Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 13, 2009

Notre Dame Educational Association Philippines[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Epsiode IV[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 02:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful; suggest the remaining "epsiode" variants listed below also be considered - 58.8.17.151 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Family Scrapbook (Leave It to Beaver epsiode)
  2. For Whom the Bells Toll (The Wedding Bells epsiode)
  3. Half-Life 2 Epsiode 1
  4. List of Adventures in Hollyhood epsiodes
  5. List of Space: 1999 epsiodes
  6. List of The Office (US) epsiodes
  7. Naruto Epsiode 45
  8. Panama (Prison Break epsiode)
  9. The Big Gun (Stingray Epsiode)
  10. The Ghost Ship (Stingray Epsiode)
  • Keep Episode IV and the rest, since useful/not-useful is an argument to avoid in RfD discussions, and I think Episode IV is a very likely search term. No bias against if anyone wants to renominate one or more of the others for a different reason. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not Episode IV, it's Epsiode IV - 58.8.17.151 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, these are all typo redirects. It's best to make that clear in your original nomination, because many people just can't see a single error like that unless they look for it. I don't think "epsiode" is a likely typo, so my preference is to delete all of them. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessively generic misspelling. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, harmless. Deletion does not save space. –xeno talk 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Gavia immer. I don't think that "epsiode" is a likely enough typo or misspelling to necessitate redirects, and harmlessness does not preclude uselessness: any search for a title containing this misspelling of episode will bring up the correct title as one of the first results. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Snow Leopard[edit]

The result of the discussion was N/A. Move was reverted. Also, the proper forum for this was actually Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reback Snow Leopard (Cat) to Snow Leopard - Ok, Snow Leopard is codename of Mac OS X version 10.6. but old virsion OS codenames article Leopard, Tiger, Panther, Jaguar and Puma is not redirect to MacOSX articles. Mcfan512 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reback Snow Leopard (Cat) to Snow Leopard - Completely agree with the preceding comment, but for another reason: the number of Felidae-related articles that reference the Snow Leopard (Big Cat, Panthera, and many more) all wikilink simply to Snow Leopard, not Snow Leopard (Cat). I've recently fixed some of them, but there are probably scores more. Plus, the new MacOS may or may not be called something else once it's released. Seduisant (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reback Snow Leopard (Cat) to Snow Leopard - could accept it only if the cat was named after the operating system. Shyamal (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved back the article. It is the first move that should have been discussed. Shyamal (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Red cunt hair[edit]

