Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 12, 2008

List of number one singles (Philippines) → List of number one singles in the MYX Hit Chart[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. The harm of a factually incorrect redirect outweighs any usefulness. -- JLaTondre 00:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved List of number one singles (Philippines) to List of number one singles in the MYX Hit Chart for a couple of reasons: 1) There's no official music charts in the Philippines, aside probably to Tower Records charts shown in their record bars, and 2) The MYX Hit Chart isn't the sole authority on music charts in the Philippines. MYX Hit Chart is more in the vein of TRL. --Howard the Duck 11:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are automatically created by the pagemove tool for a reason. This page has a history of users who, when they return to the project, are going to think that their contribution disappeared and are likely going to recreate it, forking the current content. Redirects point those users to the correct page for their future contributions. Rossami (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the thing is should not redirect here. Nevertheless, the only article it links to is Singles that reached number 1 that is a double redirect. The other links are these RFD pages. As a matter of fact, "Singles that reached number 1" shouldn't even redirect to List of number one singles (Philippines), perhaps it should be redirected Record chart. --Howard the Duck 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1) A redirect is not an endorsement that the alternate title is somehow "correct". 2) The orphaned status of a redirect is also not a reason to delete. Remember that in a perfect world, all our redirects would be orphans. Retargetting may be entirely reasonable but deletion removes the pagehistory. That is not something we do lightly. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But a person will reach the article via the redirect and will most likely conclude that the target article = redirect when it isn't. It's like a redirect of List of number one singles (United States) to Total Request Live. Also, page history isn't at all lost since it's now on List of number one singles in the MYX Hit Chart so the concern of compliance to GFDL although legitimate is not that big of a deal. Also, as what I've been saying all along, it does create confusion, and according to WP:RFD#DELETE, "The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted." So since List of number one singles (Philippines) ≠ List of number one singles in the MYX Hit Chart, there is perfectly good reason for deletion, not to mention it's quite unlikely some one will search for "number 1 singles in the Philippines" for his project, then stumbles on the List of number one singles in the MYX Hit Chart, then he'll get a 0 for his project, which is bad for Wikipedia's reputation. --Howard the Duck 16:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your starting premise is not universally true. In some cases, redirects are made to support an alias but in most cases, redirects are made for administrative reasons. For example, a redirect from a typo is explicitly not an endorsement of the misspelling. Redirects have to be actively confusing before we remove them. That is, they have to be easily mistaken for something else (like the Adam Smith example). Redirects which don't have a better target or are not vandalism are not generally confusing to readers.
            If someone did manage to stumble across this redirect and made assumptions of equivalence without actually reading the material (which already makes it clear), he/she would deserve a 0 on the project. Redirects can not replace thought.
            In this case, you are correct that the contribution history has been moved to the pagehistory of the target page. That satisfies GFDL. That isn't the primary reason to keep the redirect in this case. The issue is that the original editors of the page are likely to have created their own notes about the page and will expect to find it at the title where they left it. If you delete the redirect, they will have no way to find the content. History shows us that they will either recreate it (forking the content and creating two bad articles) or get in a lather about "inappropriate deletions" of their content. In this case, the only people who are likely to find and follow the redirect are those early editors - the very people who need to know and clear up the title confusion that you're talking about. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If they recreate an article, I'll just inform them. Wikipedia shouldn't suffer for a few editors who can't get it right. --Howard the Duck 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's noble of you to offer but Wikipedia's not suffering. This is what redirects are for. Let the process work the way it's supposed to. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Should we wait for Wikipedia to suffer? After all, redirects are cheap. So cheap they can be deleted and recreated, there's nothing wrong with deleting redirects, especially this one. Preventing the deletion of a redirect for "a few editors" is silly. --Howard the Duck 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Redirects are cheap" is an argument to leave them alone, not to delete them. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • They're so cheap, they can be deleted. If they're deleted, they can be recreated, provided the target is really what should it be targeting. If an agency comes up with an official Philippines single chart, then screw the redirect, it should be a full-fledged article.
                    • Also, do you even know the subject of the redirect & target article? You must really know the Philippine music industry to insist that List of number one singles (Philippines) should even be associated List of number one singles in the MYX Hit Chart. Or maybe you're just an inclusionist, that explains it. Fill up Wikipedia with crap just because someone created it. --Howard the Duck 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. (There is actually NO singles chart in the Philippines that can be compared to the Billboard Hot 100) Starczamora (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. There are a lot of countdowns in the Philippines both in radio and television. Even Odyssey (the music store chain) has its own countdown. But each has its own number one, and finding the truest source is difficult, especially if the entire Philippines must be involved in the determining the ultra number one song. Furthermore, the Philippines has no counterpart of the Billboard chart. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. By itself, redirecting List of #1 in the Philippines to List of #1 Accdg. to Myx is just as bad because that list itself suffers from an obvious bias: because ABS-CBN also owns its own record label and radio station, there is a higher propensity for MYX's list to promote artists backed by ABS-CBN or Star Records (ABS's recording company) o those that are neutral or sympathetic to ABS---and exclude those from its strongest rival GMA-7 (which also owns a record label of its own, GMA Records). The MYX list also does not represent the true rankings of stations, as it bases its ranking on text votes alone (where there are no limits for texting multiple votes) and, for all I know, does not include actual airplay from various FM radio stations. For that matter, ABS-CBN and MYX do not represent the entire Philippine music scene, contrary to what it pretends to be. The rationale for keeping this redirect is spurious at best. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

