Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 2010

Archbishop of Rome[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The low page view stats that this redirect garners indicates its implausibility as a search term. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not for the reason adduced by the nominator. The Pope is the 'Bishop of Rome' not the 'Archbishop of Rome' so this redirect is misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. The Pope is both the bishop of Rome and the archbishop of Rome (technically the metropolitan of the province of Rome). The first Pope to be thus titled "ἀρχιεπίσκοπος τῆς Ῥωμης" was Pope Anastasius I (ISBN 9780486422565 pp. 7), the exclusive "πάππα" for the Pope alone not arriving until later in the sixth century (Chambers, 1950).

      Pope#Official list of titles did already (sort of) explain this. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is true that the Pope is technically a bishop and not an archbishop, but anyone who forgets the ecclesiastical specifics, I think, is still entitled to be redirected to the correct article. And the Bishop of Rome is indeed a metropolitan with suffragan bishops (see [1]), which is the general attribute of being an archbishop. It's only by tradition that he continues to be officially called "bishop." The confusion is therefore entirely plausible -- and it's not confusion caused by the redirect, it's an external confusion that is, properly, solved by the redirect. I haven't checked very many other cases, but I notice that we have Archdiocese of Rome → Diocese of Rome, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Rome → Diocese of Rome, and so forth.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On checking, I see that Uncle G is entirely right: the Pope has historically been styled Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Province of Rome (see here).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible-enough search term. Since the Pope really is the equivalent of an Archbishop of Rome, this redirect seems fine to me. –Grondemar 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. -— AMK152 (t • c) 04:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: VERY likely search term (not from modern materials of course, but historical references). A huge number of non-Christians and even non-Catholic Christians haveno idea that the ABofR and the Pope are the same thing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:String-percussion musician-stub[edit]

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, low traffic redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—it seems like this was created due to a page move when someone thought one of the instruments on the template was both a string and percussion instrument. The template was moved back to the original title later; with no links to the redirect I don't see a need to keep it. –Grondemar 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Assange sex charges and trial[edit]

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 delete. Courcelles 18:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forked from Julian Assange#Alleged sex offences and then redirected there after discussion. BUT the title is pre-emptive, pointy and negative with BLP concerns. At this stage Assange has not been charged and we are a long way from even knowing if there will be a trial. The title pre-supposes a lot and that presents a BLP issue, it should be deleted for safety. Errant (chat!) 14:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Waka flocka flame rumors[edit]

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion. The redirect appears to be a previously anticipated Waka Flocka Flame song that is not listed on the album Flockaveli. Shootbamboo (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The song apparently exists (and Flockaveli lists it as an iTunes Bonus Track) but this redirect is both not very likely as a way to search for information on the song, and quite probably confusing, because a user might easily think it will lead them to information about rumors concerning Waka Flocka Flame himself.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

eclectic Wicca[edit]

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. The presence of this redirect does not prevent the creation of a separate article here, by simple editing, if a content fork seems to be useful. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a separate page, as Eclectic Wicca is the most popular and growing form of Wicca in the USA - it is not a tradition, it is defined as the absence of tradition[1] Kary247 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - following the addition of relevant material to the target, by the nominator, this is now a perfectly useful redirect! If the nominator considers that a standalone page is justified then there is nothing to stop him writing one on top of the redirect. Meanwhile, why make it harder for readers to reach the information they are seeking? Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep There was no discussion about this on Talk:Wicca. Eclectic Wicca should redirect to Wicca. The article is very eclectic and easily WPs most comprehensive on the subject. Eclectic Wicca is a type of Wicca, unlike Postmodern Wicca which comprised the majority of the "Eclectic and Postmodern Wicca" section the nom added to Wicca. Postmodern Wicca isn't WP:N and doesn't WP:V. I left a couple of academic sources on Talk:Wicca. But, opting for inflammatory pieces like "Creationists vs. Wiccan" and a web page about "paganism thesis" vs. "priests of scientism" antithesis and "postmodern pagan synthesis" ... which would have been funny if not for the Nazis. I think the nom just needs to slow down, read up WP:FIVE, start small, and hold on to the enthusiasm.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • 1. I have added a short article in Wicca, called eclectic Wicca, which I want to expand as a main article - the redirect blocks me from this - which is a bit frustrating really.
  • 2. Sources I left were from The University of California, The University of Texas and Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies, BBC Religion Page, Stacy Schiff - a Pulitzer Prize winner - all credible sources - the Creationists versus Wiccans: An empirical study of two religions -was written by a professor of sociology at Texas University - his tone was balanced and I merely included this reference to show that many academics do refer to Wicca as a postmodern religion - sorry if this was offensive.
  • 3. Eclectic Wicca is the most popular approach to Wicca in the United States - according to Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies - really does deserve its own page. If I include a longer version of my starting article, eclectic Wicca - which I have really already written as Postmodern Wicca, it will be too long in the Wicca article.
  • 4. By having a redirect this is effectively blocking the proper development of this very important subject.
  • 5. Ideally, I would like to transform my Postmodern Wicca article, into an article entitled Eclectic Wicca and have this as a main article connecting to Wicca. The redirect makes this impossible.
  • 6. I left a comment saying that I would put in a request of redirect on the discussion page at the redirect and at Wicca.

--Kary247 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the redirect is not blocking anything - just convert it to an article by adding suitable content. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ Smith, Diane,(2005) Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_17&oldid=1138988498"