Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 21

October 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2009

Cryptogenic
The result of the discussion was Replaced by the dab page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Cryptogenic species (links to redirect)

This term has other significant uses, particularly in medicine; a user searching for “Cryptogenic” might be looking for a particular condition or examples of the term's use in different fields. Neurotip (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * This single-word title is an adjective. By Naming conventions (adjectives) adjectives redirect to corresponding nouns, since this is an encyclopaedia of subjects not a dictionary of terms.  There's no cryptogenesis article, not is there a cryptogenic disease article, but there is cryptogenic species.  See also Articles for deletion/Cryptogenic and our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I can't see any reason to privilege the article on species over diseases. Despite the fact that the latter has no article, it seems to be at least a strongly associated with the term based on searches. As a result, I'm unhappy with the current targetting but also unhappy with deleting this. I've gone ahead and boldly created a dab page at Cryptogenic (disambiguation) and retargetted the redirect in question there. That page links to the wiktionary definition through the normal template as well as to the old target and the red link to cryptogenic disease. My suggestion, at this point, is to keep as retargetted. — m a k o ๛  15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent solution. Out of curiosity, I've just done a little research on this, by taking the first hundred Google hits for cryptogenic (excluding definitions). The results, for what they're worth, are below. I've made a few changes to the disambiguation page and will await your opinions. Neurotip (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 29 stroke (or brain infarction, embolism etc.)
 * 14 organising pneumonia, 10 fibrosing alveolitis, 5 haemoptysis; total 31 lung diseases
 * 8 cirrhosis, 5 liver disease, 4 hepatitis; total 17 liver diseases
 * 5 epilepsy, 3 West syndrome; total 8 epilepsy
 * 4 species
 * 3 abscess (or phrases including the word)
 * 8 miscellaneous, all medical except one Cryptogenic Aurora which seems to be some sort of software
 * OK, changed my mind and created cryptogenic disease. Neurotip (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks! This seems like a wonderful outcome. — m a k o ๛  05:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second! According to WP:DABNAME: "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself". Only if there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added. So in this case, Cryptogenic should be the dab page and Cryptogenic (disambiguation) should be deleted. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mercury and Interval, for example, follow that pattern. Actually, given the statistics above, I wonder whether Cryptogenic should redirect to Cryptogenic disease with a hatnote back to Cryptogenic (disambiguation), but either is fine by me. Neurotip (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/PC game
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → User:CyberSkull/PC game (links to redirect)

The page that was here was a user's opinion regarding a term, and has since been userfied. If someone didn't happen to notice being redirected, it could be mistaken as an actual guideline. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete -- Sounds like an honest mistake left behind. Should be cleaned up. — m a k o ๛  01:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter(Project Page)
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter (links to redirect)

The page that was moved here was moved back literally within seconds, leaving this implausible typo that doesn't even make sense and is not good for anything. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete -- Unused and unlikely. This can probably just be be speedied. — m a k o ๛  01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a most highly unlikely search term (WikiProject Video Games/Newsletter (Project page) - with proper spacing and capitalisation - doesn't exist here). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Layout
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → User:Krator/Layout (links to redirect)

The page that used to be here was simply a draft that was never used and has already been userfied, so the resulting redirect is useless. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as per nominator. This doesn't sound like it should be controversial. — m a k o ๛  01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Stone, Swale
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Faversham Stone Chapel (links to redirect)

Delete, there's no place in Swale called Stone, redirect was originally created due to an inaccurate source. More information at Talk:Stone, Swale. Propaniac (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete -- Seems like an honest mistake that should be cleaned up. — m a k o ๛  01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff joseph
The result of the discussion was Deleted. A search of Wikipedia shows at least three separate uses for this term. None of them are significant for a disambiguation page. This is a case where search is actually a better navigational solution. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Sale High School (links to redirect)

Delete; the high school article doesn't mention any Jeff Joseph. Auntof6 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the high school was known as Jeff Joseph Sale Moor Technology College (for which a redirect also exists) from 1994 - 2006; see  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I came across this when I found red links to people named "Jeff Joseph". I think I unlinked those redlinks, but there's a possibility they'd be created in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Jeff Joseph Sale Moor Technology College should stay of course and I'd even been OK with Jeff Joseph High School. As it stands though, it seems that Jeff joseph is an unlikely search term for someone looking for information on the high school. Additionally, this should be a red link because it seems quite possible that there will be an article on a Jeff Joseph -- perhaps even the one that the high school was named after! — m a k o ๛  01:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By that logic, should we delete Spaceman Spiff until there is an article to cover the subject in its own right? I think not; some topics may never be more than a redirect, and we don't need to exclude them until they are. I think that "Jeff Joseph" (any capitalization) is a more likely search term than the entire name of the school; it's easier to search on just his name. Maybe he wasn't notable enough to have an article...but the school apparently is, and at one time carried his name. Frank  |  talk  20:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid argument for either keeping or deleting redirects. Your question compares apples with oranges to begin with. OBTW, where in the target article is there a mention of Jeff Joseph? I don't see one offhand. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that link applies, and I don't see the apples-to-oranges comparison either. Spaceman Spiff is a redirect; Jeff joseph is likewise a redirect. The former is unlikely to be its own article (I even vaguely recall a discussion on that topic) but is a valid search term. The later falls into the same category for now; if notability is established, it could be changed to its own article. I think that on the off chance someone came across a reference to that name - possibly in connection with the school - typing in that search term would logically land them at the page for the school. I certainly agree that a mention of the period of time it bore his name is appropriate in the article; I didn't see it there when I first looked either. Frank  |  talk  19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Spaceman Spiff redirect to a section headed by the title... you guessed it: "Spaceman Spiff". The section actually goes into some detail about the significance of that character in a popular (albeit now-defunct) comic strip. As mentioned before, Jeff joseph.... er, does not. Thus the apples to oranges. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the reasoning behind your point; to me that indicates a reason to expand the article. Frank  |  talk  20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep redirect Until 26 August 2009, the article's introduction included the school's former name of Jeff Joseph yada yada. A user editing the page removed the old name for no apparent reason. I have restored it. Propaniac (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable search term. Epbr123 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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