Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 22

Christian views of gambling → Gambling
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) This topic is not really addressed in the target article. This article existed for about 2 days in 2003 before the redirect was created. Based on comments on the talk page, the article was based on text from another source. There does not appear to be any article on wikipedia that would be reasonable target for this redirect. Clearly not a likely typo. Vegaswikian 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as per nom.--Tdl1060 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. delldot | talk 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Celtic: Disambiguation → Celtic F.C.
The result of the debate was Deleted and Celtic (Disambiguation) moved back to Celtic. -- JLaTondre 02:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC) User:Thesean43 has been moving around Celtic articles in an attempt to get Celtic to redirect to Celtic F.C.. This is a double redirect that has been created because of it. I suggest an admin go through it all and get back to where it was before. ... disco spinster   talk  20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Archibald99 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Captkrob 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Celtic (Disambiguation) needs to be moved back to Celtic. --- RockMFR 01:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Woodhey, Cheshire → Woodhey
The result of the debate was Kept. There doesn't seem to be any other articles to disambig so a disambig doesn't seem appropriate. The fact that Woodhey used to be in Cheshire is mentioned at the target so a redirect is appropriate. We don't seem to have a redirect category (historical or something similar) to cover situations like this, but we probably should. -- JLaTondre 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Woodhey is not in Cheshire. It used to be, but was placed, along with almost all of the Wirral Peninsula, into Mersyside in 1974. There is now no place called Woodhey in Cheshire. To maintain this redirection would be misleading and contrary to the the actual state of affairs that exists. DDStretch   (talk)  23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some more information about this redirect and the article it originally redirected to: Woodhey might have been, a long time ago, a village of Cheshire, but it is now a suburb of the town of Bebington in Merseyside. It was correctly labelled as being in Wirral, which used to all be part of Cheshire. The Wirral has only partly been in Cheshire since 1974. At this time, most but not all of The Wirral was placed in the then new Metropolitan Borough of Merseyside, and Woodhey, which was by then a suburb of Bebington was in the part transferred to Merseyside. Subsequently, Woodhey became incorrectly located in Cheshire by a combination of edits by someone who another claims is a campaigner for the return of traditional county boundaries, and a series of reversions of vandalism by people presumably not acquainted with the local geography of this part of England. Additionally, it was even categorized to be a town in Cheshire, which it has never been.


 * Someone else then decided it would be helpful to add a redirect (the one needing deletion now) for anyone who entered "Woodhey, Cheshire" in the find box. This redirect may have been done in good faith, but it was done without knowledge of the unchecked nature of the edits and reversions that had led to the incorrect claim that Woodhey was in Cheshire. I am an active participant of the Cheshire WikiProject, and we are trying to provide users of wikipedia with as accurate a picture as possible of all aspects of Cheshire. I have already altered the main entry of Woodhey to a stub article that contains accurate information of its position and the county in which it is located. To keep the redirect would perpetuate misleading and inaccurate information, since Woodhey is not in Cheshire.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. You have admitted that it used to be in Cheshire.  Thus it not only was likely done in good faith as you also admit, but is a quite justified and legitimate redirect. Gene Nygaard 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you know enought about the place to write three paragraphs about its history here, why does the redirect go to a one-line, two-short-sentence article. Granted, you almost doubled its size before making this nomination; before it was only one half-line sentence. Do you really think that is going to impress anybody?Gene Nygaard 09:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ReplyThe three paragraphs are not three paragraphs about Woodhey, the place. Instead, they are three paragraphs about the history of the wikipedia article about Woodhey which is a different matter, and not one would expect to see in a wikipedia article about a settlement. The amount of information about the place of Woodhey contained in these three paragraphs is quite small. So, I still say Delete. Finally, I do not know why you thought there was any intention to "impress anybody" at all. My actual intention was, and always has been, to improve wikipedia.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If Woodhey was at one time a village in Cheshire, then someone might type "Woodhey, Cheshire" into the search box.  We have redirects from many wrong things, some much wronger than this. — Randall Bart 10:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply But, we are not concerned with any of these other wrong other redirects here, nor should we be, uinless it is an issue of maintaining consistency of incorrect or misleading information, which I am neither sure is required nor advisable.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Factually inaccurate and misleading, If Woodhey is not in cheshire then Wikipedia should not imply that it is with this redirect. I also think it's an unlikely search term given that someone searching for Woodhey is far more likely to type Woodhey then Woodhey, Cheshire, Especially given that it is in Merseyside.  YDAM   TALK 11:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Surely Wikipedia must provide not just a picture of what is now, but also of what was then - otherwise we'd have to delete a lot of pages. I'm sure that there will are countless records - e.g. birth/death records which will show something like "Woodhey in the county of Cheshire". Woodhey is a common sounding name - so, following the convention to disambig by, - some folk might legitimately type Woodhey, Cheshire into the search box. To not redirect when it was historically (only 32 years ago) part of Cheshire seems silly. Richard B 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Change from Delete to Qualified Keep After some discussion about this on the Cheshire WikiProject, I've decided to change my position from delete to a qualified keep, so long as the redirection is removed, and, instead, the page is changed to a disambiguation page that points to Woodhey (now in Merseyside) and two other very small places in Cheshire: a hall and a hamlet of no more than 3 or so houses. This disambiguation page should also mention that Woodhey (now in Merseyside) used to be in Cheshire. It would correspond much more closely to the WP:V policy in so doing than merely keeping the unaltered redirection, I contend. This is because, Woodhey is not now in Cheshire, though the form of the unaltered redirection suggests "it is" more strongly than "it was".  DDStretch    (talk)  13:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per RichardB, Birth, Marriage and Death certificates pre 70s are likely to use this form as are available census records. The article itself makes it clear that Woodhey is no longer in Cheshire.  Neither of the other 2 Woodheys mentioned by DDStretch appear to be notable adn coudl be covered with an "otheruses" at the top of the existing Woodhey page with Woodhey (disambiguation) created if absolutey necessary.  David Underdown 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)