Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 28

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The result of the discussion was Retargetted to Eagles (band) by nominator and withdrawn, if anyone objects to this retargetting feel free to discuss it on an apropriate talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Eagles "Band" → Eagle (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete: While this redirect, as it currently stands, directs to an article about the bird, I am sure it was created with the intent of directing to the article about the rock band, which was moved to "Eagles (band)" from "Eagles" last year in a move proposal I initiated. That said, I think that this redirect, even if properly retargeted, is still odd. I can't see someone placing the word "Band" in quotation marks when searching for an article about the band. They're more likely to omit the parenthesis around the word than to add punctuation to it. I move to delete. If by chance this redirect is kept, then obviously the target page should be corrected. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Eagles (band) and keep the pagehistory. Redirects do more than merely support the search engine. In this case, the redirect helps to document a rather complicated series of changes to the title of the article. The use of quotation marks in the title is not in keeping with the Manual of Style but that's a reason to move the page (fixing the mistake), not a reason to delete the redirect that gets left behind by the move. Redirects are not held to the same standards as article titles. Rossami (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call. I just checked the logs, and sure enough, a page move. Wow, I should have thought about doing that before starting up a deletion discussion, huh? I agree that for page history purposes this redirect ought to probably stay, and so I am withdrawing my nomination, untagging the redirect, and retargeting it to "Eagles (band)." --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Retarget to Catalan wine. Ruslik_Zero 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Catalan Wine → Bogatell (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Misleading redirect. Not all Catalan Wine is Bogatell brand Muhandes (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the the pagehistory (because it documents a relatively recent pagemove and will help the original editors to find the new title for their contributions) and retarget to the more general article that already exists about Catalan wines (note lower case). Rossami (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The target Bogatell is ProD'd. --UnicornTapestry
  • Comment: Reviewing the target's pagehistory, the article was proposed for deletion in early Feb. PROD was declined at that time, making the page ineligible for renomination under WP:PROD. Deletion of the target would have to take the AfD process from here. Rossami (talk)

• The PROD was not contested, it was removed by the author, so I chose to ignore the PROD rule as no contesting was done. However, I'm also willing to take the way of bureaucracy through AfD (which I did). The redirect, however, should be removed no matter what the result. --Muhandes (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Original author moved Catalan Wine => Bogatell. Catalan wine already exists as a separate article. Nothing links to Catalan Wine. It seems more confusing than enlightening. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A redirect should exist from Catalan Wine to Catalan wine. I have no opinion on the value of the page history, so this can be read as supporting either retargetting without deletion or deletion and recreation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Reverse page move and retarget Amy Harris (athlete) to Amy Harris (disambiguation). Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Amy Harris (English athlete) → Amy Harris (athlete) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not real up on rules for redirects, but this seems like an unlikely search term. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It results from a rename. There is also Amy Harris (Australian athlete) and I had chosen symmetrical names which currently appear in the dab page Amy Harris (disambiguation) and the corresponding dab hat notes. --Mirokado (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the existence of Amy Harris (Australian athlete) this is a perfectly logical search term, although I don't see anything obvious from either article why the English athlete is the primary topic between the two of them, so keep or revert page move and retarget to Amy Harris (disambiguation) and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the pagehistory intact. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. No opinion on overwriting as a disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• revert page move and retarget the resulting Amy Harris (athlete) to Amy Harris (disambiguation) with tag, as suggested by Thryduulf above. I was still thinking about AH(a) when the page was moved and the suggestion results in what I think I would have done anyway if given time. --Mirokado (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Atmospheric absorption → Transmittance (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I propose for deletion, because the redirected article does not talk about the subject, it only shows one image. Setreset (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Absorptance (or "absorption" in the context of light) and transmittance are two sides of the same coin and are entirely appropriate to discuss together. Absorptance is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Transmittance page. I will concede that little is said about atmospheric absorptance specifically but it's at least some mention. It's slightly better than Absorption (electromagnetic radiation) which is the next closest article I could find. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]