< September 22
September 24 >

September 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 23, 2008

Masonicinfo.com → List of Freemasons#References

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with the related Masonicinfo redir discussed below, I can think of no reason for this redirect to go somewhere a) not about the topic in question (which the article is not); and b) to a reference section of said article. The website itself doesn't meet WEB. MSJapan (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SKILES AND HENDERSON → Skiles and Henderson

The result of the debate was keep. Even though case insensitivity is handled by media wiki, redirects are cheap. No need to delete. –xeno (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unnecessary redirect; all caps is not a "common typo" — Yavoh 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NRHPdis → Template:Disambig

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we delete this redirect to encourage people to use ((disambig)) consistently. This redirect is no longer listed at MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cable tow → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect does not appear in article. I would also note that this is the standard problem with the other 22 redirects on this page created by this same individual, which mostly point to the same article. MSJapan (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate search term. I would find it useful. This page comes up first for me when searching on Cable Tow. JASpencer (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not what I expect, and what casual readers would expect, to see at the end of the search term - of the first page of google hits few refer to masonic ritual - most go to links talking about water skiing and other things involving cables - Peripitus (Talk) 21:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lions grasp → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term does not appear in target article. MSJapan (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As discussed this is based on a legitimate search term. JASpencer (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would disagree with the characterisation of the discussion on the talk page. There is no credible sourceing which supports the redirection.ALR (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jesus Emmanuel → Knights Templar (Freemasonry)

The result of the debate was retarget to Immanuel. WJBscribe (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful search term; text does not appear in target article. No idea where this came from or why it is relevant. MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed to Immanuel. Suggest that it should be withdrawn. For reference it is supposed to be a password for Knights Templar as a quick search would show. JASpencer (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliance on a selection of conspiracy websites as a source does not suggest this is a credible search term.ALR (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen where it is now pointing? JASpencer (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Machaben → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, and TBH, I don't even know where this comes from, because it has nothing to do with Masonry. MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's not WP:POINT if there appears to be a legitimate reason for the nomination - that's why this is called Redirects for Discussion, rather than its former name, Redirects for Deletion. It's based on two premises: 1) there is no such thing that there is an editor who can know everything, and 2) legitimate redirects should be saved; illegitimate ones should be purged. MSJapan has been here at WP:RfD for quite some time now, and I can tell you (despite my being unable to sign in at my work computer) that he/she is not one to violate WP:POINT with his/her edits and Wikipedia actions. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliance on a personal website as support for this being a legitimate search term is pretty tenuous and would suggest that it is unlikely to be notable.ALR (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not a reason for deleting redirects. JASpencer (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is inadequate to either standalone or be included in the target article. Whilst notability may not be an issue in the purely legalistic sense, the actual usability of the term is not likely to be persistent in the knowledge base.ALR (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly true. The decision was Keep as No Consensus. It was redirected by the nominator MSJapan after he didn't get the deletion decision. JASpencer (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not strictly true. The majority opinion was merge or redirect. Since consensus is a fallacy in binary decision making it was a reasonable action, but I standby for hours of legalistic wrangling.ALR (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly retargeted to Freemasonry to fix double redirect. This does not negate the issue(s) at hand. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Five Points of Fellowship → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, therefore not a useful redirect. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Grip of the Master Mason → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete delldot ∇. 00:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the right title (wrong grammatical article), and again, it's not in the target article at all. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate and useful search term. This page is the first result on a search for Five Points of Fellowship. JASpencer (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reliance on a personal exposure site of questionable reliability does not suggest this term has notability or that the target is appropriate.ALR (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability argument seems prevalent. Do you think that this is a criteria for deleting redirects? JASpencer (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From an information architecture perspective your extensive use of conspiracy websites essentially disallows either the creation of an article, or the inclusion of the material in a credible article. Whilst a purely legalistic interpretation of the rules, taking each one in isolation, may mean that you can force it through on technicalities the actual informational value of the redirect is minimal, if not non-existent. If you can neither create an article, or include the information in any legitimate way into an article, then it's not justifiable. I recognise that we do take very different approaches to the ruleset.
ALR (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, WP:Wikilawyering is discouraged here. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How was that last comment not a violation of WP:NPA. I have tried to avoid wikilawyering all along here. Anon-IP, you are a rather one sided judge in all of this. JASpencer (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect.

