Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 30, 2007

Xanthi Skoda → Skoda Xanthi F.C.[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An orphan article that redirects to a football team name. The article's name writes the team's two word name in reverse order Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A Googling suggests that the former is used with some frequency, and so it is altogether plausible that a reader might enter Xanthi Skoda when searching for its target. That a redirect has no incoming links, further, does not counsel its deletion; many unprintworthy redirects (including, as this, {{R from alternative name}}s), in fact, will quite properly have no incoming links but will nevertheless, consistent with one of the principal purposes of redirects, prove useful to a reader searching for an article. Joe 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's entirely reasonable that someone would get the words reversed. This is what redirects are for. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. Redirects should be orphans, so that is evidence that the system is working, rather than that it isn't. Abberley2 (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not strictly true that redirects should be orphaned; there are various circumstances (most prominently {{R with possibilities}}) in which it is best that links to redirects be preserved, and even where those circumstances are not present, it is generally advised that one not change links to redirects that are not broken. Your point, though, of course, is quite correct here. Joe 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Given → Axiom[edit]

The result of the debate was replace with soft redirect. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could equally well be hypothesis or assumption, but it's a definition, either way. Perhaps it could be a disambig, but I really don't see it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see this being recreated if deleted. There should be something at that title, though maybe not this. --Thinboy00 @920, i.e. 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axiom is definitely not precise. Soft redirect to wikt:given? –Pomte 02:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with the soft redirect to the wiktionary page. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a soft redirect seems the best solution here. --Thinboy00 @317, i.e. 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

(AAAS) → American Association for the Advancement of Science[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (G7). --- RockMFR 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created in error, sorry. RenniePet (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

With great power comes great responsibility → Spider-Man[edit]

The result of the debate was} delete. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and misleading redirect. David Pro (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Misleading, same goes for the one below.--Phoenix-wiki 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with great responsibility. --Thinboy00 @921, i.e. 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it misleading or unhelpful? I don't really think someone would search for that quote with anything other than Spiderman in mind. I (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term. Not misleading unless this quote originated and is known from another source. –Pomte 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Uncle Ben# "With great power comes great responsibility". I think that is the more approporate place since it dicussess the line in question. --67.71.79.81 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This particular wording is a minor variation of a phrase that has been used endlessly. See for example, Luke 12:48 (contemporary translation) and FDR's 1945 State of the Union address. Stan Lee's selection of the phrase followed. So, yes, many people could be looking for that phrase with many things other than Spider-Man in mind. Regardless, we are not WikiQuote. Rossami (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Spiderman doesn't own this phrase. The idea of pointing old proverbs at articles because they're the flavor of the week is ridiculous. My vote is Mock and delete - TheBilly (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant and spiderman-centric. Abberley2 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. David Pro (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • David, your opinion is clear from your nomination above. You are welcome to respond to the comments of others or to continue to add evidence in the discussion but please do not add explicit "delete" comments using the bolded bulleted format. It gives the impression that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually has to close this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete. Rossami is correct. —Encephalon 05:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

God does not play dice → Albert Einstein[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccesary. David Pro (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep Einstein did say that, I could see a soft redirect to Wikiquote... --Thinboy00 @923, i.e. 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Unsure of applicability of precedents/policy here, vote withdrawn. --Thinboy00 @108, i.e. 01:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term; associated primarily, if not only, with Einstein. –Pomte 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only because Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. (No objection to a soft-redirect, however.) Rossami (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Rossami. David Pro (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a very famous quote, but note that the article "4 score and 7 years ago" was deleted instead of being turned into a redirect, despite numerous votes to do so....although that was way back in 2005; a more primitive, brutish time. I don't know what the exact policy is, but my understanding is that, in general, redirects should be for things (LOTS OF) people will actually type in, and should point to real information. TheBilly (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations. Abberley2 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Abberley2. MikeHobday (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

State Controller → California State Controller[edit]

The result of the debate was retargeted to comptroller. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be just a page listing what a State Controller is in general, and it can list links to pages for all 50 State Controllers Yoda of Borg (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it should not redirect only to the one for California. I support the suggestion of the nominator. I (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Comptroller. There is nothing particularly special about State Controllers that is any different from all the other organizations and entities with that position. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rossami. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

☒ → Ballot box[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to tick (checkmark) for consistency with ☑. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. --Thinboy00 @919, i.e. 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I seriously doubt someone would type in that unicode (it is unicode right?) character and be looking for somewhere specific, i.e. ballot box. I (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe follow the precedent set by ☑→Tick (checkmark) and →→Arrow (symbol)? --Thinboy00 @116, i.e. 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is officially supposed to represent a ballot box, based on its unicode name. Not implausible as someone could copy and paste, or even type the symbol, or type ☒, to see what it signifies. Consider the scheme of User:Ruud Koot/Unicode. –Pomte 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't understand what the relevance of that link is to your point. Besides, who in their right mind charmaps a unicode character into a search box anyway, especially since Wikipedia is not a unicode table of reference? --Thinboy00 @311, i.e. 06:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't link it to strengthen my point, but it shows many symbols that should be redirects given that they have some meaning. Users don't have to charmap it; I forgot to type & for & above. Having this redirect doesn't make Wikipedia a table of reference for Unicode, though since Wikipedia is a source of reference it is reasonable that typing in something will lead you to its meaning. On that thought though, List of Unicode characters may also be a suitable target. –Pomte 06:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pomte. Abberley2 (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Thinboy00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeHobday (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tick (checkmark) calls ☑ "ballot box with check" and ☒ "ballot box with x." Therefore, ☒ should follow the example set by ☑ and redirect to Tick (checkmark), which also discusses crosses. --Thinboy00 @226, i.e. 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept it should point to List of Unicode characters, not to one possible interpretation of the symbol. —Encephalon 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pedo Bear → 4chan[edit]

