Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly Martin → User talk:Kelly Martin[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a bad idea because it implies that one user is special and that issues relating to her should not be discussed as they would be for other users. Sam Blacketer 10:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He isn't even an admin. TheBlazikenMaster 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I'd say keep it until people stop putting huge amounts of tosh on WP:ANI related to Kelly Martin. --Tony Sidaway 10:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to propose (as sole author) speedy delete. Doesn't seem to have been such a good idea after all. --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

B word → bitch[edit]

The result of the debate was disambiguated. John Reaves (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The B word can also be bastard. Wasn't a discussion on this back in December 2005? It could go to disambig page, it can also be deleted. I see no point of redirecting to B word. The only word that's notable for the letter is the F word, fuck. I say either delete this or put it on disambig page. TheBlazikenMaster 09:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig Making it a disambig page makes sense given alternative usage. --163.1.165.116 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Gobonobo T C 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not censored. Non-notable, anyways. Unlikely search term. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, I would say this is notable, commonly searched for, and redirects are cheap. Abeg92contribs 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, widely used enough to justify a redirect IMO, but I agree that it's used for two separate terms. "Not censored" does not mean that we must ignore the existence of censorship or circumlocutions, and nobody has proposed deleting Bitch or Bastard (or Nigger, which I would suggest is the most notable for being referred to by letter, or Fuck either, for that matter). Xtifr tälk 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Xtifr. JuJube 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate... Used for two different terms, and disambiguation pages, like this one would be, are almost as cheap as redirects. Grandmasterka 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The term is commonly used so having a dab page for both terms it could refer to is useful. Having the page actually counters censorship because to people who don't know what B word means, a dab page means they would be able to find both meanings. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's past a week. Why hasn't that entry be closed yet? TheBlazikenMaster 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

In the ass → The Newlywed Game#"In the butt, Bob"[edit]

The result of the debate was delete.--Wizardman 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable redirect Mhking 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one's replied to this yet, I see. Please note the other 4 redirects to the same place I created at 'In the butt', 'Up the butt', 'In the butt, Bob', and 'Up the butt, Bob'. The way, the truth, and the light 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague, could refer to any number of things. JuJube 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly overspecialized target for a very common grouping of words. If a better target can be found, that's fine, but as it is, this is simply giving undue weight to a very minor piece of pop culture trivia (albeit an amusing one). For the other four redirects, I would say that the first two should be dealt with the same way (deleted or retargetted), and the last two are unsalvageablely trivial. My inner Beavis and Butt-head wishes I could argue to keep these, but sadly, I can't. Xtifr tälk 12:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Anal sex would be a more widely predicted and acknowledged target, I think, but maybe also short for Kick in the Ass or You Got Fucked in the Ass or pain in the ass or Federal Pound Me in the Ass Prison or Pound-me-in-the-ass prison, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. No opinion either on the last two with "Bob" in them. –Pomte 05:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Miquel Roque → Miguel Roque Farrero[edit]

The result of the debate was keep, that's the reason it's a redirect. John Reaves (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spelling. Matthew_hk tc 08:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2007 Martian invasion of Earth → Irregular Webcomic![edit]