Not strictly true. The decision was Keep as No Consensus. It was redirected by the nominator MSJapan after he didn't get the deletion decision. JASpencer (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ma-Ha-Bone → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Top hit for this on Google is a Wikipedia user talk page, and the rest of references to a book written by an anonymous author. I guess the idea is that this appears in the ritual someplace, but it's news to me, and there doesn't seem to be any RS to support it.. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and Legitimate search term. This is an alleged funny handshake. This page was the first result I came across when searching for ""Ma-Ha-Bone". It is interesting that MSJ used google for this (probably without the inverted commas) but apparently not for anything else where the Google results are not mentioned at all. JASpencer (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliance on an exposure site to support the existence or appropriateness of this redirect suggests that it lacks sufficient notability, if valid. No evidence of credible sources for a valid target.ALR (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent connection in target article, no context. Author is relying too heavily on information that might not pass WP:V and WP:RS in assuming that the connection is valid. "The dots" need to be connected, and as with most of today's nominees, there seem to be a definite lack of connection. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dueguard → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was delete delldot ∇. 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and has nothing to do with ritual content or symbolic content. Etymologically, it might come from French, but there's no proof. So the term is not in the article, and the relevance hasn't been established. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The targeted article has been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Supreme Council of the A. and A.S. Rite of the State of Louisiana → Continental Freemasonry in North America

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid search term. No info exists on this group online {this is not the same Scottish Rite that gets all the hits), and it is therefore nn. The extent of its coverage is one line in the target article. MSJapan (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate and useful search term that was until a week ago in the article. This was in the article, and I'm not sure why it's been removed (that's not an accusation, as it was deleted by an unconnected user). It's also mentioned by Paul Bessel who is apparently a scholar on Freemasonry, as a leading reason for the split between the French and English forms of Freemasonry, and so could well be notable enough for its own article. This article is second (after the wikipedia entries) in a search for "Supreme Council of the A. and A.S. Rite of the State of Louisiana". JASpencer (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tyling → Tyler (Masonic)

The result of the debate was delete delldot ∇. 00:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous to be helpful. The only reason "tyling" redirs to "tyler" is because the redirector knows it does. It could just as well be a misspelling of "tiling", or the name of a 15th cent. musician or a family name, and apparently also a type of shiitake mushroom and maybe a Chinese name. MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suggest a better alternative or create a disambiguation page. You display awards for tyling so it obviously matters to you. JASpencer (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks - discuss the articles and the edits, not the editors. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Enthüllungen des Systems der Weltbürger-Politik → Anti-Masonry

The result of the debate was no consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English (German), cannot be typed on a standard English keyboard. Additionally, the redirector, per this discussion doesn't even really know what it is either. So how does he know it belongs where he pointed it? MSJapan (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You proably didn't see, but the text was removed, inadvertantly, by Blueboar on the same day as the nomination. [4] It's not been restored in a much shortened form and so the context argument is not really valid. It does seem to be an issue that the context is quite often consigned to the history section just before or while a deletion argument is going on. This is inadvertant but it can muddy the waters. JASpencer (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Noahida → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was retarget to Christianity and Freemasonry#Sons of Noah. WJBscribe (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV redirect that does not occur on the target page, and has nothing to do with the target. The only place this term occurs is in Catholic sources on Freemasonry. Not one relevant Google hit shows where the term even occurs in Masonic ritual (because it doesn't; the hits imply that the usage is actually elsewhere, only once, in an 18th cent. non-ritual text), so it does not pertain to its target. MSJapan (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC) :Keep As MSJ says it appears in discussions about Masonic ritual. JASpencer (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, relevance or reliability of this redirect.ALR (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a reason for deleting redirects. JASpencer (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but lack of a mention in the target article can be - and often is - here. I see no such mention in this target article. Delete as without any context, this is a confusing redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The targeted article has itself been redirected per AfD... so now we have a double redirect. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly true. The decision was Keep as No Consensus. It was redirected by the nominator MSJapan after he didn't get the deletion decision. JASpencer (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted to Freemasonry to fix double redirect. This does not change the issues at hand. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Masonicinfo → List of Freemasons#References

