Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 1

< July 31

August 2 >

1 August[edit]

Edit conflict → Help:Edit conflict[edit]

The nominated redirect was Stubbed --Cyde Weys 03:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. Edit conflict is an encyclopedic term and should not be used as a cross-namespace redirect to a WP project namespace. -- ADNghiem501 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Googling for edit conflict (without making any attempt to exclude wikis), I find that unique results 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are wiki-related (2, 3, 5, and 6 are Meta, Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Wikiquote's help pages respectively; 4 is Mozilla's wiki, 7 is Memory Alpha, and 9 is Meatball, which isn't MediaWiki). So it seems that its most common uses are wiki-related but not necessarily confined to MediaWiki software. It probably isn't worth writing an article on. --ais523 11:17, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

Comment It seems that the most common uses of "edit conflict" online are wiki-related. I suspect this is because wikis have a lot of links and thus rank highly on Google's search algorithm. I'm no journalist, so I can't comment on what texts in that field would say about the subject, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in the Google-test basket on this one. I do agree that edit conflicts are a significant topic for discussion among wikis. BigNate37_(T) 21:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ADNghiem502. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gaming the system → Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Gaming the system[edit]

The nominated redirect was Retargetted to Rules lawyer. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, and one which is more iniquitous than most, since this term is commonly used outside Wikipedia. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, ~~also doesn't make much sense~~ #Gaming the system was added to the target, so it makes slightly more sense. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redirect to the link section of a target doesn't work. -- ADNghiem501 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Rules lawyer or something similar. It's not likely to stand as an article on its own, but it's a plausible search term that we should send elsewhere in articlespace. -- nae'blis 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. A good way to deal with XNRs is to write or redirect to an encyclopaedia article, and then tag the article {{selfref}} and soft-redirect to the target; this way, we get both people searching for articles and people who don't know the Wikipedia: prefix. Rules lawyer seems fine as a retarget to me; in fact, I'll prepare the article for the change right now. --ais523 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, if the redirect hadn't existed I might have created it aiming at Rules lawyer (where I've now added a generic definition) if anyone had pointed it out. The retargeting even improves the quality of the redirect by aiming at the correct section. --ais523 14:20, 3 August 2006 (U T C)
  That seems a good idea. Frankly, I'm not sure that we need to soft redirect to the Wikipedia concept at all, since it's not exactly a fundamental principle of Wikipedia which is frequently cited. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sexual inversion → homosexuality[edit]

The nominated redirect was Now a disambiguation page --Cyde↔Weys 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was blanked by another user, and then as a blank page, listed as a speedy deletion. I've reverted to the redirect in order to list it here. The blaker's reason was "Sexual inversion is also a biological phenomenon, one in which an animal inverts his/her sex. This redirect is uncorrect." I don't know myself, so have no opinion. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A brief Google search reveals that "sexual inversion" is an old (early 1900s) term for anyone with a "sexual perversion" as they considered it at the time ... homosexuality, cross-dressing, etc. In biology it may also refer to an animal that can change its gender, I'm not sure. I think the best answer would be to create a disambiguation page. --Cyde↔Weys 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Converted to disambiguation. Dgies 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikiproject Atheism → Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —freak(talk) 13:22, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect created by page move. I corrected all of the links except one where a user was informing the page creator that it had been moved. The talk page should be deleted also. —Mi ra 05:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leg jiggling → Restless legs syndrome[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded as an unlikely search term —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep similar enough and since the disorder is obscure it may have other names, common names. (I have taken the liberty of pluralising leg in the title of this nom, the singaular form was a redirect itrself) Viridae ^Talk 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many people with RLS do not know what it is and are likely to search by the first name that comes to mind. I do not believe this is free association. --J Morgan^(talk) 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I couldn't imagine using the word "jiggling" in searching for a medical article, but obviously someone did; it's common enough that someone created a redirect under it. --zenohockey 01:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Featured pictures → Wikipedia:Featured pictures[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —freak(talk) 13:22, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 01:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (yet again - why is everyone making good arguments today! I need to add nothing!) Viridae ^Talk 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

English Wikipedians' notice board → Wikipedia:English Wikipedians' notice board[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —freak(talk) 13:22, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eewnb → Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —freak(talk) 13:22, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. -- ADNghiem501 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Viridae ^Talk 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buttsecks → Anal sex[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. Redirect's utility of discouraging an article the compelling reason. -- JLaTondre 12:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some made up spelling that's completely uncommon. It's not encyclopediac. No articles link to it. The only things that do are two deletion logs and a protection log so I think it's been speedy deleted before. Anomo 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A common enough spelling online. It's certainly not article-worthy, but as a redirect, it's okay. --Cyde↔Weys 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But Cyde, this redirect is less encyclopediac than a comedic userbox. And even Uncyclopedia comes up empty when searching for this spelling. Anomo 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1] --Zoz (t) 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyde has a point, I reguarly see this spelling online. THat said, I think that everyone knows it is being miss-spelled on purpose and if they are truly looking for the article they will use the correct spelling. Viridae ^Talk 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I doubt anyone really thinks this is correct spelling, but are most likely looking for something humorous. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common spelling variation as per [2]. The greater utility of this redirect is inhibit the creation of a nonsensical stub article, as per Cyde. —freak(talk) 13:20, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Buttsecks has 85,000+ Google results. It's probably best to just leave it as a redirect to a serious encyclopedic topic; try deleting it and someone will try making a stupid article on the buttsecks owl "meme" or whatever. --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was going to suggest you salt that before it happens, but it's already made. It's actually the "O RLY" owl. Buttsecks owl failed a google search and O RLY? is a big article. RLY, O RLY and others are redirects to it. Sadly, a bored newspaper editor wrote a column on it so it can't be gotten rid of. Anomo 06:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch, I wasn't aware of said meme. Recommend protecting the redirect in addition to keeping it. —freak(talk) 14:29, Aug. 2, 2006 (UTC)
  - I found uncyclopedia used to have an article google cache. Anomo 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freak. --Zoz (t) 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZOMG BUTTSECKS O RLY Keep per Freak. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep You see a lot of oddball spellings like this, started in forums with word filters. People invent variations to get around the filters, then use them elsewhere, even where no filters exist. Fan-1967 14:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as aiding searching among certain online community members, per Fan-1967. BigNate37_(T) 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cultboard! Watch out! → Scientology[edit]

The nominated redirect was already deleted. —freak(talk) 13:59, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

I saw this listed as a speedy-deletion as 'inappropriate', which isn't a CSD, so listing here. Unlikely search term, possibly an attack. --ais523 11:30, 1 August 2006 (U T C)

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

Longcat → 4chan[edit]

The nominated redirect was Just barely kept --Cyde Weys 04:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any content in the 4chan article that would merit this term being a redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Longcat for further support. 66.56.10.72 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mentioned once in the main article. Neither is it clear without extensive research why the two are at all relevant to each other. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless; the fact that it isn't mentioned simply points out that the 4chan article is lacking in coverage of popular memes.--SB | T 08:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 4chan article at one time gave details of its memes. I don't know why that section was removed at all, because I think the article should describe some of the more popular memes, which includes longcat.--Krackpipe 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fgsfds → 4chan[edit]

The nominated redirect was Just barely kept --Cyde Weys 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Longcat, I don't see any content in the 4chan article that would merit this term being a redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fgsfds for further support. 66.56.10.72 17:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons in Longcat. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above: harmless; the fact that it isn't mentioned simply points out that the 4chan article is lacking in coverage of popular memes.--SB | T 08:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons given above, the 4chan article should have a brief description of the fgsfds phenomenon.--Krackpipe 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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