Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 30

January 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 30, 2008

Geographic references → Geographic references
The result of the debate was Kept. This redirect has a potential to conflict with encyclopedic content. However, given its widespread use & history, its usefulness trumps that concern in the short term. In the long term it would be good to move the links to the actual target instead of the redirect, but there is no compelling reason to do that until this redirect conflicts with an actual article. -- JLaTondre 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. Causing many articles to be in contravention of Avoid self-references. Associated template GR has been nominated for deletion also. kingboyk (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The template has been converted into a useful format; and this redirect is highly useful (at least at the moment), being used in tons of articles. Convert this into a redirect to the various forms of the GR template, which has been kept in TFD.  I'd do it myself, but I really don't know about coding too much.  Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

"joint task force" → JTF
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Yet another redirect with quotes. Normal redirect without quotes exits. Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete Incorrect.  Reywas92 Talk  02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Implausible spelling; correct redirect exists. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Enfield → Enfield (disambiguation)
The result of the debate was Kept. The nomination header is incorrect. The actual target is London Borough of Enfield. The edit war was only for May & July of last year and a resolution seems to have been reached. There are a considerable number of pages that link to the redirect and the usage seems to be consistent with the target. If the nominator wants to move the disambig page here, that should be handled via requested moves. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Looks to be part of a year long edit war between about 4 different pages as to where this should redirect. Renaming Enfield (disambiguation) to Enfield seems to be the most logical choice as there seems to be a dispute over which Enfield should be the primary topic. -- Cmjc80 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Swapping things around like this is done at Requested moves, not here. It does make sense to do as you say, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, If/when the rfd closes to at least decide it that should point to the disambig page I'll request the move at WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages -- Cmjc80 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)