Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 3

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 speedily deleted as vandalism by Fram. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Byron Todd Frank → Lord Byron (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Useless redirect with no merit. Nothing about "Todd" or "Frank" in the biography of Byron. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious good faith mistake, suggest you just change it, I did it, because after googling "Byron Todd Frank" all the first entries just goto Lord Byron. There was nothing sinister about it, also, User talkpages can't be redirected except to the same user in the case of multiple accounts, however, although it is rare, user pages can be directed to the mainspace, this is within policy, however I can't recall which policy it is I'm sorry. It doesn't matter at all about changing it back, however if at some stage you determine to your own satisfaction that it is ok, would you kindly return it to the way that it was. Penyulap ☏ 02:48, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Google? That's a laugh. Google has cached your ridiculous redirect, and other websites have mirrored it from Wikipedia. Try looking for the term in the news, or in books, and you will find nothing at all. I'm afraid Penyulap's sockpuppet, ThomasMoore1852, is just having some fun at Wikipedia's expense. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted it as blatant vandalism. Will block Penylap for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Comet#Orbital_characteristics and put {{R with possibilities}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jupiter family comet → List of periodic comets (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The page period comets contains no information about what Jupiter family comets are and I do not believe they are one and the same. I have been unable to find a suitable page to change the redirect to; I don't think there is any information about what Jupiter family comets are on Wikipedia. Ideally, a knowledgeable editor should add this information to the page now. Failing that, the redirect at "Jupiter family comet" should be deleted to make it clear that more information should be added.     — SkyLined (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, we really should have some information on this somewhere, but all I can find is a short sentence at Comet#Orbital characteristics. Whether that is a better target, and if not whether more information should be added to its own article or the current target, I don't know. I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If retargetted (and I'm still not certain), it should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Comet#Orbital_characteristics. Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/retarget: Yes, Wikipedia needs more information on Jupiter Family comets (which originated from the Oort cloud), but that does not mean Wiki should delete a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; a retarget per Ruslik0 makes sense. This redirect is underutilized, but a search reveals a number of articles where it can be gainfully employed. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/retarget to Comet#Orbital_characteristics as per previous as long as that's the main mention Wikipedia has of comet families. Better yet, if an industrious editor define the term "family", along with a list of the Jupiter family and others that attract less interest, perhaps in a few sentences in the periodic list article, unless the idea of a family be taken as so notable that it should have its own article. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.