Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 24, 2009

Wikipedia (Encyclopedia)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded disambiguation qualifier. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it doesn't need the extra disambiguation. Tavix |  Talk  23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as an unnecessary search redirect. Even now, a search for Wikipedia (encyclopedia) brings up the article Wikipedia as the first result. If there is consensus to have this redirect, then let's at least have it at the proper capitalisation: Wikipedia (encyclopedia). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of anime films[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus for really any action. Ideally, should be made a disambiguation, but until then will default to as is. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect that currently links to category. We shouldn't be directing someone searching for a list to a category. 陣内Jinnai 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I generally agree that we should not redirect "List of..." pages to categories (they are completely different creatures and it does not help to blur the lines in this way), this one does seem to be used quite a bit. I am undecided, but also curious about the sudden jump in traffic to this page in late October from ~10 pageviews per day to ~80 per day? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to anime or disambiguate to fix cross namespace redirect (and the "See also" section of anime breaks the general "category" into smaller "subcategories" with links already there). This option is far more useful to the average Wikipedia reader who wants to peruse a relatively short list than redirecting to a category that is more likely to be missing his/her/its film (consider an American or U.K. analog: which would be better, a redirect to a catch-all that doesn't catch all... or to a general article that links to more specific lists? I claim the latter). The other alternative that is better than the status quo is to create a disambiguation page that presents a list of links similar to those presented at the bottom of the anime article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally targeted to anime and discussion on WT:Anime that anime is a poor target because someone wanting to know about various anime films would not want to know about anime in general.陣内Jinnai 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dr. Fatside[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. 24 hits on Google. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Censorious[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorious" is a an English word, and as such belongs in Wiktionary (where it already is), not as a redirect to (?) Benjamin Franklin. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

⇧[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Arrow (symbol). Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yekutiel[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. Google does not seem to offer any connection between the names. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abrahahm lincon[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre misspelling. One thing to have misspelling Abraham Lincon, another entirely for this piece of work. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abraham Lincol[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful typo. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep helpful typo redirect, it's missing the final letter, which is a quite common thing to do. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless predicament, why not leave off the final letter of any article title? Let's do that to George Washingto while we're at it. Oh wait, we're not washing George's toe... Tavix |  Talk  22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a semi-plausible search term, though if this is searched for, the target article will most likely be suggested to the searcher-er. I think. Almost every single article on Wikipedia could be searched for without the final letter. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If you leave of the final letter, the simple thing is to add it in and try again... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

King Lincoln[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to King-Lincoln Bronzeville. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym/misinformation/patent nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abe linlon[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively arcane typographical error. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implausible, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obscure name—lest adding dates becomes a trend. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shakey baby[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wliiam shakepear[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is implausible—particularly the surname combined with the typo first name. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirects are cheap, and in this economy it's better sending this one off to feed the needy at redirect heaven. It's simply implausible. Tavix |  Talk  22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whoever created all these Shakespeare redirects seems to have made them for the sheer hell of it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Will shake[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

JRRTolkieN[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. JRRTolkien already exists. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep old CamelCase links like this one JRRTolkieN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are the format of the original version of MediaWiki (not double square brackets), and kept for historical reasons. See WP:RFD#KEEP #4 . On the other hand, I don't see a reason why you should have created a NEW link at JRRTolkien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just now. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not what is meant by camel-case. JRRTolkien is camel-case, on the other hand. I created the redirect because people might actually link to that, but JRRTolkieN is just nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is EXACTLY the format that was used by Wikipedia originally, and is why the pages title is so formatted. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I spoke ahead of myself. Why were final letters once capitalized? — The Man in Question (in question) 00:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CamelCased words were used by the software to identify links to turn into hypertext links. I suggest you read the documentation for the earliest versions of MediaWiki to figure out why the developers chose that. But the article for the letter "U" used to sit at UuU, etc. because of CamelCasing links. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dogs (Call of Duty)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was briefly an article that went to AfD (full disclosure: I was nominator). Result was merge. It appears nobody could come up with a way to merge the game trivia in a useful fashion. Someone turned it into a redirect. I don't see this "alternate title" being useful to the encyclopedia. I also don't see it really hurting anything, but still lean towards deleting it as clutter. My major concern is that this could be seen as subverting the AfD discussion, effectively turning "merge" into "delete". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Delete - I was the editor that created the redirect. I'm glad someone nominated the redirect for deletion, as it has no encyclopedic value. What I did was merely a "band aid fix". --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the closer of the AfD. It appears that there is no GFDL-able content merged under WP:MAD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hmm. I don't see any way of the information being presented elsewhere in the foreseeable future, so right now the redirect is just clutter. Which is more or less pointless, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Master of Middle-earth, the Achievement of J. R. R. Tolkien[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget first two, delete third. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the book, not an actual nickname for Tolkien. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Tolkien bibliography article (assuming the book has no article of its own). Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as redirects to J. R. R. Tolkien. "Master of Middle-earth" is the name of a book (a book about Tolkien, not by him, so it should not redirect to the Tolkien Bibliography article) by Paul Kocher that is cited in the J. R. R. Tolkien article, so this is a reasonable redirect. At one time, the subtitle of the book was "The Achievement of J. R. R. Tolkien", so the other two redirects also are reasonable to keep. --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the "so this is a reasonable redirect" part. I am aware that Tolkien didn't write the book—if he had, it would be a reasonable redirect. As it is, it is a book which is not notable redirecting to an article for which it is not a synonym and in which it is not mentioned (except as a citation, which doesn't count). — The Man in Question (in question) 18:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in arguing with you regarding this redirect. I've stated my opinion, and you have stated yours. My comment to the effect that Tolkien didn't write the book was in response to Rich Farmbrough. --Orlady (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, all right. Sorry if I offended you. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Paul H. Kocher, which is the article about the author of the book. I think it makes more sense to direct searchers to an article that mentions the book in the text rather than one that merely mentions it in footnotes. Weak delete The Achievement of J. R. R. Tolkien because it is just the one-time subtitle of the book and is almost never searched (~4–5 pageviews per month). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget first two, Delete third as nominator per Black Falcon. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget first two, delete third. I would have went with redirecting them all, but I would probably just complicate the consensus by doing that, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jrr tolkein'[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable, unhelpful typo. Not to mention the surname isn't even spelled correctly. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is cheaper to leave it than to delete it. Rich Farmbrough, 06:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agree with Rich Farmbrough. The misspelling of the surname is a very common one, the rest of the line is not entirely implausible, and the intended meaning is clear. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with The Man In Question. Improbable typo, probably a result of the apostrophe key being adjacent to the enter key on US keyboards. And general point (taking Occam's Razor) that assumptions need not be needlessly multiplied, the redirector could first not spell the surname right, second not capitalise the initials, and third put an apostrophe at the end? Implausible. It is I think self-evident that it is cheaper to leave it than delete it, which is why it comes here to be discussed. That does not mean it is not worthwhile bringing it here. Si Trew (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an improbable multi-typo and mispelling. While any of the errors on their own could be plausible, this redirect contains six errors of five different types: incorrect capitalisation, missing spaces, missing punctuation, unnecessary punctuation, and misspelling. I am not convinced by the "redirects are cheap" argument for three reasons: (1) Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance; (2) it does not address the usefulness of the redirect and is not an argument that applies well in other contexts (e.g., technically, it's cheaper to leave vandalism than to revert it); and (3) it attempts to conserve a minute amount of server resources in the long term at the expense of organisation, punctuality and, ultimately, efficiency (e.g., if we accept the proposition that "whatlinkshere" is a useful tool for editors, then any clutter in incoming links diminishes the efficiency of the tool by a small amount). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If anyone makes that bad a typo, they don't deserve to find the article, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

