Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 July 24

< July 23

July 25 >

24 July[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedied. — Jul. 24, '06 [19:19] <freak|talk>

''Argiope aetherea'' → Argiope aetherea[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''Esquerda Republicana Galega → Esquerda Republicana Galega[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''Mabo v Queensland'' → Mabo v Queensland[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''R3MIX'' → R3MIX[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''RPG World Online' → RPG World Online[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''RPG World Online'' → RPG World Online[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''Supernova'' by Lisa ''Left Eye'' Lopes → Supernova (album)[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''The Socialist'' → The Socialist[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''Three Drives'' → Three Drives[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'' ride the rail '' → Riding the rail[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''idigit design'' → idigit design[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''mode2'' → Optical disc recording modes[edit]

Malformed article name using two single quotes Gavia immer 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Encyclopedia Of Stupid → Wikipedia:Parodies/Encyclopedia Of Stupid[edit]

The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted per CSD G6. --Cyde↔Weys 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossnamespace redirect leads to article that looks a lot like a main-space article except that it has licence to violate all of our policies. Wikipedia:BrianPeppers anyone? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect is a result of a pagemove after an afd. Not needed. --Zoz (t) 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways[edit]

The nominated redirect was kept. As the keep votes and reasonings behind them far outweigh the deletes, there is no reason to keep this open. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV consensus determined that the previous "Speedy Keep" closure of an RfD on this redirect was improper. Please consider anew. Note that I abstain (very rare for RfD), so if no one comments here, the default result should be keep. Xoloz 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, obvious speedy keep. —freak(talk) 15:09, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)
Concur. Obvious speedy keep. Waste of time taking this to deletion review and waste of time relisting. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No incoming links, unlikely spelling, no useful history. What purpose does this serve? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nominating (oh, and describing that as a "consensus" is surely stretching the point: how many people actually took part?). —Phil | Talk 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No incoming links is not a requirement. It is preferable that articles DON'T link to redirects. Viridae ^Talk 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this is an "obvious speedy keep." I mean, it's not harmful but it seems like an unlikely search term, so it's good why? - brenneman ^{L} 07:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would surmise that the reason to keep would be to alert the would-be creator of the article that the subject matter is probably already covered elsewhere. In other words, "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely." Note that I abstain on this one, though I agree that the closure of the last RfD for this redirect was premature. BigNate37_T·C 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious speedy keep because there's absolutely no good reason to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No incoming links, unlikely spelling, no useful history. *cough* - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "unlikely spelling" means in this context. King's, Highway and Ontario all appear with their usual spelling. "No incoming links" and "no useful history" aren't reasons to delete, redirects are cheap. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious speedy keep? Terrible suggestion. Use weasel words or bold text if you want to be melodramatic, but speedying this through RfD (especially after it came back via DRV) is an entirely counterproductive suggestion. There are specific criteria for keeping redirects aside from "not having any criteria for deletion", and even if you can make a valid arguement based on those criteria then it does not warrant a speedy keep by default. For the love of God, stop closing RfDs early. I'd suggest scrolling up to WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?, scroll down a bit to the list of reasons why we might not delete the redirect in question, and make an arguement on some combination of 2, 3, and 5. Those seem to be the points with the most relevance here. BigNate37_T·C 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No argument for keep need be made. We need an argument to delete. I note that this redirect satisfies none of the conditions for deletion. It's an utterly fatuous, timewasting, mindless, robotic and transparently unjustified nomination. The target page appears in my google search as number six on "king's highway ontario". Removing this redirect would probably adversely affect that appropriate listing, if not remove it entirely. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have an arguement to delete. That's what an RfD is, if no discussion takes place at all the assumption is uncontested delete. Don't judge the RfD nomination's merits be pretending it wasn't made at all. Having said that, I understand where you are coming from with your keep nomination, and I agree with it to some extent. Still, there is no reason for a speedy keep. This was already closed early once and dragged through DRV; why do you want that to happen again? BigNate37_T·C 15:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the default on RFD is not delete in all circumstances. The default is delete only if the nomination reason is valid and no one has stepped forward to contest it. There is no nomination here, merely a process wankery mandated relisting, so the default would be to keep. --Cyde↔Weys 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mackensen (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why in the hell should we delete this?! Can anyone possibly dispute that highways in Ontario are called "King's Highways"?! --Cyde↔Weys 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the closure as 1) the {{rfd}} tag was never removed from the article so the closure wasn't done correctly and 2) this has been through DRV twice already. It doesn't hurt to let it run its course even though I doubt it will change the outcome. There is no sense in continuing the controversy with early closures of this. My opinion is 'keep. -- JLaTondre 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vacuum Cleaner Galaxy → Messier 109[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted, clearly not a real name. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unofficial galaxy name. Google search [1] reveals only one result, which says the name was suggested by Devon J. Moore on an unofficial list of galaxy names. This coincidentally happens to be the same as Hurricane Devon, creator of the redirect. Looks like vanity to me. Chaos syndrome 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Water, Wastewater → Ontario Clean Water Agency[edit]