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly obvious. This is referring to a website used to source Masonic articles, and since redirecting it to Freemasonry was considered not appropriate because it should redirect to an article about the website (which doesn't pass WP:WEB) and not its subject matter, the person who created the redirect pointed it at the reference section of List of Freemasons. The inappropriateness of this should be obvious. MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As already discussed, it would be better to point to Freemasonry but an Admin has said that as it appears most in that section that's where it should point to. JASpencer (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through this before, under what definition of WP:SPAM does it meet? And please don't say what an admin has said and then half-retracted. JASpencer (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Webb-Preston → Thomas Smith Webb

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate for the reason below (nothing to do with Webb himself), and also wrong. No one who knows what this is to search for it would ever flip the term. It is "Preston-Webb", always has been, and has always been referred to as such. MSJapan (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom fails on it's own terms here. JASpencer (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Preston-Webb → Thomas Smith Webb

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preston-Webb refers to a branch of Masonic ritual that derives from the works of both William Preston (1720s in England) and Thomas Smith Webb (1790s or so in the US). As such, it is not accurate to redir to either one of them alone, and it is likely that neither of them had anything to do with the creation of this directly. MSJapan (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then suggest a better alternative. It was redirected there on the [suggestion] of another editor. JASpencer (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went there and saw that one of the reasons for the redirect is a section that can be expanded (which seems to be ignored in another discussion). I also saw the Principle of least astonishment which seems to fit this particular case like a glove. If I'm missing something on that page then could you please quote it? JASpencer (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Modern Grand Lodge → Premier Grand Lodge of England

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and ambiguous. The redirect title was not what the target was called; it was the Premier Grand Lodge, and it is never referred to as Moderns (which is what the term is) as a standalone term - it is used as "Antients and Moderns" because that juxtaposition is where the name cam from historically. Furthermore, the first point notwithstanding, it is ambiguous for the uninformed - is "Modern Grand Lodge" simply just an article on how a contemporary Grand Lodge works because old ones were different, is it the name of a contemporary Grand Lodge, or what? It's too error-prone to be helpful. MSJapan (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grand Lodge of All England at York → Grande Loge de France

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly inappropriate subversion of procedure to retain the possibility of forking of deleted content, and an unhelpful and incorrect search term to boot. The All England article was AfDed and deleted. This redirect was then created to a Masonic group in France that recognizes All England but otherwise has nothing to do with it. MSJapan (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is dislike of the group a reason for entering an argument or for recusing? JASpencer (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong feelings either way about either body, and any suggestion of otherwise strikes me as a somewhat disingenuous effort to undermine me, rather than the position I've stated. ALR (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and that would be a violation of WP:NPA (and likely also WP:CIVIL). We're assuming good faith here at RfD, and I'm sure that such belligerence would be unintentional in this case. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"fishing"? Is that an irregular verb. "I am trying to find a solution, you are fishing"? Redirects have a useful place in Wikipedia and when they point to an article where a legitimate term should be covered. If there is a better destination then it should be pointing there. That is what this is supposed to be about, not backing up your friends or winning at all costs. JASpencer (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, having no destination is the best option. This is one of those times. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Are they that evil? JASpencer (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lion's Paw → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was converted to a disambiguation page. Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of redir in target article. Simple attempt to create false linkage for an article by creating a superficial blue link that will show nothing of value for the search term. MSJapan (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started as suggested. JASpencer (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Confederation of the United Grand Lodges of Europe → Grande Loge de France

