Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 23, 2008

HHO → Oxyhydrogen[edit]

The result of the debate was Disambiguate. Tikiwont (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this was tagged for deletion and then never listed here. I don't have any opinion on the matter. Gurch (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fuck face → Billy Ripken[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 13:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While google does come up with Billy Ripken as a possible search of Fuck face, it seemed like 99% of the rest of the hits were immature people posting online. It seems highly unlikely to me that this would be a possible search term for Billy Ripken. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops! You put it in categories for discussion, not redirects for discussion. Moved. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has to do with this baseball card. Billy snuck "Fuck Face" onto the bottom of the bat, and it got printed. Neutral on the redirect itself, could be seen as an attack, but that's why it's there. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting situation. I'm leaning towards keep. Even without the redirect, the connection seems to have already been well established, so it's not the same as other BLP concerns. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 03:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Connection seems established and as it is relatively harmless, it's good to see this title having a target so any future abuse will be easier to detect. __meco (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with meco that it's harmless. And it appears to be working; the redirect has been vandalized only once in the 20 months of its existence, redirecting to Totse (which may have something to do with some Totse member). As for search results, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and Google results. Here's what I saw:
    • [ fuck face ] I'm Feeling Lucky → Ripken at Snopes.com
    • [ baseball fuck face ] → 8 out of 10 on the first page are Ripken
    • [ fuck face card ] → 8 out of 10 on the first page are Ripken
  • But right now, Fuckface points to Fuck. Should these point to the same place? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm neutral as to whether to keep it as is, or to retarget to Fuck. Either one seems sufficient. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Somebody is very unlikely to search for Billy Ripkin with the term 'fuck face'. This could also be taken as an attack on Mr. Ripkin. I know I wouldn't be too happy if 'fuck face' forwarded to an article about me. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not it's an attack depends on how the words got onto the bottom of the bat in the first place. I seem to remember one of William Poundstone's Big Secrets books putting forth two hypotheses about "Fuck Face" on the Ripken card: one that he did it, and the other that a teammate pulled a prank on him. In the first case, it's not an attack. In the second, it would neutrally document a verifiable attack. I'll go dig up the page number if you want. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found it: Amazon.com has the index of Poundstone's Biggest Secrets on "Look Inside". Page 155 discusses Ripken. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify: The redirect and the target form a loose association between each other. One could always search for the phrase if they are indeed looking for the article about the base ball player. The redirect should instead connect Fuck (similar to Fuckface). +mt 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone who types in the term may be looking for info on the card, which is given in the article. It certainly seems like a better target than the rather generic "fuck"...better to point towards a specific refrence. And who knows, some 8 year old looking for a giggle might learn something new to tell his parents while entering random swears into the search box ("Dad, did you know some guy has "Fuck Face" on his baseball card? I saw it on Wikipedia"...Hmmmm...maybe not). --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to Billy Ripken#1989 baseball card. Then the reason for the redirect is readily apparent upon landing. I think I'll be bold here... 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Humanprod → Taser[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism originally created as POV stub. Flatscan (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google results: humanprod 0 relevant of 22 total ignoring WP results of the page itself and this discussion; "human prod" 0 relevant in first 100; Taser "human prod" a few relevant (forum posts) of 59 total
  • Originally created as a stub POV fork by an editor who contributed only to that article, redirected by another editor within an hour of creation; all incoming links related to RfD nom. Flatscan (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Per above. Originally created as what appears to be a POV fork. However, there are sources that refer to the Taser as a Humanprod. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term given its obscurity. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: non-notable (nonexistent?) neologism, extremely unlikely search term. Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tubgirl → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page that it redirects to has nothing to do with tubgirl! frogger3140 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Tubgirl is a shock site. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It once had a section for tubgirl, but it seems it was removed. Regardless, the redirect makes sense to me. In the event someone ever does find sources for the info, it would probably be a good idea for them to be directed to Shock site and start it out as a section of that article. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precedent appears to point toward deletion. Case in point: NEDM, which redirected at times to YTMND and at times to Coburn (band) but was deleted when it became clear that there was no verifiable text in either of those articles to which the redirect could point. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the time I created the redirect, shock site contained information about Tubgirl. -- I need a name (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: looking at the Shock site article, there is a section for tubgirl.com. -Brougham96 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if and only if Iamcuriousblue's re-addition of Tubgirl to Shock site doesn't get reverted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If content was merged to the shock site article, keep to ensure our compliance with GFDL regardless of whether the content addition is reverted. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the section stays on Shock site ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Western media → News media (United States)[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this redirect to be culturally offensive, plain and simple meco (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Offensive or not, this is just plain wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3: Pure vandalism. --frogger3140 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not appear to be vandalism... I'm confused by your statement. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I also can hardly see that this has to do with vandalism. Merely an ill-judged target select. __meco (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not vandalism, but it is indeed incorrect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Western media should not redirect to the US. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first version of this page was a POV rant (which could plausibly be considered a form of vandalism). Rather than properly deleting that first rant, the page was overwritten with a redirect. The redirect itself seems neither offensive nor vandalism but it is technically incorrect. And while that is not automatically a justification to delete a redirect, I can find no useful purpose to the redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Un-encyclopedic. -Brougham96 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is generally a bad idea to redirect a more general term to a very specific one, regardless of POV implications. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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_August_23&oldid=1142588202"