Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 4

September 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2008

Template:Uw-vandalism5 → Template:Uw-block1
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Khoikhoi as G7. Non-admin closure. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This redirected should be deleted as it is likely to cause confusion - uw-vandalism4 and those prior to it are user warning templates, uw-block1 is a template to be used after the user is actually blocked. Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 

Floyd the barber → Bleach (album)
The result of the debate was Retargeted to Floyd Lawson. I can't forsee any possible objection, it's probably where it was intended to point anyways, so I'm closing it. Non-admin closure. UsaSatsui (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This page should either redirect to Floyd Lawson (the original Floyd the Barber, on the Andy Griffith Show, to whom the Nirvana song is probably referring), or to a disambiguation page. If this isn't the right place to suggest the change, I'm very sorry -- not a lot of experience tinkering with redirects. Thanks. Miss Dark (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Boldly retargeted (its properly capitalised cousin, too) to Floyd Lawson, a standalone article entirely dedicated to the fictional character. I have also placed a hatnote indicating that those who wish to read about the Nirvana song could go to Bleach (album). A standalone article should trump one with just a bare mention or two of the subject as a "primary article." 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

King Boom Boo → List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)
The result of the debate was Re-targetted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Target article does not discuss the character on the page. UsaSatsui (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Redirect - It appears that some people are bringing up the King Boom Boo page. Redirect to Sonic_Adventure_2. Suntag (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, THAT'S where he went! Darn ghosts are hard to find sometimes (which is odd, since I know I looked there the other day).  I'm cool with a retarget.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cambrian-Ordovician extintion event → Cambrian–Ordovician extinction events
The result of the debate was deleted as G6, housekeeping, uncontroversial deletion. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Unlikely typo with no inbound links. I'd have it speedy-deleted, but it is far from recent. The fact that it was tagged with R to plural, and the correct version of the redirect (using "extinction") did not exist until I created it, indicate that the typo was unintentional. I therefore propose its deletion. (For those who are interested, I tried to prod this three weeks ago; the guideline said "articles only" but I interpreted that as "mainspace". Someone promptly removed the notice.) Waltham, The Duke of 04:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I propose the 1st 2 following articles be restored and the 3rd discussed. 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * As the creator of the redirect, I support its deletion. The typo was unintentional and unlikely to be repeated. Leptictidium (mt) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added Template:Db-g7 to the redirect. Suntag (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

natural hygiene and related articles
The result of the debate was Kept. While normally an unopposed RFD results in deletion, these redirects were never tagged with rfd. In addition, this is really a deletion restoration request which is not in purview of RFD. I suggest the nominator contact the deleting admin or use deletion review. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) natural hygiene->naturopathy This was redirected and there was no article, so I wrote one, but apparently there was an earlier deleted one. The redirect is incorrect: natural hygiene is not naturopathy any more than algebra or geometry is topology (it is both the latter but they are not each other or topology.) Naturopathy is said to be a combination of pseudo-natural hygiene and either allopathic herbology (minority allopathy) and limited allopathic pharmacology (herb extracts, etc.) or homeopathy or both, the latter of which does not significantly use herbs but was defined as the main other part of naturopathy. At or after the time of the founding of natural hygiene there were 3 or 4 main medical schools of thought: allopathy (majority medicine heavily influenced by Galen, which natural hygiene is barely influenced by,) heliopathy, hydropathy (perhaps,) natural hygiene, and probably later, naturopathy. Natural hygiene has many ideas and methods naturopathy does not adhere to or maybe even use. Calling natural hygiene naturopathy is also like calling Orthodoxy Protestantism/Reformism. I suggest the article be restored, including the previous article which I cannot find. It would be more informative than many pop culture fictional (such as sci-fi & fantasy, etc.) character articles that should be put on fiction wikis or redirected to their literature articles.

nature cure->naturopathy Nature cure was the name of natural hygiene before the latter name. It may never have been a name for naturopathy, which came later, though naturopaths use part of the ideas and methods of natural hygiene, i.e. nature cure. However some of them naturopathy does not adhere to and maybe does not even use.

natural health->naturopathy This may have referred to natural hygiene more than naturopathy, and the article was just deleted and now is not there in the history: maybe some of its info could be added to other articles, though I do not the article itself has a notable name.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment (Incidentally, the redirect now goes to Naturopathic medicine. You're at the wrong place. What you want is a deletion review of Articles for deletion/Natural hygiene. I think you have a very good case for it. It was listed, got 4 deletes and 4 keeps, was relisted for more comments, got 1 additional delete and 4 additional keeps, and was nonetheless deleted by the deleting admin on the basis of his own arguments, rejecting the views of the keep !voters, many of whom were established wikipedians, that the sources were reliable and sufficient. The discussion of the other redirects can wait until the result for that. Alternatively, replace the redirect by a new article that will not be subject to the objections by having unquestionably good sources, and see if it gets G4d as re-creation. (But I fail to see the logic of discussing the virtue of this   by comparison with the virtues of articles in another field entirely.)  DGG (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)