The result of the debate was delete and salt for consistency with Pedobear. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pedobear" was salted. I don't see any purpose of this redirect. Cockmongler, Happy Negro, Pedobear and other similar 4chan memes are all non-notable and have zero reliable sources about them. Unencyclopedic redirect.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I believe Pedobear should be redirected to 4chan, but stay protected. I think it's very likely someone would search for popular 4chan memes. I believe the memes originated from the /b/ board, right? If so, there's a section on /b/ at the 4chan article that we could redirect memes to. I (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do we draw the line, though? Wikichan has documented huge numbers of 4chan memes, but all are non-notable in terms of reliable sources, and some are less known even within the 4chan community than others.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they obviousy aren't notable individually, otherwise they would be articles, not redirects. Redirects don't need to have notability by themselves, they just need to be a term that one would search for, and need to end up in a certain place (the redirect location). Things like Pedobear is, in my mind, clearly something someone would search for, and instead of getting nowhere, it would be best if they ended up in the /b/ section of the 4chan article. Where the line is drawn would indeed be difficult to establish, but I believe we can deal with them on a case by case basis. In this case, I see the Pedobear meme as deserving a redirect. I (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cockmongler is one of the most famous 4chan memes, and yet it'd still totally qualify for CSD G10 as an attack page even as a redirect, because it's about a picture of a living person that some people thought it would be funny to say that he "likes to mongle cocks". It's similar to the Brian Peppers case and is not the sort of thing Wikipedia should have within its content at all per WP:BLP. Happy Negro could be seen as a similar WP:BLP violation, although he is really a male porn star (non-notable and salted under his real (stage?) name) from the Bang Bus website. I guess that Pedobear is slightly different in that it does not concern a living person, but it's still pretty stupid. Thoughts?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there are no reliable sources that mention Pedobear, Cockmongler or Happy Negro (or LOL WUT or An Hero or any of the other 4chan memes) even to warrant them a mention within the article without straying into WP:OR.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't neccesarily say we should discuss the memes. Merely have prevalent ones exist as redirects. I (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Prevalent" is completely subjective in this case. Whilst I'd agree that Pedobear appears to be one of the most prominent 4chan memes, I think that if we were to ask Jimbo, he'd disapprove of every single one of these redirects, and I agree with him, primarily because there are no reliable sources documenting that Pedobear, Cockmongler or Happy Negro even exist, which doesn't even warrant them a mention anywhere in the the 4chan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, they still fall within the scope of WP:NFT, even if they are well-known within a certain community. Wikipedia is an anomaly within Web 2.0 in that it doesn't allow you to promote yourself or your own ideas, unlike YouTube and MySpace.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←WP:JIMBOSAID. We do not need verification for redirects; the justification for redirects is a subjective one: whether or not the search term would legitimately need to redirect the reader to target. There are no sources needed here, only the subjective opinion of editors on whether or not the redirect is one that would be used. And you seem to keep implying I support mentioning these in the 4chan article. I am not. Merely having them as a target location for the search terms. I (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we can't reach consensus together, let's wait for a third opinion on this one. :) -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the decision here, it should be consistent with the status of pedobear; this shouldn't be a redirect while pedobear remains salted. Someone searching for pedobear probably knows about 4chan anyway, though I have observed that some communities are completely ignorant of where most memes come from. On the other hand, 4chan can't mention it yet, so it's not really informative either. Overall it's not a big deal being deleted; /b/tards aren't crying over it and others aren't missing out. –Pomte 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bullets 3 and 5 of WP:RFD#KEEP. It's very plausible that somebody would hear about pedo bear and search Wikipedia for it. Chances are pointing them to the /b/ section of the 4chan article will tell them all they need to know. Notability, verifiability, et al do not apply to redirects like they do articles. - Koweja (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree more with Pomte.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A redirect to 4chan is not helpful since it can't be mentioned in the article, and contrary to popular belief, "/b/" is not self-explanatory. JuJube (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, redirects are a subjective choice about what search term a person would use, but they should land the searcher on a page with information. The 4chan page will never have information on specific 4chan memes; they've been repeatedly deleted (when they had their own page) and removed (when added to that article). Redirects don't associate terms together, they point you to encyclopedic information TheBilly (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not sure about the redirect (personally I think the information should be probably somewhere here, but if it is deleted on sight, there is no point in keeping the redirect), but whatever the result, please, apply it also to Pedo bear (I have created Pedo Bear as an alternate version of that title.) --Mormegil (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Pomte. --Thinboy00 @229, i.e. 04:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN neologism, or Redirect to pedophilia 70.51.10.115 (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This is not a search term that would be used by readers searching for information on 4chan. — Satori Son 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if pedobear were a valid redirect (and I don't think so, most poeple will hear of it form 4chan and will therefore know where it came from), the two-word variant is an unlikely search term. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (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_December_30&oldid=1054172442"