Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2009

Yiffstar[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. The redirect is still useful. Ruslik_Zero 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a now-removed section. Not mentioned at target article, and with no coverage from reliable sources, it doesn't seem to warrant a mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, the section it redirects to is still present, but is short. It used to be much longer, and mentioned Yiffstar along with a number of other websites, before it was removed by this edit. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence (some of which may be found in Talk:Furry fandom and its archives) that people do search Wikipedia on those site names, including Yiffstar, so we know those redirects get used. In a sense, that section presents something of a quandary. The reasons for removal of the list are arguably valid, but its removal left the redirects pointing to an article that doesn't mention what they got redirected from. If there is a way Furry fandom could be revised to offer better rationale for having the redirect, I believe that would be a better approach than removing the redirect. --mwalimu59 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear how many people search for it. I've been hesitant to put it in furry fandom itself, but nowadays it deserves a place as much as the VCL, if not more so; Alexa consistently ranks it as more popular (sub-50,000 rank vs. ~100,000), which tallies with my own assessment. The difficulty is these websites are a significant part of the fandom, but most actively discourage news coverage. If anything, they're likely to get a link on the side of a news article, as they do on Wikipedia. GreenReaper (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we !vote here? Delete the redirect. The individual pages aren't notable enough for their own website, so including them in the page is nothing more than promotion. Anecdotal evidence isn't a reliable source, and we're not obliged to have a redirect for every single concept that exists. We don't link to every fan site of various concepts, no reason to link to every non-notable website to support a fetish. Removing the redirect makes more sense than trying to shoehorn in a page mention that violates WP:WEB, WP:NOT#LINKFARM WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Who wins 2009 australian master chef[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Any search for "Who wins 2009 australian master chef" will immediately lead to the main article without any redirects. Ruslik_Zero 11:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term The-Pope (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I first encountered this article while working on DEP. I went for a redirect over deletion because obviously someone did think it was a valid search term, didn't find what they were looking for, and went on to create a stub. Redirects are cheap, so I went with that option to help the reader. (Only registering a weak keep because I won't be heartbroken if this is deleted; I just think it should stay.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not a likely Wikipedia search term Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - minimal history (two sentences) already duplicated in main article. -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Yarrby[edit]

The result of the discussion was Blanked Easy enough fix. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User has only edited one article eight months ago. No reason for it to exist anymore. meshach (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny![edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. Though it seems ridiculous, there are legitimate uses for it, as other have pointed out. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly redirect. Even if it were appropriate, it would better go to the show itself or to Johnny Carson even if we knew how many letter e's there should be in "here". These new attempts at duplicating special intonations and pronunciations through spelling are apparently being done to make a WP:POINT. Drawn Some (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ridiculous redirect. is anyone going to type that into a Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect isn't for typing , it is for the Category:Catchphrases, so a person can search the catchphrase to return the show or person who uttered it. One problem is the variant spellings, the category obviates the need to know the spelling as used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so what if someone searches with less e's? LibStar (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its the spelling as used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and separately support creation of Here's Johnny!). Redirects from catchphrases are fine; they're not much good for linking, but they're quite useful for searching. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) also has a point as to populating Category:Catchphrases to help searching that way. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good example of the spelling problem. Try a front page search with this, but with one fewer or one more 'e', and you get nothing. It is improbable that a user would happen to choose exactly fifteen consecutive 'e's. Unlike "Yeees", &c. (below), the spelling here does actually match that in the (Ed McMahon) article, however the Johnny Carson article currently presents it with four and with six 'e's, and the The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson article uses nine 'e's. Either this should be deleted or another dozen like it with all reasonably possible number of 'e's should be created. Also unlike "Yeees", here the normal spelling works unambiguously, and RAN has just created Here's Johnny! → Ed McMahon. Keep that, delete this. - Thinking of England (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I agree that the problem of spelling/repetition makes this one not very good for linking, but it does trigger autocompletion if you type it partially in the search box. You don't have to blindly guess so long as you type it in the normal way. — Gavia immer (talk)
Very good point. (Is that working for you right now? For some reason I don't get anything past the three 'e's in Heee Haw (the drink, not the show). The autocompletion seems to work for me with other redirects, flagged RfD or not.) --- Thinking of England (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we standardize on one version of the phrase in all the articles. Would you prefer 'a drawn out "Here's Johnny"' or "Heeeeere's Johnny", with the 5 arbitrary but now standardized "e"s --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RAN, I apologize for being so slow understanding here. The use of this redirect for Category:Catchphrases does seem reasonable. LibStar asked what would happen if you searched with the wrong number of 'e's, however you are not talking about using the WP search tool, but about searching on this category page itself, either visually or using a browser's (typically incremental) search tool. So keep at the editor's discretion. -- Thinking of England (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(re Thinking of England above): Just tried autocompletion, and you're right, it doesn't seem to pick it up. The autocompletion algorithm was recently changed to be "smarter", and it may be that it no longer handles long runs of the same character as well as it formerly did. I guess my former comment on the ability to find this with autocompletion doesn't currently apply, then. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With this being a new redirect, it may just be a cache lag with the autocompletion tool. -- Thinking of England (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't earlier, but the autocomplete is now picking it up for me - apparently it is indeed a new-article problem. ~ mazca talk 12:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autocomplete is, I believe, indexed daily, not right away. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is indeed unlikely someone will search for this particular number of e's, but between the category and the autocomplete it seems a useful search tool without any disadvantages. ~ mazca talk 12:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why 15 e's? Why not 13 or 47 while where at it? It's completely implausible that someone would search this. Tavix |  Talk  23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrong Delete "Here's Johnny" that's okay, I understand the catchphrase category that has been proposed by some people in this debate, but we don't need 35 redirects each with one more "E" then the last. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly arbitrary number of "e"s and I'm unsure if anyone will really look for that phrase with that number of "e"s. AniMatedraw 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have standardized all the various entries to "Here's Johnny!" in the text in various articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KMFDM FAN; we don't need that exact number of "e"'s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any reasonable person searching on the catchphrase would likely try "Here's Johnny". No good argument for this particular number of "e"s. There are currently no articles in the main article space that use this redirect. (One could reasonably question whether Here's Johnny! should redirect to Ed McMahon, as it currently does, instead of to The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, but that's a separate matter.) --mwalimu59 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_15&oldid=1088685746"