Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 2

August 2[edit]

Look at the silly monkey → Chewbacca defense[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Non-admin closure of a nearly unanimous result. Shalom ^Hello 01:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a one line joke from the second season of South Park which redirects to an article about a joke from the same episode. I think it's a very unlikely search term. Article author claims it's an Internet meme. I don't think we need Wikipedia articles/redirects for every line from South park or every so-called "Internet meme." --Pixelface 21:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (grudging author): The criterion R3 is for fundamentally implausible search terms. This clearly isn't, because it is quoted in its own right (Google results for "Look at the silly monkey"), primarily as an irreverent corollary to the so-called Chewbacca defense itself. What you think the priorities of Wikipedia are might well be somewhat irrelevant, given the hundreds of entries in Category:Internet memes. Might it also be considered useful to note that the redirect target is well on its way to surviving its fourth AfD debate, which was initiated by the same user that has now twice instigated (and once effected) the deletion of this redirect. Bastin 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- What the speedy deletion criterion R3 is for is irrelevant, because this hasn't been marked as speedy deletion per R3. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is discussed in the target article, and it's not a plausible search term for anything else. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - exclusive to article it targets, so people who type that in are most likely to be searching for that. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gavia Immer. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hurricane 12 → Unnamed Hurricane (1975)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hurricanes that were the twelfth of the season. I find it very unlikely someone searching for the unnamed hurricane would type in Hurricane 12 alone. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hurricane 13,14 etc. don't exist. Is that for a reason? Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason the Hurricane 12 exists is because the article was originally at Hurricane 12, then it was moved to Hurricane 12 (1975). The redirect has remained, unfortunately, because of the original move. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading. Like the nominator pointed out, there are more hurricanes that could be called "Hurricane 12". Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:S-nob → Template:S-reg[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this to RFD because it was nominated for deletion via the speedy path by User:KuatofKDY and it does not, I believe, qualify for speedy deletion. Therefore, my nomination here is an administrative matter and I tender no opinion on the fate of the redirect. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - The template should never have been created and is completely redundant with Template:s-reg to which all the original articles that linked here have been moved. This template was created as part of a proposal a while ago but never caught as much attention as the latter template.
–Whale y land ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was a duplicate template later merged or simply redirected to its current target, then a good reason to keep the redirect is to prevent this from happening again in the future. Redirects like these are the best way to stay aware of whether duplicate content has popped up. BigNate37_(T) 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – No, we are monitoring all these templates (keeps and deletes) and if it survives, it will make it harder for us to monitor it. Keeping it deleted will tell us if it suddenly returns.–Whaleyland
  - You have a point, if you keep a list of links then a redlink turning blue is an easier way to see that the template was recreated. However, the redirect still prevents duplication because a would-be creator would find a redirect to the proper template rather than believe it does not exist. BigNate37_(T) 06:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Deletion and protection of the deleted title might be a way to go; consider Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages ... or alternatively keep the redirect and protect it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Even if it is recreated, it could then be speedily deleted based on the deletion decision taken here (if, of course, things go that way) and could then be protected as a measure against further recreations. - Waltham
Keep per BigNate. S-nob seems to be a valid name for the template (it makes sense at least, "nobility"), so I see no reason to delete this redirect. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes it is, but there is already another template that is in use much more than s-nob, and we never liked the similarity to snob in the title. It is for those reasons that we are trying to delete this template.–Whaleyland
- Comment: In addition, editors are not supposed to just make guesses about the templates they are going to use, and thus will consult the existing lists and documentation pages. If there is a template doing a certain job, it shall be hardly necessary to create another one, even if the name is not the most downright suggestive for the purpose, right? - Waltham
Delete Redundant template that is used nowhere, is rather unlikely to be recreated if deleted (as I shall analyse below) and the function of which is fully covered by another, well-documented template (s-reg).
All succession templates are covered by the WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS) and clear documentation and instruction pages exist (see Template:S-start and the project's guidelines page); if one desires to learn how to create succession boxes one is bound to be redirected, sooner or later, to one of these pages from the individual template pages, and one shall find proper analyses of s-reg but no mention whatsoever of s-nob. Besides, as I have said above, people are not supposed to be making guesses when it comes to template names. They are going to look the names up. And they shall not find any s-nob if it is deleted, shall they? Nor shall they attempt to create it whilst more or less unfamiliar with the succession template system (in any event, the editors more experienced in this field will know about s-reg anyway). Waltham, The Duke of 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voss Street → Vossstrasse[edit]

The result of the debate was keep because the redirect and the target are logically connected. The target is changed to Voßstraße. Non-admin closure of a clear consensus. Shalom ^Hello 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonserious redirect created as WP:Point during move discussion. (See the only link to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well it seems that the redirect was created as 'Redirect to article' and the target then updated to Voßstraße where the article currently is.[1] This doesn't look so strange to me. So I neither understand why you changed back the target and nominated it in one step?[2] nor what according to you the actual problem with redirecting to Voßstraße would be. --Tikiwont 08:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - most people on the english wikipedia will not have the Eszett on their keyboard, but how often is the page visited? Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How often the page is visited shouldn't make any difference for the redirect. If the page isn't worth keeping, nominate it for deletion. For our purposes at RfD, let's assume the page is worth keeping (it is there, after all) and consider whether this redirect meets any of the reasons to keep or to delete at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect?. BigNate37_(T) 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, I believe that on a normal keyboard, ß can be created by pressing AltGr+S. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My 'normal' keyboard doesn't have AltGr. BigNate37_(T) 17:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on my understanding that the -strasse suffix in German indicates this is a street. Whether this usage is correct or not, it's easily feasible that someone would think to search voss street or Voss Street. (Wait, voss street exists separate from the nominated redirect... we should assume that one to follow the same fate as voss Street.) Furthermore, there is absolutely no chance someone could be looking for anything other than a street named Voss when searching this term. Unless we need to disambiguate between multiple streets named Voss, this should redirect to Vossstrasse (or wherever that gets moved to). BigNate37_(T) 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a likely search term as "Straße" is German for "street". Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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