J. R. R. Tolkien's[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed under Chicago's below, I can only imagine confusion arising from possessive noun redirects—not to mention keeping them may set a precedent for their creation. Also, the second is very improbably spaced. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Redirects are cheap. At least one of these was useful, pending a bugzilla on highlighting. Rich Farmbrough, 06:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. It is not a question, in my mind, of them being cheap technically. I don't care about this, or any other redirect, taking up so many electrons, and under Cooper's Law probably I spend energy worrying about things like this than are ever used by keeping them. The problem with this and many others is that accepting them could create the impression that almost every conceivable variation of a title must be redirected. That is a false impression, because such things are what the search engine is for. It is difficult to prove while the redirects are in place, but I would hazard a guess that if they were deleted, the search engine would bring the topic up as the best result anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete J.R. R. Tolkien's and Tolkien's as unnecessary and mostly unused (~5 and ~10 pageviews per month, respectively). Weak delete J. R. R. Tolkien's as unnecessary but used in a template until recently. The search engine and the drop-down list of suggestions will handle any searches of these phrases. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep J. R. R. Tolkien's. Delete others. Much as I dislike it and it goes against WP:TITLE etc it is used in lots of places, and under Farmbrough rules I think this must be kept. The others, still, I think should go if they are not used. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't any longer. The absolute majority were showing as linked because they transclude a template that contained the redirect and the rest I removed while making larger edits to two articles. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good. Pointless redirects that defeat the search engine. It's good they go. Nice work there. Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW an "absolute majority" is fifty percent plus one. I think you meant more than that. Nice work, anyway. I didn't find it from template transclusion, and held off because it is not my subject so I thouht others would know better than I did. Q.E.D. Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, of course. It serves me right for thinking that I can get by with only five hours of sleep. :) Special:Whatlinkshere showed approximately 120 articles, of which all but two were there because of Template:Tolkien-stub. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Бог[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May lead people away from the articles written in their respective wikipedias. Ergo, unhelpful. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't follow your logic here. Rich Farmbrough, 06:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I don't follow your logic either. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: Wikipedia is usually the first result on Google. Even if it is not, it is going to be one of the first. When "Бог" or "Господ" is searched with any English words, the English Wikipedia is going to show up before the Russian and Bulgarian Wikipedias, thus misleading anyone who (1) wants see an original Russian or Bulgarian text on the matter, or (2) wants to read something in English that actually discusses Бог. This is a fairly common argument in AfD. It is based on the tenet: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine, although "unreasonably" does not seem to apply most of the time. Ah, well. It also works under The redirect might cause confusion. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete foreign language redirects to a concept not restricted, or primarily, or commonly (when in English) of that language 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I'm not seeing the nominators logic either, the IP's logic does. Tavix |  Talk  22:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the long-standing principle that non-English redirects generally are unneeded when there is no direct connection between the language of the redirect and the topic of the target article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all of the above reasons (including the nominators'...sort of), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bog (Cyrillic Бог)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly someone might search for "bog" (being a fairly well known translation). Maybe someone would search for Бог (although such a redirect might lead people away from the Russian entry). But this is simply implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete foreign language redirects to a concept not restricted, or primarily, or commonly (when in English) of that language 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment make an entry at "bog" for Russian as a common transliteration into Latin alphabet at Wiktionary for it. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely implausible, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:38, 30 December 2009 (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_24&oldid=1140112190"