Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 18

< November 17

November 19 >

November 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 18, 2008

Schnitzel (Character) → Chowder (TV series)

The result of the debate was Kept —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. It's spelled "Shnitzel", and 2. I can see someone typing in "Shnitzel (character)", but not "Schnitzel (Character)". Radda! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - redirects are cheap/it's not hurting anyone/it stops someone from creating an article in this namespace. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep What is spelled Shnitzel? I think it's spelled Schnitzel. The character is spelled wrong? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary → Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries/International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary

The result of the debate was Delete. I also fixed template. Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to be used subpage cross-namespace redirect which was created after a page move. VegaDark (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• The contents of International Confederation of Free Trade Unions/Summary are transcluded into International Confederation of Free Trade Unions via the use of the {{Article summary}} template in the See also section (creating that "Translation summary" box). This appears to have been designed to facility translation to other languages (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries). However, this effort seems to have been abandoned as that project page has had no activity in 2 years. Last year, the summary pages were move from article space into Wikiproject space without updating the template. Given the lack of activity, it's probably okay to scrap the whole system, but at a minimum, the article to Wikiproject redirects should be deleted and the template modified to import the Wikiproject content. These summary pages don't really belong as article subpages as they're just duplicate content of the main article. The redirects seem pointless when the template can be modified to call the target directly. This recommendation applies to all six (6) articles that employ this system (see Category:Articles with article summaries). -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support deleting those other redirects as well, perhaps I will lump those in a future nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Rule 34 → Internet pornography

The result of the debate was Keep and retarget to Xkcd#Life imitates xkcd. I am not against if someone expands or dabifies it. Ruslik (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Rule 34" is an inside joke from the webcomic xkcd. It is not notable enough to have its own article. The most appropriate place to redirect would indeed be Internet pornography, but it is of utterly tiny importance compared to that topic. This diff explains it all; you can see that the sources are the original comic and urban dictionary. Since the target page shouldn't have an explanation of the term, this redirect shouldn't point there. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The reason I created this redirect is because I figured that people don't know what this term means. No, it shouldn't have it's own article. But the term pops up enough that someone is going to wonder what it means, and this is the most appropriate target for someone looking it up (as the nom admits), and a pretty good description of the term. As for a mention in the target, a section isn't needed, but if people really want a mention, a sentence should do. And for the record, this didn't originate from xkcd. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  But there are no reliable sources that discuss it! "People might want to know" is not an excuse to ignore Wikipedia's core policies. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete because there are no reliable sources that use the term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirects do not require reliable sources. All that's required is evidence that the term is in use. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if the target article makes no mention of the redirect? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • If the target is an accurate representation of the target, yes. There's no requirement that a redirect needs to be mentioned on the target, it just needs to make sense. Here's a pretty simple example here...I'm sure not all of -those- are mentioned in the target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there are too many Rule 34's floating around to ascertain without context. Hence, this is a confusing redirect that should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a "rule 34" that often comes up without context, and by far the most common one I've seen. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a real page, not as a redirect -- we should categorize and list these rule 34's (which have been around for years). I came here looking for more information after reading an XKCD article. Enough people have been searching for the term that the term's Google rank has actually dramatically risen. There's the Urban Dictionary definition, more than two years old. Although the term is dramatically gaining popularity in recent days, it's been around for a long time, as far as the internet goes. I do believe there are other links. As it's a topic that people want to learn more about, let's inform people. Banaticus (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a real article; it's notable enough that I wound up here after reading XKCD this morning. May only need to be a stub right now, and can be referenced to primary sources until secondary sources pick it up. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to find any sort of reliable sources for this for a while. Have yet to. That's why I support it as a redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The redirect as it stands now is useless to me, since Rule 34 doesn't appear to be mentioned in the text of Internet pornography. Frankly, this RfD gave me the info I was trying to look up. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment if kept, I think it is better to redirect this to Xkcd#Life_imitates_xkcd where it is discussed.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I agree--MUCH better redirect, if it's to be kept as a redir. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can agree with this. xkcd didn't invent the term or even really propagate it. They simply used it. If anything, the comic shows that the term is indeed in popular use. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - ZERO reliable sources reference this - all are urbandictionary (essentially a blog and not, per WP:RS, a reliable source), the site of the webcomic itself, the blogosphere (hardly a reliable source), and google searches returning hits from the blogosphere. This has become Wikipedia's version of Google bombing; the webcomic has undue weight here, and several discussions involving the blogosphere have resulted in the keeping of things (like Obamessiah) that clearly are not supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If this is kept, it is because of this campaign and not because of policy. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, redirects do not require "reliable sources". If there were reliable sources, this would be an article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This still violates WP:UNDUE as the IP asserts. Regarding "the comic shows that the term is indeed in popular use": this is a circular argument, for only those fans of the webcomic (which itself has relatively little distribution compared to commercially-available ones such as Garfield and Luann) would be even close to aware of the context which UsaSatsui is promoting. Far more will relate to other Rule 34s... including those others mentioned in Urban Dictionary. B.Wind (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure distribution is a particularly good argument, since there's a known high affinity between XKCD (and probably webcomics in general, actually) and Wikipedia readers. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        • "Affinity" is not quantifiable. Readership is. More people have seen Emily's Reasons Why Not than read XKCD... and the former was canceled after the airing of exactly one episode. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Xkcd#Life imitates xkcd. There simply aren't enough reliable sources to write about this in the Internet pornography article, but people are still going to search for it; as most of the attention seems to have been brought to it by xkcd, that's probably the best place for it to go. Terraxos (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages do not need resources to show notability of the subject. They only need to explain why the term links to another article. A disambiguation page will allow other uses of the term to be mentioned and explain why the link goes to Internet pornography. It will just say "Rule 34 may refer to:" and among the listings it will have "Internet pornography: Rule 34 is often claimed to state 'if it exists, there is porn of it.'" -- kainaw™ 20:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Rule 34 is very well known even before you noobs heard about it on your favorite web comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.49.100 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Observing WP:CIVIL and signing your comments with ~~~~ would lend significant weight to your viewpoint when it comes to deletion discussions. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I thought the same thing when I read the comments above. There seems to be a lot of people thinking "I first heard about it on XKCD, so it must not have existed before I read it there." Well, I first heard it long before the web was invented and it referred to porn in the alt.* newsgroups. When I heard it then, it reminded me of a similar "rule" I heard in the BBS days. So, any opinions based on the idea that this was invented by XKCD are rather invalid. -- kainaw™ 17:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• For your perusal... other "Rule 34s" from reliable sources: [1],[2], [3] (source: USGA: [4]), [5], [6] (source: State of Texas), [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (from the United States Polo Association), [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Sorry, but after this cursory look at the list of "Rule 34s", all I can say is that I've just scratched the surface... only to page 15 (out of the roughly 284,000 google hits for "Rule 34"). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per above comment.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Good arguments can be made for several of the solutions presented here, and I don't have a strong opinion about which direction to go in. But the worst solution is the current one of redirecting from "Rule 34" to a page on internet pornography that never mentions the meaning of that term. Arguing about particular WPs misses the point that this goes against the general purpose of Wikipedia: providing helpful information. Marfire (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep .... this didn't come from XKCD, it came from 4chan. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Signal regeneration → Optical cross-connect

