Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2010

Huang An[edit]

The result of the discussion was disambiguation page created by 147.70.242.54. Jafeluv (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:OliverTwisted first blanked the page, then placed a PROD on it. The edit summary for the blanking was, "canceled redirect: Huang An was a "Chinese immortal" not a 1990s Chinese novelist. Please see "Biographies of Immortals" by Lionel Giles." Prod reason was, "Vanity redirect from Huang An (historical legend) to a modern writer."

I an neutral to deletion, simply removing the PROD. Cnilep (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sorry about handling the deletion in a non traditional way. I was researching biographies from legends listed in "Biographies of Immortals" by Lionel Giles. When I reached Huang An, I found myself redirected to a modern Chinese writer, Huang Yi. I did some additional online research, and this seems to be an improbable redirect. I'm not an expert on Chinese names, but ancient legend "Huang An" will need a Wikipedia article (I'm volunteering!), and at the very least, a disambiguation page should be created to distinguish between the ancient Chinese legend, and the modern writer Huang Yi. Regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have boldly dabified this redirect. I leave the closing of this discussion to one who can do so. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination and close: Thanks for the "dabification"(?) by another editor, I think this is much more clear to Wikipedia users. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Amanda Fucking Palmer[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. G10 does apply to redirects, but since this is a term the subject uses themself it's not a G10 candidate. Jafeluv (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I cannot imagine why this is needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a vanishingly unlikely search term. Cnilep (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while inexplicable, there is a reasonable amount of traffic flowing through the redirect even though it has no mentions in article space and only two in user space. Several dozen uses per month. Perhaps external links? Josh Parris 00:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really a reason to have a redirect? I could create George Fucking Bush, Barack Fucking Obama and about ten thousand other redirects and you'd find some traffic flowing through it. It's not even like it's some sort of nickname. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is, see below. Josh Parris 09:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if there are a few inbound external links, they are few and this is a ridiculous page title. I wouldn't be surprised if all the hits were from inbound links saying "Look at this crazy redirect on Wikipedia!" and the like. There wouldn't be any serious usages of this link I don't think. --Taelus (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ha ha ha ha. Ricky, I know why you got it here for discussion. I can't stop laughing. People discussing whether to keep the redirect or not :):):):) Too good <gasp><gasp> Here's my two bit :) Delete it. Reasons > (1)The redirect makes it unreasonably tough for other users to locate similar articles through our search engine (2) It causes confusion (ha ha) (3)It's offensive (even though that's an assumption by me) (3)Makes no sense (4)Constitutes self-promotion (I mean, the moment you type Amanda in the search engine, you're bound to click on the link which says 'Amanda Focking Palmer' lol). Delete it Rick! Good one! ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject" Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    G10 does not apply to redirects. Josh Parris 09:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say that? It certainly doesn't say it in the criterion and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General (what the "G" in "G10" stands for) says "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)" (emphasis mine). Additionally Wikipedia:Redirects#Reasons for deleting point 3 explicitly says "Speedy deletion criterion 10 may apply." Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf is correct; redirects can be G10 candidates. However, as this is a term that she uses herself, it does not disparage or threaten her, so this one should not only not be speedily deleted, but not be deleted at all. —Кузьма討論 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not a reasonable search term, no point, BLP issues. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Kusma's discovery that she uses it (as a graphic) on her own site. Don't see self promotion or anything else as a valid reason to delete here. BLP issues wouldn't seem to apply in this case. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • G10 this. There's no basis for having the word "Fucking" between someone's first and last name. (Unless someone actually used it as a stage name, which isn't indicated to be the case by the article.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    G10 does not apply to redirects. Josh Parris 09:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above about this assertion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, ANYTHING can be a G10 candidate- Wikipedia:CSD#General states "These apply to all namespaces (and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc)". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she uses "Amanda Fucking Palmer" on her own website. Google "Amanda Palmer" or check http://amandapalmer.net/ . —Кузьма討論 07:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To call this "self-promotion" seems a bit of a stretch to me. And even if it is self-promoting: what is wrong with redirecting a company's advertising slogans to an article about the company or the advertising campaign? —Кузьма討論 10:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that policy is written to mean that the best drink should not redirect to Coca-Cola (that would be a clearly promotional redirect). Whatever: I don't see evidence that this redirect is self-promoting. I do not understand what makes you want to delete it so badly. —Кузьма討論 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the uses term herself, as noted by Kusma. Ucucha 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's rather questionable how outright promotional/spammy it is; still !voting Keep. If it's truly speedyable, then tag it and bypass this RfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wifione, the page you're referring to does not list speedy deletion criteria, but reasons why you might want to vote "delete" in an RFD. You could try tagging it as CSD G11, but I don't really see the point. This term is one that cannot apply to anyone else than Palmer, and therefore very different from things like "the best drink" that others have argued are what "promotional" is for. This is basically a redirect from a stage name, or pseudonym. Ucucha 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not an attack page because she uses the name herself. Not promotional because inserting the word "fucking" in your name does not advertise or promote anything. Its just a nickname that she prefers to use, just as many other people use nicknames. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google returns 654,000 results for "Amanda Fucking Palmer". It is notable search term. Over a hundred people use this exact search term on most months, sometimes more than two hundred. [2] I'm linking to a month when the results look like someone is flipping the bird, because its ironically amusing. Dream Focus 05:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Untitled J.J. Abrams Project[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer applicable to Cloverfield, and not helpful as a redirect here. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ambiguous and unnecessary since Cloverfield has been named and released. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't know how many "untitled projects" Abrams may work on in the future (or be working on now). This is misleading and non-applicable. No longer needed, Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Splaser[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what this is relevant to, although it may be a slang/neologism for "Spartan Laser", Splaser... Either way, target has no relevant information on either. Taelus (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as slang term (or maybe just something someone made up one day), unlikely redirect.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of Halo weapons[edit]

