Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2009

Defenestraphobia[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unhelpful search term. There is no mention of "Defenestraphobia" on the list so it should be restored to red link status. This is helpful as redlinks can inspire people to start articles rather than have it redirect to an obscure place where it isn't mentioned. Tavix |  Talk  23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is this the fear of falling out of windows? 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would presumably, if it meant anything, be the fear of being pushed out of windows (see defenestration). By the OED de- is a prefix indicating privative force. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most likely not a word, and therefore a hoax. "Proper"-ish form would look more like defenestriphobia—but either way, it's an unnotable neologism that isn't mentioned in the target article. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism or nonce-word. It is also badly formed because -phobia is Greek and fenestra is Latin . Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, countless modern phobias are so formed—viz. anglophobia, claustrophobia, aquaphobia, cancerophobia, and the all around bizarre homophobia (from "homosexual", already Greek + Latin). Regardless, the formation is not a valid argument. Nonce word, however, is. — The Man in Question (in question) 16:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, it is true. See Fowler, "Hybrids and malformations". I know we have to put up with them, it doesn't mean we have to accept new ones, especially if they are coined badly for a single occasion. 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Sun(newspaper)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. DrKiernan (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, implausible search string. JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I do not believe that we should count missing spaces as plausible typos... Even if the redirect is deleted, any search for "The Sun(newspaper)" would bring up The Sun (newspaper) as the first search result (see e.g., a search for The Regime(group). The redirect has only moderate traffic: 103 hits in the six months prior to this nomination (~60% in the last two months), for an average of approximately 17 per month, though it is worth noting that this was most likely due to an incoming link from an article. Now that the link has been removed, traffic should diminish to the standard level of approximately 10 hits per month. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I would go further and say generally, a single plausible common typo or misspelling is one thing, but we should not turn redirects into an alternative to the search engine, because it leads to a combinatorial explosion. Repeat after me: InternationalHerald Tribine, International HeraldTribune, InternationalHeraldTribune, Internationalheraldtribue, International Herald-tribune, et cetera ad nauseam. Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The S*n[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, though is someone wants to redirect to the newspaper I won't complain. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, implausible typo (but not recently created). JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This redirect was created by a pagemove of The Sun to The S*n, which was reverted in less than six hours. The redirect is an implausible typo ("S*n" is a slightly-plausible typo on QWERTY keyboards, but "The S*n" is much less likely) and has no significant incoming links and very little traffic (43 hits in the six months prior to this nomination, for an average of just over 7 hits each month). The pagemove history is preserved in the page history of The Sun (newspaper). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could also mean "The Son" (son of the Devil) or "The Sin" (original sin) ... 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sun (newspaper), for which it is a moderately common nickname (due to its bowlderisation of any potentially offensive word). Not a likely search term for any other use of "The Sun" or "Sun". Warofdreams talk 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Warofdreams. Here and here are instances of The S*n meaning The Sun (newspaper). — The Man in Question (in question) 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nickname does not appear to be used in more than a handful of instances (see search results), and those all seem to be blogs or discussion forums (e.g., here). Has the nickname seen use anywhere else? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall off the top of my head, but it might be used occasionally by Private Eye mocking the hypocrisy of the supposed courtesy by the editors to print "offensive" words on "a family newspaper", while simultaneously filling their pages with salacious material. (I mean from their opinion, not necessarily mine.) Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Donna Dunnings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep as targeted to Todd Stroger#Hiring ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are cousins doesn't seems to merit a redirect. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was previously an article somebody turned into a Redirect in order to lump the information into the Todd Stroger article. Dunnings was not just Stroger's cousin, but Chief Financial Officer of one of the most important counties in the United States, the one which contains Chicago. Cook County has a population equal to some countries. Dunnings made front page news a couple of times in major Chicago newspapers, which because of the importance of Chicago and its suburban area, are among the major newspapers of the United States. H Padleckas (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't post it for discussion because Donna Dunnings is not notable; I posted it because Donna Dunnings is not Todd Stroger. — The Man in Question (in question) 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this Redirect to go specifically to the section where Donna Dunnings is discussed. H Padleckas (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The existence of this redirect may actually be a hindrance to people seeking information, because it will bring Wikipedia up on Google when other Internet sources will provide a more comprehensive description of the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the original Donna Dunnings article should be revived. If this redirect is erased, then the original article is lost from Wikipedia. H Padleckas (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am the one who changed the article to a redirect. I did that because I perceived WP:BLP issues with the Donna Dunnings article. She is known as a minor player in a political corruption scandal centered on Todd Stroger. The short article was more about the scandal than about her, and it represented her in a negative light. My Google searching found several articles about that scandal, all written shortly after the scandal broke. (After that, the story seemed to disappear from the news media.) I learned from the articles that she considered herself to be a mostly-innocent victim of Stroger's manipulations, not a perpetrator. My first inclination was to nominate the article for deletion (here's the diff in which I started that process), but then I decided that this was a WP:ONEVENT situation in which it would be best to merge the content about Dunnings into Todd Stroger and redirect this title to that page. That's what I did.
