though it doesn't initially appear to be so.  Rossami (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I can't possibly see how this could be a likely typo. It's possible that a template or something linked here, or one person made the same mistake (maybe with AWB) on 170 pages, but there is no chance that this typo could be made multiple times. --- RockMFR 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the age of the page, it's unlikely that it was AWB-enabled. AWB-like scripts were just becoming popular then.  Could have been a bad template but it would have had to be substituted in everywhere because it would have been easy to spot and fix if it had been used via transclusion.  My suspicion is that it was a bad style choice such as "Bejing (China)" with the brackets in the wrong spot.  Rossami (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On 14:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC), JLaTondre redeleted this page with the explicit reference to speedy-deletion criterion R3 which does allow for recently created implausible typos (emphasis mine).  This redirect was created 6 months ago.  6 months is not "recently created".  The criterion does not apply.   JLaTondre also suggested that the speedy-deletion may only be overturned via Deletion Review.  This is incorrect.  By policy and long-standing precedent, incorrect speedy-deletions are to be immediately overturned by any discovering admin and a deletion discussion opened.  DRV is available as an option by is not required.  Please let the discussion continue properly.  Rossami (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is also policy & long-standing precedent to notify admins when reversing their actions. As far as reversal of speedy deletions, the precedent you quote, seems to me, to be for speedy deletions without an associated discussion. I rarely see an early closure treated the same way. -- JLaTondre 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is extremely unlikely that a user will type this in the search box or on the address bar. As for linking it within an article, that is more likely, but in that cases, it will show up as a red link and they will quickly fix their mistake. Our users are people and, yes, they will make mistakes, but they are not idiots and we shouldn't assume they are. Spelling mistake redirects are most helpfully for cases where someone could easily make a mistake and not realize it as they might think the red link valid (i.e. an article doesn't exist yet). This is not that case. In this case, we should be helping our users realize that put the ' ]] ' on the wrong side of the ')'. -- JLaTondre 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Rome. → History of Rome
The result of the debate was Deleted. Re-closing as db-dirtypo. That is a valid CSD criteria. If someone wants to object to its application, then they should question the closing admin or take it to WP:DRV. -- JLaTondre 14:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Redirect page is simply target page with a period; highly unlikely it has a useful purpose; no links to the redirect page exist CPAScott 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. PeaceNT 08:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC), JLaTondre speedy-deleted this page with the comment "(db-redirtypo)".  That is not a valid speedy-deletion criterion.  Undeleted and the discussion reopened.  Rossami (talk)
 * Weak keep per the arguments in the related discussion below. This was also part of the pagemove corrections.  It was done on the second day of the article's life.  Rossami (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not needed for search engines, shouldn't ever be wiki-linked, etc. The page move reasoning makes no sense. --- RockMFR 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"The History of Rome". → History of Rome (Mommsen)
The result of the debate was Deleted. Re-closing as db-dirtypo. That is a valid CSD criteria. If someone wants to object to its application, then they should question the closing admin or take it to WP:DRV. As far as the page move, we're talking about something from Nov 2004. -- JLaTondre 14:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) No pages link to redirect, plus highly unlikely typo, especially with period within title CPAScott 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. PeaceNT 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC), JLaTondre speedy-deleted the page with the comment (db-redirtypo).  That is not a valid speedy-deletion criterion.  Undeleted and the discussion re-opened.  Rossami (talk)
 * Weak keep because it documents an old page-move. "Weak" because the page was moved the same day the article was created.  It's unlikely that it's in significant use.  "keep" because the act of deleting a harmless redirect is more of a cost to the servers than ignoring it.  (That last statement is, unfortunately, more than a little ironic since we're using far more resources here than either option.)  Rossami (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not needed for search engines, shouldn't ever be wiki-linked, etc. The page move reasoning makes no sense. --- RockMFR 05:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)