Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 15

Sesquipedalian → Longest word in English
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Confusing redirect. Sesquipedalian is not the longest word in English and is not mentioned in that article. Obviously the word is related to long words, but redirects that leave the reader confused as to why they've reached the destination article are not a good idea. WjBscribe 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 *  Keep , the word Sesquipedalian is mentioned in the Scrabble section of the redirected article (Longest_word_in_English). I think that the redirect should remain or be changed to point to the section of the aforementioned article. meshach 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken - I cannot find the word in that section. I quite agree it would be a logical target if the word were mentioned. WjBscribe 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Scrabble section mentions sesquioxidizing but not sesquipedalian. --Metropolitan90 04:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, my mistake. This is not what I thought it was.  meshach 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is an unnecessary confusing redirect.  Sala Skan  23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Confusing. Carlossuarez46 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like WJBscribe, I could not find the word 'sesquipedalian' in the Longest word in English article. EdJohnston 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A joke, "Sesquipedalian" means "The act or practice of using large words when smaller words will do." - Flubeca Talk 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete to make room for appropriate article at this location. Phil Sandifer 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Spur-Thighed → Tunisian Spur-thighed Tortoise
The result of the debate was retarget to Greek Tortoise. WjBscribe 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Nonsensical, unlinked Dysmorodrepanis 08:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Redirect to Greek Tortoise. --- RockMFR 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The phrase 'spur-thighed' is too fragmentary to be a reasonable redirect, though if it is going to redirect anywhere, then Greek Tortoise is the best choice. The Tunisian spur-thighed is only one of many species in the spur-thighed group, which is discussed in proper context in Greek Tortoise. EdJohnston 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per RockMFR - obvious destination for anyone using that search term. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

USS Chattanooga (CL-118) → USS Chattanooga
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC) It links to a disambiguation page (which incidentally has a link back to the redirect), thus hiding the fact that no article exists yet from editors. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just unlink it at the target. Assuming the information at the disambiguation page is correct, it's unlikely that there will ever be a full article on the topic of the redirect, or even much more than the one sentence we have now. Best bet is to keep the redirect for possible searches, but dump the backlink. I've done this already. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I thought of that but didn't because of WP:MOSDAB, but I suppose this would be a good application of WP:IAR. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlinked items like this are usually the wrong approach, and strongly discouraging them is always the right approach. However, in this case I think it's the most useful way to include that information. -- Gavia immer (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * A "ship index" page serves as both a disambig page and a short (usually) list article. In the case of unfinished vessels, the ship index is the best place to include what little there is to say, and we use the redirect to get readers to those few words. Stan 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but undo the back-link, as already done by User:Gavia immer, above. I agree that making a red link for a never-launched ship would be silly, and keeping this redirect does not appear to violate WP:MOSDAB in any way. (Only the back-link was questionable). EdJohnston 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlink at target Phil Sandifer 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)