The result of the discussion was retargeted to Hair (unit of measurement)--Aervanath (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partly a procedural nomination. Was speedied with the rationale: "This falls under CSD G4. Both a deletion discussion and deletion review established that this page should not exist. Additionally, the target that this page points to is not appropriate (cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Figure_of_speech&hidelinks=1 other redirects to "Figure of speech") and the target makes no mention of the term. This likely means it also falls under CSD R3. I'd also ask that this page be create-protected to prevent further incidents. Thanks." -- I declined on the basis the close of the AfD and the review were contentious, and made no mention of prohibiting redirects, so it would be better to get an actual decision here. Personally, I think the redirect is inappropriate and should be deleted and I agree the title should be salted. DGG (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, since the debates establish Wikipedia should not have an article about "red cunt hair," I think rather than retiring the name, it should have a soft redirect to Wikitionary with {{wi}}. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text of deleted pages already directs users to Wiktionary (which your redirect actually obscured). There is no need to make a misleading blue link. Dominic·t 06:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. I don't believe Wikipedia needs redirects for everything in Wiktionary, especially something this potentially offensive.    7   talk | Δ |   04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently you have forgotten that Wikipedia is not censored. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not forgotten. Have you reviewed this? Profanity should not be used unless its omission would "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate...". I don't believe the current redirect to Figure of speech is at all informative or accurate. Further, as I stated above, there is no requirement for every wictionary definition to get a redirect from WP. The article should only exist if it can be noteworthy and informative on its own. (Ironically the profanity guideline also mentions "Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided.").    7   talk | Δ |   23:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (<--) Perhaps leaving the software's suggestion that I tested is not the best because in the search results, there is only one article that mentions red cunt hair (Cunt). I believe the {{wi}} is best however, the deletion is okay. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The topic is currently covered in Hair (unit of measurement). If the information is left in that article, then that would also be a natural target for the redirect. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Boldly redirected there. –xeno talk 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with its current target Hair (unit of measurement), which mentions the figure of speech. –xeno talk 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected to Hair (unit of measurement) which is where "red cunt hair" is already covered. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 03:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirected to Hair (unit of measurement). If that article has always existed, I'm at a loss as to why this wasn't redirected there in the first place. Robofish (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"...Ich töte mich jedesmal aufs Neue, doch ich bin unsterblich, und ich erstehe wieder auf; in einer Vision der Untergangs..."[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NAMING beginning with quotes and periods. Whatever happens to this redir should also happen to these (which all redirect to the same place): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]    7   talk | Δ |   00:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP has literally millions of redirects that do not meet WP:NAMING, but redirect to articles that do, and these redirects are almost never deleted here at WP:RfD (unless there are other issues with them). UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point, but the way I read WP:NAMING the only time a redirect should be created is when it "may reasonably be found under two or more names". I may be wrong, but I don't think these 12 examples or the two other nominations below are necessarily reasonable. My main point (about all unprintworthy redirects) is that they make the search suggestion dropdown essentially useless. I know people say "redirects are cheap", but at the cost of the search suggestion dropdown. Plus they give newer editors who haven't read the naming conventions the idea that it is okay to create a name like that. Would be nice if the search function just ignored these marks all together, so that even if people tried to search on them they would get the appropriately named article, but I realize that's a discussion for a different forum. I'll stop now and let the RFD process work.    7   talk | Δ |   07:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on your search selection point? I don't understand: when I type a " into the box, it starts displaying these articles, and if I select one of them, the redirect works, and so I wind up seamlessly at the correctly named article (i.e. the one without the "). If the issue with the display, and not with the ultimate destination, I think that is minor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the redirect functionality works fine, but the usefulness of the suggestions is diminished by multiple very similar (and unlikely suggestions). Specifically, when you type a " into the search box you get the first 10 alpha matches including 5 out of the 11 related to this article plus "--cides" below. Is it useful to see these nearly identical matches, with only (what appear to be minor) spelling or accent (umlaut?) differences? Similarly, I think it has the potential to confuse inexperienced editors when the can see millions of incorrectly named articles as examples when they are working on creating theirs. For this specific RfD it appears a number of these were created in a March 2008 project by Eubot here, although there is not a lot of rationale given.
However, I can see that some were created at different times by different people and then redirected which means that at least one person has the potential for making each of those spelling mistakes. I guess I just wish there was a way to see whether or not these were useful or whether they have ever been used by anyone but the original person using that spelling, however I don't think that's possible. Through this discussion and as I type this I am becoming more convinced that the real solution to this is to have these categorized as unprintworthy redirects, and to have the search suggestion dropdown exclude such. That way then can exist, and if people search on them they will get them, but the search dropdown won't suggest them. I'll suggest that at the search discussion. Thanks for your input.    7   talk | Δ |   22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I still think this merits deletion because of WP:NAMING, but regardless it looks like my suggestion on the search suggestion dropdown is making some progress - for those interested: discussion here. Regards.    7   talk | Δ |   00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The quotes make this an unlikely search term. VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"-cides"[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Main article has already been moved to -cide per this AFD, and therefore original redir with quotation marks should be deleted.    7   talk | Δ |   00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason as above: WP has literally millions of redirects that do not meet one of the components of WP:NAMING, but redirect to articles that do, and these redirects are almost never deleted here at WP:RfD (unless there are other issues with them). UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. –xeno talk 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searching with the input -cides looks for the word -cides and searching with the input "-cides" looks for the phrase -cides - ie in practice, the exact same thing - so I don't see how "-cides" could ever be found without also finding -cides (and vice versa). I think -cides could well be a worthwhile redirect, but "-cides" is just pointless obfuscation. 58.11.86.109 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was here earlier this month and redirect (as settled in recent AfD) is not misleading, so keep for history reasons--Rumping (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The quotes make this an unlikely search term. VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"—We Also Walk Dogs"[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NAMING - by beginning with quotations - has already been redirected to proper name (which may also violate the rules for begining with dashes).    7   talk | Δ |   00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason as above: WP:NAMING is not a reason for RfD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless and useless as a search can't find it individually (ie distinct from the "unquoted" name), but it will always appear as a redundant (and potentially confusing - does that count as harmful?) duplicate whenever the "correct" name is returned - because searching with the input "—We Also Walk Dogs" will look for (and find) the phrase —We Also Walk Dogs but searching with the input ""—We Also Walk Dogs"" will look for "" (empty string) + —We + Also + Walk + Dogs + "" (empty string). 58.11.86.109 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—We Also Walk Dogs (~830 results)
"—We Also Walk Dogs" (~8 results)
""—We Also Walk Dogs"" (~830 results)
  • Keep This seems to be the title of the story and so could be the location of article. See bibliography at ISFDB. As the location of the article from 2006 to 2009, probably external incoming links expect this. --Rumping (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The quotes make this an unlikely search term. VegaDark (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_13&oldid=1048670218"