The nominated redirect was speedily deleted as R1. Kusma (討論) 09:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Completely nonsensical redirect by User:WikiWoo, who has been creating some questionable articles lately about Ontario Public Works, but that's another story. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as implausible search term. I could see it becoming a redirect to Wastewater. We have Waste water which redirects to Wastewater, but I don't think this needs to redirect there too. BigNate37_T·C 05:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very improbable search term on its own, and the only link is from Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario which should really be a redlink, and that page is up on AfD anyway. Dgies 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

6346 → Qur'an[edit]

The nominated redirect was Speedy deleted, CSD G6. --Cyde↔Weys 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page was moved from 6346 to 6346 (number), which was later redirected to Qur'an. Later, the double-redirect was fixed. But there's no good reason for 6346 (the year) to redirect to Qur'an. –RHolton ≡– 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd love to see the logic behind the creation of this one. Dgies

You can get some idea of the logic by looking at the history of 6346 (number). Note: I'm not saying it's good logic.–RHolton ≡– 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disabled Owen → Disabled (poem)[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted, patently confusing, and implausible as a search term. —freak(talk) 17:03, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)

This article has been moved to a more sensible location. No value in keeping the redirect. HappyDog 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather ambiguous redirect. Viridae ^Talk 01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- NORTH ^talk 02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

NERUOK → Smooth Criminal[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy with the reason "Nobody would ever search for this. It appears to be a redirect based on a line in the song's chorus: "Annie, are you okay?"". That is not a speedy criterion, so I am listing this here. Delete anyway unless new evidence is found. Kusma (討論) 09:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, could be a plausible redirect in somebody's txt msgng unvrs, but Google only pulls up one reference. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nae'blis. --Zoz (t) 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nae'blis's evidence.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikibreak → Wikipedia:Wikiholiday[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted. —freak(talk) 16:55, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)

Originally nominated as PROD because it's one of those evil cross namespace redirects. However in this case I believe it should be KEPT because a: Wikibreak is a recognized term in Wikipedia that people may type in hoping to learn more about (i.e. thinking there may be an article on the subject) and b. People will NOT know to go to Wikipedia:Wikiholiday. I've never even heard the term Wikiholiday before today. An alternative might be to creat an actual Wikibreak article with a link therein to the Wikiholiday page. Until that's done, there should be a redirect. I am particularly citing points #3 and 5 under "Avoid deleting such redirects if..." under this section of the RFD mainpage. 23skidoo 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, does not cause confusion with encyclopedic content and is useful as per nom. Kusma (討論) 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a site-search for Wikibreak quickly reveals Wikipedia:Wikibreak, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikiholiday. There's no reason to pollute the encyclopedic content with "Wikibreak", which is itself not an encyclopedic topic. Namespaces were created for exactly this reason, to keep the encyclopedia separate from the Wikipedia-exclusive stuff. --Cyde↔Weys 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. Viridae ^Talk 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. jni 05:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can not be confused ans is useful as described by nom - addtionally - how do newcomers know that they should look at Wikipedia:Wikiholiday --Trödel 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Cyde's comment above about searching. -- JLaTondre 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read the comments - I still think that it is useful - until the current discussion re deleting all redirects out of the main space is finalized and possible software changes/new namespace is created. This redirect is no different that WP:V, WP:RS, What wikipedia is not, etc. --Trödel20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. -- JLaTondre 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should be on Wikipedia:Wikibreak and Wikipedia:Wikihollyday should be the redirect... Actually I think all the wikiwords are wikilame.--T-man, the wise 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. --WinHunter ^(talk) 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cyde. Rbraunwa 06:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross namespace redirect. Polonium 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alto flute → Western concert flute[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. A separate article like Bass flute might make sense, but until it's written the redirect provides more information than no article. There are a significant number of links using it. -- JLaTondre 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alto flute is not the same as the Westen concert flute, or C flute. It should be a redlink to encourage creation of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mets501 (talk • contribs) .

Could you perhaps write a stub article? /wangi 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologys - this was meant to be delete but I wrote keep. Too many votes that day. Viridae ^Talk 12:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lead of Western concert flute should perhaps be re-written to make it clear that it refers to a family of instruments, with the c-flute being the most common representative. The alto flute is already mentioned in the article, and it's hard to think of how much additional info could be added, alto-flute often has a curved head-joint, but the basic means of sound production is the same. Compare with the Trombone article which treats all forms of the instrument (alto, tenor, bass etc). David Underdown 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Waldort School → Waldorf Education[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misspelled name (Waldort), unnecessary page Hgilbert 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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