Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 4

Willy on Wheels -> Wheely Willy
The result of the debate was Deleted and title protected. The protected titles mechanism is better suited to cases like this then either the deletedpage template or a protected redirect. -- JLaTondre 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC) This is REALLY misleading, and why do we need it? Is it completley neccesary? Is this character even KNOWN as Willy on Wheels? No, just Wheely Willy. Not much of a similarity. Cheers, Je t  Lover  ( Report a mistake )  22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. This redirect has been kept with the current target previously (2007_June_13), and the nominator hasn't especially provided a reason for deleting it. - Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading – as far as I know, Wheely Willy is never called Willy on Wheels, and Google does not think so either. All information I can find on "Willy on Wheels" is about the infamous wiki vandal, not about some children's character.  Melsaran  (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I appreciate the point made for retaining the redirect, I am concerned that there is potential for conflation. As has been stated above, the connection &mdash; at the moment &mdash; between both subjects is non-existent. --Aarktica 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to the "protected page" template. We do not and should not have an article on the vandal or keep any of his/her vandalism in the visible history.  This issue was decided in AFD and affirmed at Deletion Review.  The page was apparently unprotected and converted to the redirect on 20 Feb.  I don't know why because there is no connection between the two topics.  Keep the protected-page version because mere deletion has not been sufficient to keep this vandal at bay.  Rossami (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the history shows, this redirect was made in a meagre attempt to do something useful of the page. Before that, it was deleted 18 times, protected 3 times and restored twice. This has become an obvious target for vandalism. I think we should Delete and Protect, like they did to red link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisDHDR (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Media copyright questions → Media Copyright Questions
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Newly-created, unnecessary cross-namespace (double) redirect -- 81.129.47.57 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - cross-namespace redirect. Chris DHDR 07:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete cross-namespace redirect, and this one is actually harmful because "media copyright questions" can refer to many non-Wikipedia-related things.  Melsaran  (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitly delete Wikipedia processes and editors should be almost invisible to readers-- Phoenix 15 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was the one who created this. I did it because if people want to ask about Wikipedia media copyrights, they can get moved over there. -- Guroadrunner 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we like to separate pages for readers - articles etc. from those for people editing the encyclopedia (i.e. the Wikipedia: namespace). Redirects that have the effect of moving people from the main namespace into project pages (the "behind the scenes" areas) are seen a harmful, especially where the term can refer to others topics unconnected to the organisation of Wikipedia. WjBscribe 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher C. Adams → Pete Capella
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 11:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Christopher C. Adams is a different person from Pete Capella (a.k.a. "Matthew Charles"), as confirmed by the credits of Yu-Gi-Oh GX's third season, which list "Christopher C. Adams" and "Matthew Charles" separately. DoKnowButchie 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Would there be a more appropriate target for the redirect or should it be deleted? --Tikiwont 09:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no actual article for Adams, and as far as I know, it's not an alias for any other voice actor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoKnowButchie (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination) → Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination)
The result of the debate was retarget to Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination). Take the other AfDs to WP:RM if you want. WjBscribe 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I moved to Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination) which is the correct title. This appears to be due to a technical glitch, according to the Nom's comments. Since this glitch might happen again, it should be deleted and protected from recreation with a brief comment explaining the glitch and a link to Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid so that any future nominators have the ability to see which actual nomination number it is. Of course if the current AfD is successful, that would be moot, but lets not crystal ball ;) Thanks! Cerejota 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Someone messed up with the AFD titles, and didn't use the standard naming conventions for subsequent AFDs, and this leads to glitches because Twinkle automatically uses (2nd nomination), (3rd nomination) etc as suffixes. Therefore, you should rename Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination) to Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination) to Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination), and Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) to Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination), to prevent this from happening again. I'd recommend listing it as an uncontroversial move on WP:RM.  Melsaran  (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a lot of work just to accomodate Twinkle? The script is supposed to make things easier. If Twinkle creates a nom in the wrong place - people should either not use Twinkle for that nom or move the page and fix the redirect so it points to a sensible location. WjBscribe 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)