Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2008

2007 Alabama Crimson Tide football season → 2007 Alabama Crimson Tide football team[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. In addition to being a possible search term, the redirect resulted from merge which means history needs to be kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to 2007 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. No pages are linked to this redirect. crassic![talk] 22:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Likely search term (similar in form to 2005 NFL season and cousins). Reason cited in nomination is not a valid one as it is permissible to have redirects with no incoming links. B.Wind (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

H-block (periodic table) → Group (periodic table)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, if we were to keep these, they should go to block (periodic table). But according to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/H-block, we don't need this concept at all. There is now no mention of the 'h-block' anywhere on Wikipedia; it is an entirely hypothetical concept with no sources/ The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to H engine as original target is now a redirect to the same target per AfD. B.Wind (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Delete as original proposed target has nothing to do with the periodic table. B.Wind (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Accidental classic → Star Wars (film series)[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to sleeper hit. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the "Accidental Classics" page redirects to "Star Wars (fim series)" which doesn't make any sense. What is the need for this redirect. I just think it should be deleted. Gman124 talk 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scleromochlia → Scleromochlus[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. Deletion reasons are valid concern and "ia" is not a likely typo for "us". -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The group Scleromochlia does not exist in any source and was coined by the editor. Therefore it is a novel synonym of the target topic. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foreseeable typo, making it a useful redirect. Keep B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per B.Wind. What's the harm? -Pete (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. The word Scleromochlia has never been used in any paper. It was also used by the creating author as a suborder for the genus Scleromochlus. The page was also only created to be a redirect to Scleromochlus. There is no point in this article as it was not meant as a typo, but a taxonomic grouping that has never been named. Mark t young (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is beside the point. The question is whether or not it is a useful redirect, and plausible typos lead to useful redirects. "Original research" has nothing to do with it. B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are you saying that it's utterly implausible that someone would mistakenly type the former, when meaning the latter? I don't know the subject matter, so it's possible I'm missing something, but it's hard for me to see how WP:NOR applies to a redirect. As long as the main article has the correct name and does not contain original research, I don't understand what the problem is. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The mistypo argument is irrelevant. If that is the only reason to keep this article then every page on wikipedia should have multiple articles with slightly different spellings to redirect to the respective "main page". All that is relevant is the notability of the article. As it is original research, i.e. a spelling that has never been used before, it hardly is. Therefore it is not a useful redirect. Mark t young (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me you have a misunderstanding about what redirects are and how we handle them. I don't see how notability could be applied to a redirect. Redirects are merely navigational aids, used to help readers of all backgrounds in finding what they're looking for. For instance, all the following redirect to Sacagawea: Sacajawea, Sakakawea, Sacajaweea, Sacagewea, Sacajewea, Sacagawean, Sacajewa, Sacawegea, Sakagawea. Some may have a historic basis, some may not. It doesn't matter. If somebody thought one of them might be entered by a poorly-informed reader, that's all the justification that's needed. Any significant issue about common or uncommon misspellings can be dealt with within the article if necessary.
  • (See WP:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? "not" reason #5: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.") -Pete (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The example you gave makes sense, as there is a historical basis (or spelling confusion) for the term. However, in this case there is not. The article created is a word that has never been used before, but that in itself is not the only reason I don't see the justification for keeping it. If you read the Scleromochlus article itself, the same author created an Order to place the genus within, that was Scleromochlia. That was original research, and was reverted. He then created the Scleromochlia article, and set up a redirect. Ergo, he never created the redirect not as a useful aid in case of a typo, but original research. This is why I support its deletion. Mark t young (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So it sounds to me like you're wanting to teach that one editor a lesson, rather than thinking of this in terms of how it affects the entire readership of the encyclopedia. (If it's not a common misspelling or typo, it's not going to affect much of anyone.) Is that accurate? -Pete (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well that is a rather radical interpretation of my support for deletion. I stated that I believe that articles pertaining to original research should be deleted. I fail to see what is wrong with that standpoint. I think you're accusations of "teaching" people a lesson, and not considering the "readership of the encyclopedia" are somewhat ridiculous, and once you have relected upon them I believe you will also. There is absolutely no need to become personal. Mark t young (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry I got it wrong, and not intending to get personal. I am truly struggling to understand what you're arguing for. The article has been deleted; what we're discussing here is whether or not to delete a redirect. The policy on no original research does apply to articles; it does not apply to redirects. I will not presume to make further attempts to interpret your words -- sorry that offended you -- but I don't see a valid, policy-based argument for deletion here. -Pete (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason is that keeping this in is a form of OR, that the author of this term will now say to his friends, "see, my taxonomic term was accepted in Wikipedia. " Now we don't accept or not accept taxonomic terms the way a taxonomist does, but just include what the literature supports, and we did reject using this term in an article because there was no support at all, but it can still look like that. Its the same as if I were to invent a nonsense word and redirected it to a real one. Would we keep it? DGG (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the sense in that. I'll let the matter drop and let you guys make a decision. -Pete (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Cooljuno411/docs/Archives/Michael Jackson → Michael Jackson[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. This is not a userpage. It's a user's subpage. Userpage redirecting is disruptive, but that doesn't apply here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user page can't be redirected to an article. David Pro (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a policy related to this? I would see a problem in the opposite direction, but can't see why user space -> main space would be a problem. -Pete (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is created when someone moves a completed article from personal userspace to article space. Deletion should be at the author's discretion as it is his/her space. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, userpages can redirect to the article space. It's only the other way around that we avoid. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Super Maria Sisters → Super Mario World[edit]

The result of the debate was One kept and one deleted. Super Maria Sisters kept and tagged as misspelling. Sujper Maria Sisters deleted as unlikely typo. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term.

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_27&oldid=1149992125"