Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 10[edit]

9/11 Conspiracy Movement → 9/11 Truth Movement[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. No one (other than the mover) calls it that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An unlikely search term. I have done a lot of reading on the topic, and not once have I heard the 9/11 Truth Movement referred to as the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have heard the term "conspiracy movement" used amongst skeptic circles and actually use it myself, but it is not something that is likely to be searched for and has pejorative overtones. -- Qarnos 07:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely search term, name possibly chosen to make a point. Tom Harrison Talk 16:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — it was created as the reversion of a unsupported move. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As previously hinted, this search term is likely to have been chosen to make a point. If not, it is still inaccurate or debatable. --ShurizenVenra 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Worlds first aircraft production line → Royal Aero Club[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R is a description of the target article, but is not really a shortcut. Pilotboi / talk / contribs 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many phrase redirects (for example motherfucking snakes, and A house divided against itself cannot stand), so I see no reason why this can't be here. How is description any different than phrase? Oh sorry about that, I'm going too far in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I can't help it. TheBlazikenMaster 20:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, ok ok, you can keep it. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an Easter egg in redirect form; anyone who wants to link like this should be using "...the worlds first aircraft production line (see Royal Aero Club) was blah blah..." It may be possible to keep the redirect by retargeting it, which would be good, but I'd prefer it be deleted before I would have it kept pointing at Royal Aero Club. It's too confusing as it is. Possible targets include Short Brothers (the actual company that laid down the production line mentioned in the RAeC article), list of aircraft manufacturers, and aerospace manufacturer. The decision that must be made is whether a worlds first redirect should point at the thing that was the first or at the article discussing those things in general. It is worth noting there are three other world[']s first redirects: world's first diamond cricket ball → cricket ball, world's first opera → Dafne, and world's first university → ancient university. The first just directs to the general cricket ball article. The second redirects to the entity that is the first opera. The third doesn't actually make sense as far as I can tell, since it neither discusses a the general topic of universities nor does it discuss the first university. From all this, I'd say there isn't any precedent for these "trophy" redirects. BigNate37(T) 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ... I can just imagine the edit wars that could result in trying to create certain "world's first" redirects and its better to set a precedent against them. Also, "worlds" should be "world's", so this is also a redirect from an error. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meatspin → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Per WP:DPR#RFD, I will move the page's history to Talk:Shock site/Meatspin so that it is preserved for GFDL purposes should the merged content be restored at some future point. WjBscribe 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with Last Measure that I nominated yesterday, Meatspin is not mentioned at shock site and there is no reasonable expectation that it meets either notability or verifiability. At this point it is one of a series of redirects that seem to cause confusion when editors get redirected to Shock site and don't actually find any information about the term that redirected them there. I'd say it is a fairly useless redirect and should be deleted at this point.--Isotope23 talk 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the redirect is a reference to www.meatspin.com; I would think twice before visting that url, though... --Aarktica 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—there are essentially two states in which this redirect can exist with minimum drama: a protected deleted (salted) page, or a protected redirect. No chance for recreation should be allowed. If outright deletion is a result, make sure to salt.
  • Now, in response to the nominator: since redirects imply equivalence or type-of relationships, I don't think that people would get confused by the redirect. It's a reasonable inference, but I don't think it's true. WP:V is a more significant facet (WP:N doesn't really apply).
  • They imply that relationship, but that isn't quantified or explained in any way when someone gets to Shock site from a Meatspin redir. To me, unless a redirect is a spelling error, I like to find something about the topic when I get redirected to another article.--Isotope23 talk 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and I should add, given the number of comments at Talk:Shock site asking why Meatspin redirects there and it isn't mentioned I'd say it is a reasonable expectation that one would find a topic in an article they are redirected to.--Isotope23 talk 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Well, I don't feel strongly either way, but given those comments, delete and add to WP:PT seems like a fair course of action. (Although I'm not sure about the GFDL). This discussion may require relisting for sufficient consensus... GracenotesT § 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Busan Disneyland Resort → Busan[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect; there is no Disneyland Resort in Busan at all, with the nearest one in Tokyo. Resurgent insurgent 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

RC Patrol → Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, rarely used cross-namespace redirect. We have WP:RCP, WP:RCPATROL, etc. Melsaran 11:03, 10 August 2007 (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/2007_August_10&oldid=1136083918"