Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 19[edit]

Belgian language → Belgium[edit]

The result of the debate was redirected to Languages of Belgium ●DanMS • Talk 01:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Belgian language. Picaroon (Talk) 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dam damn disambiguation and Dam disambiguation → Dam (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely few (if not none)of the disambig pages have redirects without brackets, delete. TheBlazikenMaster 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless Phil Sandifer 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All redirects (most if not all) are harmless, but still many of them get removed since they are useless or pointless. Why would anyone look for Dam disambiguation? Most would look for Dam (disambiguation), I can't imagine anyone looking for Dam disambiguation, especially not Dam damn disambiguation. TheBlazikenMaster 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial article's author has been invited to participate in this discussion. --Aarktica 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, especially the first—that's not how we disambiguate homophones. Anyway, anyone who knows enough to look for or link to a disambiguation page will know enough to use parens. This is simply unjustified (and probably unjustifiable) inconsistency left over from old page moves. Xtifr tälk 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK OK, sorry, delete them, they are redundant. I created them 2 years ago and I have learned more about Wikipedia procedure since. I joined Wikipedia around 24 October 2004. May as well let me {{db-author}} them. Anthony Appleyard 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Furry (gay slang) → Furry fandom[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. -- John Reaves 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term furry does not imply homosexuality nor does the article assert that this is what furry means. There's little likelihood of this being a search term and it carries the potential to offend. BigNate37(T) 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Aarktica 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If a stub explaining the context was written, that would be acceptable, but this is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as offensive redirect. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cammy (Street Fighter) → Cammy[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. -- John Reaves 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't another articles with this name. David Pro 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. TheBlazikenMaster 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. We do not delete useless redirects, we delete harmful redirects. Kusma (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a similar situation as Noob Saibot (Mortal Kombat) → Noob Saibot which you nominated two weeks ago. This one doesn't have useful history, but my other arguements there are still valid: "...helps prevent duplicate creation. There is the possibility of accidental linkage: for example, a list of [Street Fighter] characters which is missing [Cammy], and all current list entries have [(Street Fighter)] in the name—common sense suggests adding a link to [Cammy (Street Fighter)]." BigNate37(T) 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could concievably be used, and the nominator's reason for deletion is insufficient. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no harm demonstrated. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm in its existence, prevents duplication, and helps people if they figure that it'd be at Cammy (Street Fighter) based on other articles having said disambig. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Oxford Dictionary → Category:Oxford dictionaries[edit]

The result of this debate was speedy redirect, nominator's closing. TheBlazikenMaster 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect shouldn't be removed, that's not what I'm saying. And it shouldn't redirect to a category, most people except info, not a category. I don't know where to redirect it that's why I'm bringing this here. TheBlazikenMaster 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Oxford English Dictionary, which is what most people would expect. Yes, there are other OD's (as the category indicates), but the OED is by far the best known, and will be the intended target in probably 90%+ of all searches. Xtifr tälk 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's all I needed to know. TheBlazikenMaster 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Furfag → Furry fandom[edit]

The result of the debate was The result was Speedy delete g10, attack. NawlinWiki 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from an insulting term for furry fans. The term is not used in the article. The redirect is User:Elnod's only main-namespace edit. GreenReaper 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lord Morgoth Bauglir → Morgoth[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 12:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and following are leftovers from a move-maniacal vandal (Special:Contributions/Sauron161) Súrendil 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible search term, prevents creation of duplicate article. Note that this applies only to Lord Morgoth Bauglir—the others are less plausible and (at least for now) I'm abstaining on them. BigNate37(T) 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. We do not delete useless redirects, we delete harmful redirects. Kusma (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as totally sensible redirect. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can be considered insulting or blasphemous by some fans, as intended to be "pro-satanist". Súrendil 06:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is known as Morgoth Bauglir according to the article, which also attributes titles such as Lord of the Dark to him. To me that makes this and similar redirects plausible. This isn't a biography of a living person, so we don't care if one of the titles this fictional character is referred to by is insulting. Being a fan and being offended by this seems to contravene the requirement to remain neutral while editing the encyclopedia. BigNate37(T) 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We do delete useless redirects (that's why the rules for deletion offer such a very narrow definition of "useless"), but in this case, I think there is a weak case to be made this this is remotely useful, which is sufficient reason to keep. Xtifr tälk 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Morgoth Bauglir (LOTR) → Morgoth[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the same, Morgoth BTW is not from LotR but from Silmarillion Súrendil 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Harmful: Morgoth is from Silmarillion Súrendil 06:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And God forbid if somebody gets that wrong and types it in we take them to an article that would correct them. Phil Sandifer 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but absolutely not for the reason provided by the nominator! Morgoth is a character from the LOTR universe, and as Phil points out, it's not unreasonable to think that someone would have that connection in mind. On the other hand, the pre-emptive disambiguation of "(LOTR)" is completely unnecessary. Morgoth Bauglir is sufficient by itself. Which makes this redirect useless. Xtifr tälk 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep per BigNate37 below. I'm easy (and redirects are cheap). :) Xtifr tälk 05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: disambiguation by subject is a common redirect which, in my experience, is kept even where there is no other article with that title. BigNate37(T) 08:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Morgoth Bauglir(LOTR) → Morgoth[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the same Súrendil 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep' as harmless. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Harmful: Morgoth is from Silmarillion Súrendil 06:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And God forbid if somebody gets that wrong and types it in we take them to an article that would correct them. Phil Sandifer 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep and/or do whatever is done with the discussion on "Morgoth Bauglir(LOTR)" above. The arguments I provided for deletion there apply here as well. However, if that is kept, then I suppose this should be as well, as a redirect from typo (missing space). Which, I suppose, could be {{R from misspelling}}. Xtifr tälk 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. This one is plausible insofar as the former is. BigNate37(T) 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: since I changed my opinion on the other debate because of Bignate's arguments, I'm changing this as well—athough my main opinion is still that this should follow the other debate. Xtifr tälk 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Melkor/Morgoth Bauglir → Morgoth[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the same Súrendil 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harm not shown. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete harmless is irrelevant; this is clearly useless, which is a perfectly valid reason to delete. Whether it's misleading is not actually a big issue, but the utter implausibility of this as a search or link target is. Xtifr tälk 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle-earth → The Complete Guide to Middle-earth[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a redirect created during cleanup of page move vandalism. After Midnight 0001 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover of vandal move, see Talk:The Complete Guide to Middle-earth Súrendil 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this is G3, not G10, but I have deleted it regardless. --After Midnight 0001 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Susan Lorentzen → Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy keep; "target is about to be deleted" is not a valid deletion request. Wait for the AfD to close and then apply WP:CSD R1. BigNate37(T) 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NN - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen Gordonofcartoon 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Susan Myrtetus → Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy keep; "target is about to be deleted" is not a valid deletion request. Wait for the AfD to close and then apply WP:CSD R1. BigNate37(T) 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NN - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Myrtetus Lorentzen Gordonofcartoon 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait on the AfD. There's no need to nominate these before the AfD closes, since it might not result in deletion (though this one seems headed that way). Once the AfD closes, any redirects left behind are deletable under speedy deletion criterion R1 (no article at the target). — Gavia immer (talk) 13:24, 19 July 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_July_19&oldid=616543145"