Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 12

June 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2009

Black on white
The result of the discussion was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Deletion. Obviously "white on black" is somewhat unusual and is the topic of the present redirect target. "Black on white" on the other hand is the norm and reading about the other kind should be of but incidental interest. This obverse redirect is useful for the more-than average curious reader, not for those who would want information on the redirect's topic. meco (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Light-on-dark color scheme
 * Keep article appears to be about both, and can be expanded. Unless the article is split, or a better target is found, the redirect is useful. snigbrook (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
The result of the discussion was No longer applicable as now an article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Inappropriate redirect from a publication to a subject, deletion recommended Skysmith (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Whey
 * Write an article. it's a a major journal from a major academic society. The redirect is obviously wrong,and the journal deal with a very wide range of topics, & is in no sense an alternative medicine or medical cultist journal. I'll write it, of course, if requested. DGG (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bon chance! ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the redirect with a stub about the journal itself. It's not really well-written (so far I've dedicated only about one hour to the article) and most of the references currently used in the article are self-published—and by that I mean published by the American Society for Nutrition, not published by me—but I hope to change that in the coming days. Any help with content, sources, or appearance, and any suggestions, would be most appreciated. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Missile Command (video game)
The result of the discussion was No consensus. Ruslik_ Zero 09:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Deletion : so that the Missile Command article can be renamed to "Missile Command (video game)" WDavis1911 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * → Missile Command
 * Can you clerarify the reason for this nomination? As far as I can tell the video game article is the only article with this name meaning that a move to Missile Command (video game) would go against Disambiguation since there are no other articles with the same name. If you are planning to create a new page with the title Missile Command can you please mention what that page would be. If not the the current article should stay where it is and the redirect kept since it is consistant with wikipeida guidlines.--76.65.143.36 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking again I now notice that Missile command currently redirects to Missile guidance (though it has jumped around a bit) but if the nominator wants this deleted so Missile Command can redirect redirect there I strongly disagree. First, while the two terms are mentioned in the article the term Missile command itself is not mentioned in the article and I doubut that a redirect to Missile gunidence would be the primary use of the term Missile Command anyway.--76.65.143.36 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I definitely did not want Missile Command to redirect directly to Missile guidance. Ideally, I would say that Missile Command should link directly to the game, and we would not need an unambiguous title. However, since the redirect has been edited twice to refer to Missile guidance, I assumed there was a significant perspective that felt Missile guidance was the most obvious link for the Missile Command link.
 * In other words, I would be happy for Missile Command to link directly to the video game, which is what you did, 76.65.143.36. I, however, believe this won't be the end of this struggle, as this link has moved back and forth a few times. I was looking for an alternate solution that might be more permanent. Disambiguating the video game I thought would be a good start, while following this up with other modifications (e.g., adding a disambiguation page). If the editors here feel that simply modifying the redirect will be sufficient, then that is fine with me. I just doubt that's going to be enough. WDavis1911 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Since there has been a history of back-and-forth, it may help to initiate a talk page discussion regarding the page title, possibly coupled with a listing at Requested moves. For what it's worth, I also (like 76.65.143.36 and the nom) prefer the article to remain at Missile Command. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)