One One Seven → Guild Wars (series)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source has nothing whatsoever to do with target. Eric Sandholm 06:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It was going to be deleted as spam, but I've redirected it because of something with the thing. —BoL 06:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Something with the thing"? You're babbling. Eric Sandholm 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Event is not mentioned in target as it's non-notable and lacks WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-From looking at the page history as well as some outside sources, "One One Seven" refers to some incident of game hacking, so its not totally nonsensical. However, I don't see this term as being widespread enough to require a redirect.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like an in-universe term. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

0.818182 → September 11, 2001 attacks and .818182 → September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do neither of these redirects link to any articles, ([1], [2]) but I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone is going to search for either 0.818182 or .818182 on Wikipedia intending to find the September 11, 2001 attacks. Not only that, but a Google search for both decimals, ([3], [4]) brings up nothing on the 9/11 attacks. So I request that both are deleted for these logical conclusions. Sorry to User:White Cat, but I do not understand your reasons for creating such redirects, and they seem a bit counterintuitive to me. 十八 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. However, I think I know why this particular decimal were chosen -- it's 9 divided by 11 or "9/11". Nobody would search for the decimal version, though; 9/11 already redirects to September 11, 2001 attacks, and if somebody is looking for the number "nine-elevenths" they probably don't expect to be redirected to September 11, 2001 attacks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Metropolitan90. On the exceedingly rare chance that someone actually seaches for the decimal equivalent of nine-elevenths (and happens to round to the arbitrarily chosen six decimal places), I highly doubt they're seeking September 11, 2001 attacks. Chaz Beckett 08:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose. When I created the redirect it felt like a good idea. Now doesn't feel so good. -- Cat chi? 10:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, pointless and pedantic.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even I really appreciated the humor. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

4chan party van → 4chan[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party Van and party van are salted. Consensus is that the memes from 4chan should not redirect to 4chan per precedents pedobear, cockmongler and happy negro.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this redirect, and at first it went to "Federal Bureau of Investigation". This was because that is what the "4chan party van" is slang for. I based my creation of the redirect on the fact that cocksucker redirects to oral sex. And on that basis, I think it should be changed back to redirect to "Federal Bureau of Investigation", and left that way. Quantum Burrito (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the term "4chan party van" means, but the general consensus regarding 4chan memes is that they should not even exist as redirects to 4chan - because it's a clear case of WP:NFT being violated. There are no reliable sources about these memes. It definitely should not redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia - and is not for jokes.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I resent that implication. I was not trying to make a joke, merely redirecting a slang term to its meaning, as is done with many other slang terms. I checked on Google, however, and you are right about there not being any reliable sources for the slang term. Unless the fact that the Google search turns up about 5000 people using the term counts as reliable. Quantum Burrito (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I for one think the previous precedents about pedobear are rather weak. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are easily speedily deleted. William Ortiz (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent with other 4chan meme redirects. Terraxos (talk) 02:20, 16 January 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_January_12&oldid=1080115451"