The result of the debate was keep, redirects are cheap. John Reaves (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just isn't a notable enough event to be a redirect to "Irregular Webcomic!". I don't think very many people will think of this before hey think of the name of the webcomic, and it certainly is much longer than the name of the destination. Therefore, I think the redirect should be deleted. --LuigiManiac 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep; 2007 Martian invasion of Earth is linked from off-Wiki (the Irregular Webcomic! in question's annotation), and should go somewhere. -- JHunterJ 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't beleive that someone actually kept this. I still feel that it should remain here. Kc4 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion breaks an external link (see reasons to avoid). --163.1.165.116 16:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* I was torn on this redirect from the start, and now after rereading the reasons to avoid I agree that the redirect should be kept. Deletion will break an external link on the annotation of Strip #1557 (even though it could be argued that he never meant for it to be an article or redirect in the first place). If withdrawing is allowed here, I would like to withdraw this. --LuigiManiac 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - In response to the keep votes I think it was rather the point of the joke that it *wouldn't* link to a page, and it should not be policy to allow an external website to dictate what pages wikipedia does or does not have, lest we end up with something like Fashist dictatorship of the United States as a redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeilTarrant (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    2007 invasion is nothing like Fascist dictatorship, and wouldn't set a precedent for the latter to rely upon. The external site is not dictating anything; it is in the readers' and WP's interest to redirect linkers to the entry on Irregular Webcomic, rather than asking them if they'd like to create 2007 Martian invasion of Earth. That's why I tagged my keep as a "Speedy". -- JHunterJ 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget what I said about withdrawing, I'll just let this thing run its course. My final current stance is Delete, as now I know I'm not the only one who thinks DMM never meant for the page to exist. --LuigiManiac 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; funny, doesn't harm anything, unlikely to collide with actual articles, and even better, keeps less honest readers of Irregular Webcomic! from creating a article on the invasion. --Gwern (contribs) 17:22 2 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep: I created the redirect for the reasons Gwern suggested - to keep someone else from actually making an article about it. If we actually are invaded by Martians this year, we can reclaim the namespace. Until then, I think it's worth keeping the redirect just to discourage further shenanigans. DenisMoskowitz 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Here Here! Kc4 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm wishy-washy. I'll just let users that are more sure of themselves talk this out. --LuigiManiac 18:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just a funny comic. And it makes it a bit more fun that it's recursive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LisaMarli (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and protect. The link has no purpose inside Wikipedia and the protection would discourage such 'invasions' more than a redirect. --Tikiwont 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought the idea that someone else might want to create an actual article is just in our minds here, whcih is not a good reason for creating or keeping a redirect (nor the protection that came to my mind). --Tikiwont 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JHunter. IWC directly links to it, and unless it's salted, some wag will undoubtedly create it in the future if the redirect isn't kept. Ourai тʃс 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. It isn't harming anyone, it's merely part of a joke by David Morgan-Mar, and takes up virtually no space by itself. (And if it was deleted, someone might well recreate it.) On the other hand, a page created purely as part of a joke-for-the-day doesn't need to be around forever; if it still exists in, say, a month, then I'd say it should probably be deleted. Terraxos 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the long run, while the link may remain in Irregular Webcomic's archives, it is not likely a climatic or otherwise significant moment for which the web comic or its author will be remembered for years from now by a large number of people. The comic's website regularly links to Wikipedia to provide definitions as its humor often plays off of obscure facts; but such a website should not define what is in Wikipedia. If Martians are invading our planet in 2007, than a full article should appear, not a redirect to the comic which "predicted" it. Let the redirect stay up for a day or two to prevent instant recreation, and then delete it as it will not serve any purpose once a significant number of people are not excited about it. Cerlyn 04:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not sure how many invasions have appeared in popular fiction, but I suspect that there are many even if we limit it to Martian ones occurring in 2007. Therefore, keeping this seems to give undue weight to its target. I suppose we could turn it into a dab page, but specifying the date makes this both an unlikely search target and an unlikely link target. The argument that this was done to prevent the creation of a bad article seems a bit excessive; we're perfectly capable of deleting bad articles with speedy or prod or AfD. And the notion that this should be kept purely to help support some joke purely external to Wikipedia strikes me as utterly without merit. Xtifr tälk 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Every AfD I've been involved in has involved some level of frustration, arguing, and bad feelings. I'd as soon avoid such drama if possible. Leaving this as a redirect will (IMHO) defuse the impulse to create an article detailing the invasion - a malicious or mischievous editor would have to know something about Wikipedia to even get to the editing page, and they'll probably be satisfied once they see the redirect. DenisMoskowitz 02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect bears no relevance to the target, appears to exist only because of a joke about Wikipedia made in the comic that references the redirect in question. - Chardish 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if a webcomic mentions a fictitious wikipedia article, people reliably try to create it, right or wrong. DMM certainly knows this, so I don't think we can argue that he intended the link to stay broken for long. Given that the link exists, it is inevitable that people will keep trying to create this article if it isn't already there, and I think a redirect to Irregular Webcomic is a good, workable solution to that problem. --Iustinus 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect So that, just as the elephant population has not actually tripled in the last six months, the page won't continually be recreated. Banaticus 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, and possibly speedy, delete. We cannot external web sites vandalize Wikipedia. This particular link may not be vandalism, but, as I'm not sure, it should be deleted to avoid a precedent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page in question does not actually instruct people to, say, create a fictional article. It makes a sort of offhanded, jokey request for citation. And Aurhur Rubin's 'precedent' argument seems to me to be adaptible to not allowing any editing that might be controversial: "This particular edit may not be vandalism, but, as I'm not sure, it should be undone to avoid a precedent." There are no precedents on Wikipedia (except for ArbCom decisions), as consensus can change. Veinor (talk to me) 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, I got the joke. Yeah, I read Irregular Webcomic. But no, I don't agree that this redirect should exist. There isn't enough of a presence on the internet to land this a redirect to the Irregular Webcomic; unless this comic gag becomes a staple in the lives of people all over the world have a good laugh over, this redirection should be deleted. It is funny, though. Echternacht 00:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and semiprotect. I am only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and fan of Irregular Webcomic. DMM (the author) has made many references to Wikipedia in his comic, and I believe that he nor I would be amused at this redirect. In response to Veinor, I assert that many people are very suggestible, and that without semiprotection (at the very least), some people will be convinced that creating this article would be funny. — MSchmahl… 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. I know that semiprotect is not the proper term, but my memory is not serving me properly. I mean that the deleted article cannot be re-created by unregistered users. IIRC, this functionality exists.
    I think he means protect from re-creation. It would be silly to semi-protect any article from creation as they already are, I mean membership is required to make articles. So protect from re-creation is the right term. TheBlazikenMaster 11:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mooseknuckle & Moose knuckle → Cameltoe[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not make sense. Gobonobo T C 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to this page, it does make sense. The site is maintained by a lexicographer and its page has citations at the bottom to back it up. These terms are related and it makes no sense having a separate article based on the gender of the discussed subject of this phenomenon. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to suggest that this might be regional slang (which alone would probably be enough to justify the redirect, since redirects are so cheap), but Mgmj seems to have found a more compelling argument, which I absolutely endorse. Xtifr tälk 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify the target so that it reflects that Mooseknuckle may refer to both male and female version. --Tikiwont 10:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_2&oldid=1144737050"