The result of the discussion was No consensus after some three weeks. Some of these probably have better targets, but it's clear that some find them useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant information in the target articles, as previous consensus is that maintaining lists of weapons, details on individual weapons and such is not notable, and is gamecruft. Previous relevant AfDs:

I will contact WikiProject Videogames shortly too regarding such redirects. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect any and all such articles. There are literally hundreds of sites to find out about these specific weapons and whatnot, and they have no encyclopedic value. They are plausible search terms, however, so a redirect is in order. It's important to set a standard for redirects of this sort. No redirects and no article might invite copy/paste articles from Wikias and such, which is even more undesireable. --Teancum (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern is that there isn't actually any relevant information in the series article, and thus it seems sort of odd to have a navigational aid to find it when it doesn't exist. --Taelus (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Redirects are unnecessary when the search function works just as well. They're not plausible things that people will type into the search box looking for an article on, and no relevant information exists in the redirected articles.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better as necessary redirects of plausible search items. No benefit to Wikipedia in not having these redirects, whereas clearly some of our readers do see some value in them. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The redirects with "list" in their titles can be potentially confusing for someone actually looking for a potential list of items of a common characteristic (in each case, a reader would be more likely to look for primary article first... and if not, a handy list of possibilities await via the search engine); the others should be deleted because there is no mention of any of them in the target article. Should someone wish to compile a sourced List of weapons in the Halo series article, then all of the nominees would have a valid target should they be mentioned in this new list article. But for now... not a sausage.147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A nobody. very plausible search terms. Ikip 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you make a decision one way or the other, without checking to see how many people have searched for these terms? If someone is searching for them, leave them be, if no one has in quite some time, no reason to keep them. Dream Focus 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of halo series weapons gets plenty of hits every month since it was created, although seldom over a hundred. And it was destroyed the same month it was made, in March of last year. So people are still earching for that. I click on "What links here" on that page, and don't see anything at all that would make people go there. People are searching for it in the search engine. The other list of weapons articles are probably the same. Need to consider making an article listing that. As it is, leave the redirects in place, since people are looking there. MA5C Assault Rifle on the other hand, has zero people looking for it, in any month I checked. No reason to keep it around. Do administrators or someone have a way to instantly check all the things listed? I'm thinking they need to scan every single redirect there is on Wikipedia, and those which have gotten zero hits ever, they can consider eliminating, but those who get dozens or hundreds a hit a month, leave be. That'd be the best way to do things. Dream Focus 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and probably recreate some of them as redirects because the content in their history is unreferenced and with low encyclopedic value. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there's no relevant information in the target article, a search page is a more helpful and informative result for the reader than being redirected to the game article. Jafeluv (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirects on specific weapons should stay, since they are appropriate redirects now that the List of Weapons articles are deleted. I have no particular opinion on the List of X redirects. ÷seresin 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Unreferenced article[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. We have far too many redirects of Unreferenced. "Article" is implied in all maintenance templates. Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Atypical naming scheme; I conjecture few template (redirects) exist with an "article" suffix. