This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 2010
Archbishop of Rome
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.
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).
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
Keep, plausible-enough search term. Since the Pope really is the equivalent of an Archbishop of Rome, this redirect seems fine to me. –Grondemar03:37, 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Keep: VERY likely search term (not from modern materials of course, but historical references).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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.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
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.
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. –Grondemar17:00, 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
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.
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
He was never formally charged, which is an important consideration. He had arrest warrant issued for charges relating to the offences; the easy way to see this distinction is to view the arrest warrant as an intent to charge Assange over the allegations. So the word charges is somewhat inaccurate also --Errant(
chat!)14:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete—note that redirects do not necessarily have to be neutral; see
WP:RNEUTRAL. However, since there hasn't been and it isn't certain there will ever be a trial, this redirect should be deleted as potentially confusing and an unlikely search term. –Grondemar03:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Waka flocka flame rumors
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.
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
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.