Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 24
January 24[edit]
Genesis-I → Genesis-1[edit]
The result of the debate was fixed. --- RockMFR 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Double redirect Spitwater 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Genesis Pathfinder → Genesis-1[edit]
The result of the debate was fixed. --- RockMFR 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Double redirect Spitwater 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Genesis 1 → Genesis-1[edit]
The result of the debate was fixed. --- RockMFR 21:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Double redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitwater (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.TeeRawk → Trevor McNevan[edit]
The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator Gavia immer (u|t) 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Unnecissary redirect, can't see how it relates to topic. Kamope · talk · contributions 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's his "rap name." [1] — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw - Sorry but I didn't know that it was his rap name. Kamope · talk · contributions 11:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Moonspeak → Japanese Language[edit]
The result of the debate was Deleted. Only 618 Ghits of which not all apply to this use. NN neologism. -- JLaTondre 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
creation edit summary admits it's a neologism, no links —Random8322007-01-24T02:22:30UTC(01/23 21:22EST) 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a neologism, but a notable one. Perhaps not verifiable enough to justify an article, but it is a widely used term from my experience. And at least verifiable enough to justify a redirect. —Dark•Shikari[T] 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- But it's also disparaging, and I don't buy it referring to Japanese specifically — and it's not mentioned in the target article. Random83220070125T024802UTC(01/24 21:48EST)
- What makes it disparaging? I have never ever seen it used as an insult, and I don't see how it could be used as such. —Dark•Shikari[T] 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it's unlikely that someone would put it in intending to look for Japanese, and if they put it in trying to figure out what it means, the lack of a mention in the target article is a problem —Random8322007-01-29 12:17 UTC (01/29 07:17 EST)
- Check the 4chan article. There are loads of redirects to it that are never mentioned in the article, mostly internet memes that originated there but were deemed not verifiable enough to have articles. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)