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Too many for what? What exactly is deleting this supposed to achieve? The tags that are used are very badly organised and inconsistent, and having pseudonyms that use a consistent naming scheme is extremely useful. The use of CamelCase and/or spaces is highly desirable. The idea that anyone should ever have to search for a tag is a really stupid idea; we have unbelievable levels of inconsistency, and the whole lot need rationalising and making consistent, or by adding every conceivable pseudonym. Compare this with {{unreferencedSection}} and {{unreferenced Section}} . You just haven't thought this through.- Wolfkeeper 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not implied in all maintenance templates. Many of the templates apply to only a section.- Wolfkeeper 14:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems quite useful to me. For example, a new user who isn't sure of all the naming conventions might type it. Not doing much harm. Probably a net positive, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Lord Spongefrog. This seems like a useful way of enabling as many people to tag articles that need references as possible, thus benefiting the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful redirect, and no possible reason to delete it. Dream Focus 05:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:UnreferencedArticle[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. We have far too many redirects of Unreferenced. "Article" is implied in all maintance templates. Magioladitis (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Atypical naming scheme; I conjecture few template (redirects) exist with an "article" suffix. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Too many for what? What exactly is deleting this supposed to achieve? The tags that are used are very badly organised and inconsistent, and having pseudonyms that use a consistent naming scheme is extremely useful. The use of CamelCase is highly desirable. The idea that anyone should ever have to search for a tag is a really stupid idea; we have unbelievable levels of inconsistency, and the whole lot need rationalising and making consistent, or by adding every conceivable pseudonym. Compare this with {{unreferencedSection}} and {{unreferenced Section}} . You just haven't thought this through.- Wolfkeeper 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simplifying redirects makes it easier for a lot of people to locate them, bots and semi-automated programms to work with these templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I said above, I think this would help those not familiar with templates, or Wikipedia in general. Seems pretty helpful. Not everyone has memorised all the issue tagging templates. IMHO, it's quite plausible, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This seems a very useful redirect per Lord Spongefrog. Thryduulf (talk)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Uncited quote[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily duplicative of existing Template:Cite quote   — Jeff G. ツ 06:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator. All redirects are of course duplicative. {{Cite quote}} is strangely named and its use under that name feels unnatural, for it is not a citation template for a quote (as one might otherwise expect based on the other templates whose names begin with "cite") but is in fact a template used to mark quotes that lack accompanying citations, which is to say "uncited quotes", hence the redirect. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a reasonable redirect. Personally I would have thought it would be the other way around, with "Cite quote" redirecting to "Uncited quote", as the latter makes more sense to me. --Taelus (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep People should not have to play guessing games when tagging. These kinds of deletes are ridiculous.- Wolfkeeper 14:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there is a "Preview" button. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jangda Porwal Samaj[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jangda Porwal Samaj claims it's a part of the Vaisya society. I had marked it earlier for CSD. An administrator had instead blanked out the page and redirected it to Vaishya. There is not a single reliable source available that can validate that Jangda Porwal Samaj has anything to do with the Vaishya group. A redirect is implausible. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with no prejudice to recreation once the target article contains relevant information. It is potentially confusing and misleading at the current time. --Taelus (talk) 13:31, 22 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/2010_January_22&oldid=1142527801"