    Due to the WP:BLP problems with the article, I would strongly oppose recreating the article about her. I think it made sense to retarget the redirect to the section of the Stroger article that tells about Dunnings. (Thanks to H Padleckas for doing that.) --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's keep the revised Redirect which is now more specifically targeted to the part of the Todd Stroger article where Donna Dunnings is discussed. I understand that when I wrote the article, it was more about the scandal than about her, but that was the newsworthy or notable part which should be included in the article (preferably in the introduction) to establish context. Significant work she did in her CFO capacity was likely important to her career and the county in general, but news sources tend to concentrate on scandals which tend to make reading more interesting and sell papers. Such work would have been includable in the article. I was hoping others would pick up and expand the article in true Wiki fashion, but it did not happen this time. H Padleckas (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time you created the article, it seemed reasonable to expect that Dunnings would remain in the public eye, and that additional information about her would emerge. As it happens, however, she quickly disappeared from the public scene. --Orlady (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Man in Question (in question) 00:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Donna Dunnings is not sufficiently associated with Stroger to be a redirect there; and no one seems to feel she deserves her own article. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rice Country[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning escapes me. Not counting the day of its creation, viewed 10 times in November. Too broad a description to redirect to United States. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Rice Country" is a direct English translation of 「米国」, historically the most common term for the United States used in Japan (and rarely also in China). It's not likely to be a very common search term on enwiki, but in the absence of other meanings it's plausible for it to redirect there. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (presuming it's a spelling error) to Rice County; but given the suggestion above, perhaps it ought to be a dab Josh Parris 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the variety of results pulled up by Google, as nominator I think it should be dabified. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Japanese redirects are not English and the US is not a native Japanese topic, so is an inappropriate redirect. Also, in English "rice country" typically would mean rice growing regions (like dairy country, or wheat country, tobacco country, etc), so the US is definitely not a reasonable redirect for that meaning. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, but there are a wide variety of redirects in other languages to United States. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the US of A, I'd say that English, and any Native American language redirect should exist for the actual name and common slang names. For Spanish and French (US - Puerto Rico, Louisiana) those used by US populations should remain since PR uses Spanish officially and LA tries to keep its French population around. Redirects from other languages, or translations into English of slang terms from other languages should not exist unless they have currency/prominence in English, in which case they would be English slang names for the US, and thus not a foreign redirect in any case. "rice country" is a translation of a Japanese name for the US, it's not a romanization of the Japanese term, it's a translation; it would be more reasonable to have 米国 as a redirect, except that we shouldn't because it's not English and the US is not a Japanese-speaking place or formerly ruled by Japan. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Disambig, it's a plausible redirect term, but there are other uses for the term. A dab page seems perfect for the job here. --Taelus (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disambiguate between what? — The Man in Question (in question) 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Man in Question (in question) 00:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention of "Rice Country" on target article, no ambiguous articles to disambiguate. Only possible alternative should be a target of Rice County as a misspelling. -- JHunterJ (talk)
  • Delete. I suspect that any Japanese people who have sufficient command of the English language to want to read the English Wikipedia know that Americans do not call their country "Rice Country". I also find it strange that the Japanese name for the United States would associate the country with rice, given that the grain is even more commonly eaten in Japan than in the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal:Scientific method[edit]

The result of the discussion was No consensus ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This portal was deleted here [1], then recreated as a redirect. Decstop (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it was recreated as a redirect a week after deletion. That's what happens when someone deletes something that's getting over a hundred hits a day without cleaning up enough of the internal links. Remove the (viable, non-talk) internal links, wait a month so we can see the traffic die off, and then bring it back here for deletion. In the meantime, there may be a more appropriate portal to point to. Josh Parris 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Remove the (viable, non-talk) internal links, ... Done Decstop (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of page hits has been falling off over time, but it's still getting 10-20 a day, which in my opinion is too high to kill the redirect; I think it will keep falling to the point where deleting the redirect won't break anything much. I hope when we close this we can see a sudden fall-off and can delete, but I doubt it. Josh Parris 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep it. It is perfectly reasonable. Redirects do no harm. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but include a link to Portal:Philosophy of science in the deletion summary. In the week before Decstop's link cleanup on December 7 (i.e., November 30 – December 6), the redirect received about 14 hits per day; in the week after the cleanup (December 8 – December 14), the portal has been receiving less than 8 hits per day, and I would guess that most of that's from this RfD discussion. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Man in Question (in question) 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under WP:NOTBROKEN. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTBROKEN does not apply to cases where the presence of a link can be detrimental or confusing, such as including within a list of active WikiProjects a link to a WikiProject that has been redirected. In any case, the fixing seems to have taken place already, whether it should have or not. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:04, 5 January 2010 (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/2009_December_21&oldid=1136448635"