Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 28

August 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 28, 2009

Reba McEntire/Reba



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep to preserve history of a merged article (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely that anyone would type the slash and redundant "Reba". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Reba (links to redirect)
 * Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for the obvious reasons. As far as I can tell there was some content that got moved to a subpage but then the whole thing was an actual stub and then was used to preserve content?  See below ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 23:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve edit history, unless someone wants to do a history merge. (Read the note at the top of Talk:Reba (TV series)). I've added a R from merge tag for categorization for now. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to allude to that in my muddled explanation of a muddled history. I must have missed it - what in the history is particularly useful? ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I think the point was to comply with the various licenses.. WP:GFDL, Creative Commons and whatnot -- &oelig; &trade; 18:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason then that it has/d to be preserved and a histmerge couldn't be done? AFAICT, the only overlapping dates are the two done as a result of this RfD. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 14:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know why a histmerge wasn't done but either way it will preserve the edit history. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep exactly this reason is given at RELDEL or whatever the page is. Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep -- As per above. Keep the edit history. — m a k o ๛  20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

CE-25
The result of the discussion was Keep and retarget to GSLV_III. Ruslik_ Zero 08:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Article appears to have been created at the title due to some confusion between the name of the engine (CE-20), and the stage that it is to be used on (C-25). I have moved it, and I'm not sure whether the old title is a plausible redirect or not, so I thought it should be listed here to allow discussion.  G W … 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → CE-20 (links to redirect)
 * Keep but maybe point to the GLV page, unless someone makes it into a dab page for all the various CE-25s out there. Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep but change where it points if that's at all necessary or useful. — m a k o ๛  20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ortolf von Trier
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 08:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Suggest delete as only link is a circular one from Szczytno itself. I would prefer a red link there to show a real article needs to be written? Apologies if there are better ways to proceed. Jan1nad (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Szczytno (links to redirect)
 * Delete - per above. --Zach425 talk / contribs 10:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

St marks school hong kong



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep as a plausible search term (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unused pointless REDIR. PROD was removed on the basis that it's a plausible search term, but that's what the search engine's for. The REDIR's only useful if something links to it ~ nothing does. Bazj (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → St Marks school (Hong Kong) (links to redirect)
 * Keep. It is a plausible search term, and redirects are not only useful when they are linked. They also help people to reach the article they are looking for without going through a search page. Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only a plausible search term but a much more likely search term than the article's title. Redirects are cheap and deletion causes more server load than keeping. TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, as it's a good search term for the article. Redirects are not just for being linked to, Bazj, they prevent confusion by being common search terms.  There's no reason to expect someone unfamiliar with the naming conventions to search for (Hong Kong); heck, I am and I'd still search for something like this redirect before the actual name. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 23:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the above points, but in the 19 months from 12/2007 to 06/2009 there were no hits for this search term. Therefore, it seems superfluous.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for either keeping or deleting it, however. The fact that nobody appears to be using it could also be used to assert that the redirect is not doing any harm. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PAGE
The result of the discussion was Keep. This is the standard abbreviation of PolyAcrylamide Gel Electrophoresis and, therefore, should be kept. The confusion problem related to its use as an example of otheruses should be solved by other means. Ruslik_ Zero 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC) The title of this redirect is used as an example in the Template:Otheruses templates page and is linked to from many other templates unrelated to the target article. This causes confusion when people inadvertently get redirected to Gel electrophoresis when clicking on an example link. Also PAGE1 and PAGE2 are in the same vein. Suggest salting these titles, Like this. &oelig; &trade; 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Gel electrophoresis (links to redirect)
 * It seems the problem was dealt with by Rich Farmbrough with this edit. Now we just need to watch that PAGE1 and PAGE2 don't get created. -- &oelig; &trade; 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Would it not be better to "fix" aka alter the template pages? I mean, its usage on those many templates is... regrettable, but at the end of the day PAGE does refer to electrophoresis.  I just don't think we should prevent a useful redirect to content for the sake of a few confused clickers. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * though it may be confusing, "PAGE" is a standard abbreviation for the technique and a very reasonable search term.    DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How confused do people get? Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
 * heh, was that a rhetorical question? -- &oelig; &trade; 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Page disambiguation page. This would be a redirect from alternate capitalisation. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add hatnote to Gel electrophoresis, e.g. .  --Zach425 talk / contribs 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per Zach425 above. It's a valid search term, and the reader is more likely to look for the electrophoresis article than Page. The links from the template pages need to be fixed, though. Jafeluv (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rose-Marie (1933 film)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 08:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC) A redirect with 1933 in the title is unnecessary; the first Rose-Marie film wasn't released until 1936. --Joseph Hewes (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Rose Marie (operetta) (links to redirect)
 * Sure. At the time I created this redirect, it was an apparently mistaken redlink on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad, I would suggest a speedy delete under G7. --Zach425 talk / contribs 10:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete misleading/confusing title of a redirect. There was no Rose-Marie motion picture released or filmed in 1933. B.Wind (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)