Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Messner's corpuscle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Messner's corpuscle

Messner's corpuscle was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was redirect to Meissner's corpuscle.

Incorrect spelling of Meissner's corpuscle. Nothing new to merge. --jag123 04:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've went ahead and created a redirect to the proper spelling, since there seems to be a policy on this and/or there's a gen consensus. I'm pretty new with vfds, so I wasn't sure if I waited long enough or who is supposed to do the redir... if I did something wrong, please let me know. --jag123 18:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yep. Delete and redirect to Meissner's corpuscle. --PacknCanes 04:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's one or the other. We can't do both delete and redirect. Please read or reread the top matter of Wikipedia:votes for deletion and the whole of Wikipedia:deletion policy. Meanwhile, we'll just have to guess what you intended to vote. Andrewa 13:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • He's voting for it to be deleted, and then recreated as a redirect; Nothing wrong with that. A bit over the top perhaps as I don't see having this in the history as problematic, but that's PacknCanes' choice. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 14:03, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
      • Comment: AFAIK we have never done this, and it cuts across too many existing policies and practices to list here. The two documents I listed above would be a good start, discussion on copyvios would also be relevant. Andrewa 20:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • fvw*, thanks for pointing that out. I guess what I'm voting for is to blankpage it, so the old history remains, then redirect it. Sorry to cause such commotion. --PacknCanes 00:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Comment: Our policy pages are IMO in a mess, and the ongoing efforts to clean them up have a history of more effort than results! Good luck navigating them, but some reinventing of the wheel is probably inevitable, I just want to try to minimise the time we all waste spend on it. And of course new ideas on how to do things are great, despite the risk of compounding the problem. Andrewa 20:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I vote against leaving a redirect as a memorial to someone's orthographic ignorance. We could spend the next decade doing nothing but reconstructing redirects on all conceivable spelling variations of the articles. Just put it out of its misery. alteripse 12:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Not the most common misspelling I'll grant you, but enough for a Redirect in my view. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 14:03, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
• Redirect. If one person misspelled it that way, than another person might. And, frankly, both Wikipedia global search and Google-based site search are sucky; people trying to find things on Wikipedia need all the help they can get. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: And of course that's the rationale for the existing policy, which has been to preserve misspellings as they occur, but not deliberately create new ones. See Wikipedia: redirects for deletion. Andrewa 20:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mark Richards 21:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.