Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 25

August 25

Want some candy? → kidnapping

Huh? Voortle 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no sense. Tarret 00:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the closest connection I can think of may be the kidnapper using that line to lure kids but I believe that the link is way too obscure to be useful as a redirect. No one would use that. --Edgelord 02:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very odd Nfitz 18:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no sense to me as a redirect. Abstrakt 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prank entry created by a user who has already been blocked once for vandalism. Rossami (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stokes's Law → Stokes' law

The nominated redirect was Page moves belong at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- JLaTondre 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move the main article (Stokes' law) to the name of its redirect (Stokes's Law), since Stokes's law is the gramatically correct name (see Saxon genitive). The redirect has a small prior history so an overwrite would not work. Naturally, after the move, Stokes' Law will be left as a redirect to the new name. Capi 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:List of Web service markup languages → Talk:List of web service protocols

Confusing since the main redirect was later converted into an article, while the talk page still points to discussion page of the move target. --S.K. 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank. Talk pages of redirects should be for talking about the redirect, not be redirects themselves. --Rory096 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but pageblank. Keeping the redirect in history supports the documentation of the pagemove and helps other users trace the history of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate theory → Conspiracy theory

POV pushing. Let's call a spade a spade instead of inventing new prettier terms for conspiracy theories. What next, Truth Theories That Prove Governments Are Evil? Weregerbil 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google search, and this Google search. Alternate/alternative theories as a phrase, neologism, and the meaning in the English language, based on this, is ~~clearly~~ functionally synonymous with the meaning and intent of "Conspiracy theory", to which I have redirected them. Created redirects were Alternate theory, Alternate theories, Alternative theory, and Alternative theories. rootology (T) 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) - EDIT: per Weregerbil. Functionally is a better phrasing. rootology (T) 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first page of hits I get for the "alternative theories" google query contains Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina, Mysticism, particle physics, AIDS, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, creationism. There are links to conspiracy theories too. "Clearly synonymous" seems an exaggeration. Weregerbil 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to list of pseudoscientific theories (the target of current redirect List of alternative, disputed, and speculative theories) as a best fit. "Alternate theory" is a much broader term than "Conspiracy theory", and Wikipedia commonly uses it in the broadest possible sense, as thisGoogle search shows. --Gavia immer 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate theories → Conspiracy theory

POV pushing. See "Alternate theory" above. Weregerbil 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above comment... rootology (T) 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects let's say a vote^{RfdIsNotAVote(TM)} in "Alternate theory -> Conspiracy theory" also applies to this. (RfD didn't have "how to list multiple redirects" instructions like AfD has so I listed separately.) Weregerbil 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine by me as creator. rootology (T) 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The connection seems to be off to me. An alternate theory is not a conspiracy theory - it is simply not the main theory. And in the case of a scientific theory, it's strange to talk about conspiracy theories. Dekimasu 01:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories → Conspiracy theory

POV pushing. See "Alternate theory" above. Weregerbil 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above comment... rootology (T) 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects comments in "Alternate theory -> Conspiracy theory" apply to this. Weregerbil 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theory → Conspiracy theory

POV pushing. See "Alternate theory" above. Weregerbil 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above comment... rootology (T) 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects comments in "Alternate theory -> Conspiracy theory" apply to this. Weregerbil 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Kosovo → Kosovo

There is no such thing as Republic of Kosovo and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Lowg 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name used by Albanian Kosovars (Republika e Kosovës, Republika Kosovo). Pavel Vozenilek 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an official name or commonly known name, "Republic of Kosovo" is a POV of what Albanian "Kosovars" want to happen in the future. The only reason I see for keeping it is the history of that redirect which seems to have started as a new article -- it highlights some Wikipedians attempting to create a 'crystal ball' article that is complete nonsense and POV. --Lowg 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found it in online encyclopedia Kdo byl kdo (Czech language, [1]). Pavel Vozenilek 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing as Kosovo is not an independent country, this is simply a POV term, and an example of crystalballism. Wait for an affirmative independence referendum for this redirect to be recreated, because until then it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Picaroon9288|ta co 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has significant history. If the contents were used to build another article, we may need to keep it just to preserve the attribution history. There is only one inbound link right now (and that from an article that appears to be self-contradictory) so I don't think that we are endorsing the POV by retaining the pagehistory. But I don't feel strongly about this particular issue. Rossami (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]