Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 28

< June 27

June 29 >

June 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2008

Starcraft 3 → Starcraft II

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent video game. Babedacus (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a common error that blizzard's next game is starcraft 3, since they have warcraft 3. According to this link: http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Starcraft_3 , the redirect has been used 460 times last month. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and because this redirect really doesn't make sense (if someone searches for information on 'Starcraft 3', why would they want to be sent to the page on Starcraft 2?). Terraxos (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Because what they are really searching for is the next version of starcraft. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep common error as some may see StarCraft: Ghost as StarCraft II, and when in doubt about the name of "the new StarCraft game", may type in StarCraft 3. The usage statistics above prove this point. User:Krator (t c) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Also Blizzard announced Diablo 3, combined with warcraft 3, adds to the minor number confusion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Jimbo's bimbos → Bomis

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned, no edit history, borderline inflammatory and not supported by any search I made for prior usage anywhere, especially related to Bomis let alone Jimbo. Veritable mess lying around in Special:Allpages/Jimbo linked to by Jimbo BigBlueFish (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Jim Bohannon has Jimbo's Bimbos, and is certainly more widely known, considering the decades of radio work. 70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, this has been deleted before, apparently for the exact same reason. Speedy G4 if possible. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under G4 or G10. Maybe retarget per above if some evidence of use in that way can be shown. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy-delete again. Rossami (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - another WP:POINT violation from two years ago by one of Wikipedia's most prolific - and most controversial - former editors. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Dutch Acadie → Dutch Occupation of Acadia

The result of the debate was Keep for convenience and continuity. Tikiwont (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

as mentioned in talk:Dutch Acadie, this is neologism that is not used outside of Wikipedia mirrors and sites that use Wikipedia as a source for Dutch Acadie. (all 4 of them). 70.51.9.241 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Although it is a bad neologism of a title, which is why the article was originally moved to its current title in the first place, GFDL generally requires us to keep the original title in place in order to preserve the edit history. There are a few circumstances where you can get away with deleting the original article title, but generally only in extreme cases where the original title is actually libellous. This isn't one of them. Although I still don't believe that the event actually needs a separate article from the one on Jurriaen Aernoutsz, because it's such a minor and essentially trivial bit of history that only needs one article, as long as the articles are separate GFDL requires us to keep this particular redirect in place. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the redirect in question doesn't have an edit history because it was left behind by a pagemove. No GFDL problems here. However, redirects are cheap, and isn't the target what somebody who entered "Dutch Acadie" would looking for? It made enough sense to one user to start an article under that title. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not really, considering that "Acadie" is French but "Dutch" is not. Since Dutch is English, it should be Dutch Acadia, Acadia being the English term for "Acadie". If we were doing it French-style, it might be Acadie Hollandais. The original author of the article turned up a picture that called the territory "Nova Hollandia" (and it's an English sign, not a Dutch sign) within a day of writing the initial draft. If we were writing the title in Dutch, it might be Nederlands Acadia or Holland Acadia. So, I don't think it's likely someone would write it that way, unless they're going to mix English and French for a Dutch territory. 70.51.11.91 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're misunderstanding me. The redirect is the title at which the article was originally created, and therefore per GFDL it has to be kept — not because it has a distinct edit history of its own, but because it's part of the moved article's edit history. Outside of very extenuating circumstances (e.g. if the original title is libellous, nonsense or vandalism) that this case doesn't meet, GFDL does require us to keep redirects that result from page moves. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The GFDL does not require us to keep redirects that result from page moves. The GFDL requires us to keep the history and that history, including the page move, is maintained at Dutch Occupation of Acadia. The only times redirects would need to be kept (or a history merge performed) would be in cases of copy-n-paste moves or moves that occurred prior to the Wikipedia software documenting the move in the target history. Neither of those cases apply here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because it documents the pagemove. As Bearcat said, GFDL applies to page titles, too. It also helps point the editors and readers who found the page at the original title to the new title. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: No opinion on the redirect, but the claim that GFDL requires us to keep the redirect is incorrect. The GFDL requirements are satisfied by the history at Dutch Occupation of Acadia. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While technically true that GFDL can be satisfied for recent moves solely by the target page's history record, it can require a fair degree of expertise and a great deal of effort to reverse-engineer the page titles and contributions just from the history of the target pages. The existence of the redirect makes finding the previous title (and if there are more than one previous titles, sorting them out) a lot easier. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It does not "require a fair degree of expertise and a great deal of effort" to page through an article's history and see (moved Dutch Acadie to Dutch Occupation of Acadia: No such place as Dutch Acadie). Keeping such redirects as a convenience is fine with me and fully in keeping with 2-5 of WP:RFD#KEEP. However, citing GFDL as a need to keep them is a red herring. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • You are correct that it doesn't require that much effort on this short and relatively new page. It can be quite difficult and confusing for older pages which have had thousands of edits and been moved multiple times. Your original comment about GFDL seemed to be a more general comment than a specific statement about this particular case. I was attempting also to respond to the general question of the utility of redirects resulting from pagemoves (hence my use of "can require" rather than "does require"). I will try to be more clear in the future. Rossami (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Given that no one with any revelant history on the matter (or maybe a french person who speaks broken english) would search it, it probably should be removed although the history of the dicussion is important. If nothing changes in regards than it should be removed, if so, than it should not. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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