The result of the debate was Nomination Withdrawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Signal regeneration is an important topic in telecommunications. "Optical cross-connect" is not really a suitable target link for this topic, however. I am not aware of a better target article right now, so I propose to return it to a red link. The trigger for this was this edit, where the only link to signal regeneration was removed because the redirect had made it circular. This redirect does not help grow the encyclopedia. Srleffler (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my request. A better target for the redirect has been found.--Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Alltongue → Universe of The Longest Journey

The result of the debate was Keep. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability/Pointless redirect 94.189.204.147 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - fictional language is mentioned in target article. B.Wind (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Norway-related topics notice board → Wikipedia:Norway-related topics notice board

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject CNR, does not link to content, not a shortcut. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I still fail to see what's wrong with cross-namespace redirects. If it helps people get to where they're going, I'd like to keep it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but people who re-use Wikipedia usually take the Article, Template, and Image spaces, so this would leave a broken redirect in such a scrap. Also, CNRs show up in a standard search, so a user looking for articles on Norway would get results that include our discussions on Norway-articles. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  I acknowledge what you're saying, but I still say the primary criterion should be 'does it help people find what they're looking for?' and the answer here is 'yes'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - articles in articlespace should not be self-referential per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. As far as I can tell, this is the only "notice board" dealing with Norway. So the question becomes "Is a person more likely to search for something dealing with Norway (articlespace), or is a person more likely to search for a notice board in an area that deals with articles? It is most highly unlikely that the country of Norway operates its own notice board for international use; this redirect implies that it does, thus making this a confusing redirect. Anybody looking for Wikipedia's Norway notice board would be more likely to look at Portal:Norway or WP:WikiProject Norway first as it is clearly a Wikipedia issue and not an international/article one. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Lemur catta spur and antebrachial gland.jpg → Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Lemur catta spur and antebrachial gland.jpg

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, redirect created was after a page move from a mistaken title. Author's note justifies invocation of WP:CSD G7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very unusual CNR, links to a discussion, not content MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Sorry, this was a mistake. –Visionholder (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Unification Encyclopedia Project → Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu

The result of the debate was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

External advertising for another wiki-project, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize any regarded it as advertising. It is the most labor-intensive of all Wikipedia forks and mirrors. I discussed linking and crediting policy with both User:Jimbo and User:Angela.

Why would you want to conceal the existence of that project? At least redirect to New World Encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Already redirected as suggested. Ed, it's not concealing the existence of the project: it's eliminating a cross-namespace redirect by retargeting so that the target is also in article space. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unacceptable cross-namespace redirect, arguably created as advertising. A search term like this should go to an article about the encyclopaedia, not a link to it; if we don't have one, it shouldn't exist at all. As New World Encyclopedia is also a redirect, and the target of the redirect doesn't even mention it, deletion seems the best solution. Terraxos (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-content, unencyclopaedic advertizing link. Lurcher66 (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Manual of Style (mathematics) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)

The result of the debate was Keep. Seems to be a useful redirect. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper CNR, does not link to content, does not use pseudo-spaces. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The accidental omission of the 'Wikipedia:' prefix seems to me to be a reasonable typo. I see no reasonable possibility that a reader attempting to follow that link would expect to find anything other that that Wikipedia page. The redirect has no significant history but it does have a number of inbound links, suggesting that this is not a completely improbable mistake. It's been around since 2005 without causing any apparent confusion. Helping our existing readers/editors is more important than the theoretical disadvantages of being a cross-namespace redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Zero chance of confusion nullifies the "it's a CNR" problem. Traffic statistics indicate a few dozen uses per day, so the usefulness outweighs any principled opposition to CNRs in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - there's nothing wrong with a CNR if it helps people get to where they're going. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. CNR as nominated. Manual of Style has context outside Wikipedia and Manual of Style for Technical Publications is an example of a redirect that shows that this kind of redirects are used outiside the Wikipedia world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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