Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2009

trendspotting → List of The Daily Show recurring segments[edit]

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect; "trendspotting" is about attempts, in general, to spot trends, rather than a particular comedy show. 72.83.79.241 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Logic2 → Template:Philosophy[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was nominated for speedy deletion by Gregbard (talk · contribs) for " very old obsolete template". As this is not a valid speedy criterion, I decided to list it here for them. Regards SoWhy 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not in use, and I trust that Gregbard knows what he is doing. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hans. It's also not a bad idea to keep an eye on me too. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I don't trust you unconditionally. ;-) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Concept: Mood Congruence → Mood congruence[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misnomer; while many things, including mood congruence, are indeed "concepts", a redirect consisting of the page title with "concept:" in front of it doesn't seem useful. Unscented (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Refactoring as the essential Wikipedia process → Wikipedia:Refactoring as the essential Wikipedia process[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect JulesH (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unneeded left-over from an uncontroversial pagemove. No useful incoming links and the move history is preserved here. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't really care what happens to this redirect, now that I've preserved the important page history in the Wikipedia namespace. Before my page move, it was a redirect to Wikipedia:Editing policy, which is even more inappropriate. Graham87 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

American Idol hopefuls → American Idol seasons[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Nabla (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete all. Both of them who didn't make it in top 24 in seasons 4, 5 & 6 in American Idol. The last RFD discussion was no consensus and defaulting to keep. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Except for Baylie Brown, who's on a notable label, none of these are likely to ever have articles of their own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Probably not likely search terms anymore; Henrik's article traffic tool only goes back to 2007 so I don't know how often most of these were used as search terms back then. For current idol people, though, (ie, ones not in this RfD) it might still be good to have redirects...personally I think the whole show is stupid and anyone searching for these terms is stupid too, but I guess I have to defend their right to do it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unlikely search terms, but might be useful (if only rarely) and "redirects are cheap", even if only to prevent creation of permastubs of these nn people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the target articles don't mention any of these people. (I checked out a few of them, I assume the rest are like that). Tavix (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that are not mentioned in their target articles. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I previously recommended as their information was removed from the articles but the redirects were never corrected. Only Baylie Brown (awaiting her album, but not article-worthy yet) and Sarah Burgess (probably article-worthy now but still in the planning stages) have any potential in the foreseeable future for requiring articles, but that doesn't change the deletion request. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Locat → Lolcat[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Locate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. Is an unnecessary redirect from a typo; if a reader searched for this term and there was no redirect, the intended page Lolcat still appears at the top of the search results. And an IP editor recently stated at Talk:Lolcat that "Locat" is actually the name of a trademark. (Probably a non-notable one, but still, by losing the redirect we won't be doing any damage.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Locate as a possible typo or misspelling (but is it a plausible one?) or just delete. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete an implausible typo, perhaps redirect to Locate. Retarget to Locate. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to locate. Especially for non-native English speakers, this could be a common misspelling/typo. Tavix (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Locate as a plausible type. PaulJones (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to locate. –xeno (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sandbox wp → Wikipedia:Sandbox[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect created in December of 2008. Not likely to be useful; anyone searching for the sandbox in mainspace will find a hatnote at Sandbox that sends them to the right place. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandbox (Wikipedia) → Sandbox[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has existed in some form since 2004, originally as an article on Wikipedia's sandbox feature. However, it isn't appropriate as an article, it isn't appropriate or useful as a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Sandbox (the latter is two characters shorter), and redirecting it just to Sandbox is a bit surprising, since that's not primarily about the Wikipedia sandbox. Sandbox does have a hatnote for Wikipedia:Sandbox, but it's likely that anyone looking for the Wikipedia sandbox in mainspace will just type the shorter Sandbox. While this does have a long history, it isn't currently useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Agree that it's not doing any good. But since it has some history as an article (albeit a short one) I don't know if it should be deleted just on its merits as a redirect. I suppose if it were still an article it wouldn't pass AfD anyway, but this is not an AfD. Apologies if these comments are counter to what is usually done at RfD; I don't have much experience at RfD so I'm not totally sure what can and can't be deleted here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential name, and it's history as an "article" was simply as a far too wordy indirect redirect. (say that five times fast!) Not a likely or plausable search term. Resolute 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: not useful for linking or searching, no useful incoming links, and no edit history worth preserving (nothing seems to have been merged, so there is no need to keep the edit history for compliance with the GFDL). The page's history as an article was too short-lived (less than two days) to necessitate its continued existence; moreover, as Resolute notes, it was never anything more than an "indirect redirect". –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Sandbox. 72.83.79.241 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would create an unwanted cross namespace redirect. Tavix (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sandbox. → Sandbox[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the trailing period. While the redirect's creator suggests that this is a " probable typing mistake", it doesn't seem like a likely typo to me, and history shows that such pages (with a trailing period) are a magnet for unconstructive edits. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: not useful for linking or searching, no useful incoming links or edit history worth preserving. There are few situations in which editors should attempt to link directly to a disambiguation page (in this case, Sandbox) and none in which editors should include the period at the end of a sentence inside a set of wikilinks. As for searching... anyone who accidentally types "Sandbox." in the search field will receive Sandbox as the first result. I also don't agree that "(Word)." is a "probable typing mistake", or at least any more probable than "(Word);" or "(Word)/". –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above rationales; not a likely search term. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon (talk · contribs). ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon Tavix (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – We don't need to redirect every page with a period at the end. TheAE talk/sign 18:23, 3 April 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_March_26&oldid=1142501622"