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. The Confederation is exactly that, and therefore consists of multiple Grand Orients/Lodges all over Europe. Redirecting it to one member's article where it only has a one-line mention is not appropriate. MSJapan (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that the federation is only the one body within it. If the term is notable enough to justify a redirect then it seems reasonable to try to substantiate an article. If an article can't be created then there isn't the notability to justify the redirection.ALR (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it provides useful information. If the Confederation is notable in itself (I have my doubts as it looks like an Amity list for the Grande Loge de France) then the alternative is to split out the section being redirected to. Delete would simply be unhelpful to readers. --Rumping (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too am uncomfortable with redirecting a general term to a more specific one, usually we would go the other way around (redirecting the specific term to an article on the general one). I like the analogy of redirecting United States of America to California... although in that case both are notable enough for their own articles. In this, we have a non-notable confederation with a notable member organization. That means that ultimately we are dealing with an issue of inherited notability. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. Finally, when a Wikipedia redirect is the second hit (of about 8 total) listed on a google search... it tells you something is wrong with the redirect. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tubal Cain (masonic password) → Masonic ritual and symbolism

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and incorrect. Tubal-cain is not (and never was) mentioned in the target article, and it is not a "Masonic password", but a name in the Old Testament mentioned in Genesis. MSJapan (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reliance on an exposure site of questionable reliability (and that's being generous) indicates that this term probably doesn't have sufficient notability to justify, and given the lack of underlying substance I would question the appropriateness of the target.ALR (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: That depends on the jurisdiction and ritual being used. There isn't just one. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

La Grande Loge Régulière de Belgique → Freemasonry in Belgium#Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium

The result of the debate was No consensus. Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and confusing search term. If someone is going to search for this group on English language WP, why would they use the Belgian French term when the body has an accepted name in English already redirected to the same section? As with some of the other noms, this cannot even be typed properly on a standard English keyboard. This is just asking to be turned into a POV fork in the future. MSJapan (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

La Discrète Impériale → History of Freemasonry in Belgium

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As below, an unhelpful search term. This is a Masonic lodge in Alost in the 1700s, and is barely covered in the article it redirects to. What compounds the problem even more is that this cannot even be typed on an English keyboard. MSJapan (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

La Parfaite Union → Freemasonry in Brussels

The result of the debate was Delete, it seems that the entry is incorrect translated. Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful search term. This is the name of a Masonic Lodge in Brussels in the 18th century. That's all we know about it. and the extent of its coverage is a list entry in the target article. Not only that, this is also in French. Why anyone would be searching for a French name of this sort on the English WP is somewhat beyond me, but it has been established elsewhere that lodges fall under "local chapters" per WP:ORG and need to pass WP:N. Therefore, there's no real reason to have created this as a redirect from the outset, which is exactly what has happened. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when you say that "this is not the correct name", do you mean that this is not the correct translation or that there was not a lodge named this? The second reason is incorrect. JASpencer (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Grand Orator → Masonic Lodge Officers

The result of the debate was Retarget to Orator. Lenticel (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful search term. It's not a Masonic Lodge position, it's not covered in the article it redirects to, and there are very few Grand Lodges that even have this position. Google shows hit #1 being a WP article where it was described incorrectly (so I rm'ed it), four relevant hits before a reference to Barack Obama, and hit #11 is already a repeat of an earlier hit. MSJapan (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested.ALR (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Editing List of Episodes (Season Four) from Little Bear (TV series) → List of Little Bear episodes (season 4)

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per R3 (non admin closure) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably leftover from article creation, unlikely ever to be used. Largo Plazo (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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