Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2008

Jo Biden → Joe Biden[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting one for discussion here. I've had to work on this to get the redirect into a proper format to bring it here. Relatively proficient newbie (first contribution about ten weeks ago) attempted to make a redirect page that pointed to a nonexistent target (Joseph Biden, Jr), then tried variances of the "to see... click ..." variety. I've cleaned it up, but think that it is unnecessary as it is a potentially confusing redirect (feminine name to masculine) and should be deleted. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep... "Jo" is a plausible typo for "Joe", and unless there's a notable "Jo Biden" to point it too, I don't see the harm in this redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible typo, at least not one that isn't immediately apparent to anyone and thus would happen purely accidental (and not out of the assumption that this is the actual spelling). Everyme 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap, plausible fat finger target. –xeno (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to believe this was created to try to feminize a male politician. A non-native speaker could easily make the mistake. Darkspots (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur that it's a reasonable fat-finger target. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, right now it's a plausible typo and isn't doing any harm - though obviously, should Joanna Biden ever become a bluelink then a retarget is in order. ~ mazca t | c 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easy to make error. -- how do you turn this on 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible typo. JASpencer (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Southport photography → Southport[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redir. Came about through cleanup of speedied articles which were only there as a coatrack for a vanity page with significant WP:COI issues. Also see User_talk:Fairhursta.
Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while there seem to be photographs at the target article, there is no mention of the word "photography", nor is there any indication of the importance or uniqueness of the art to Southport. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it has nothing to do with the target article. -- how do you turn this on 14:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bloody penalties → Freemasonry#Obligations[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete Lenticel (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. The term is used by critics (usually evangelical Christians) of Freemasonry to refer to its obligations, and for better or for worse we seem to allow POV redirs to a point, but Google shows about a 50/50 split between sites about Freemasonry that are clearly POV and are questionable for RS and English soccer fans complaining about how their team lost on "bloody penalties" again. The usage in the target article is one line sourced to the index page of Masonry on meta-religion.com (and does not contain the information claimed). Therefore, it's just a bit too vague and irrelevant for my liking, and seems much closer to meeting WP:R#DELETE than it does WP:R#KEEP. MSJapan (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Google search of "bloody penalties" (with quotations) yields about 1100 hits, none of which pointing to a source indicating an official definition of "bloody penalty" (more of them as soccer/football editorials on blogs than not). Oh, "bloody penalty" doesn't do much better: only 1140 hits (with almost all of them referring to sporting events), but there is a Google books entry[1] that refers to Euripedes discusses the "penalty for murder" with "words that translate literally into "bloody penalty" (Euripedies' Andromanche). Other sources use the phrase in a context that have no connection with Freemasonry (such as those discussing the death penalty or "eye for an eye" or the severing of a thief's hand). I'm torn between recommending a deletion or dabifying as the latter cannot account for the soccer references. No recommendation for now. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Disambig. A disambig would be fine, but it would have to be on a couple of watchlists. If it's a reference to a penalty in sports and would be a useful search term, then you can say that. A deletion would be a bit odd if the text appears in the article. JASpencer (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem in the sports context is that the term itself is "penalty" - in the case of "bloody penalty," it is not unlike someone muttering "bloody tourists" in a different context. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could it be disambiguated with links to capital punishment (explainign where the term comes from), the sports that uses penalties and Freemasonry (pointing out that the term is used by critics)? Just a stray thought... WegianWarrior (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (change from "no recommendation" above) - if "bloody penalty" meant a finite set of possibilities besides capital punishment and its ilk, then a stub article on the term and its uses, a pseudo-disambiguation page would be appropriate. But in its use of greatest frequency, the phrase "bloody penalty" does not have an objective definition - it refers to a penalty in a sport that the writer of the commentary, article, etc., which a source of a disagreement with the commentator. Thus "bloody" is simply an invective (the bloody tourists example I cited above would not have a Wikipedia article had 10cc not released an album by that name). Thus "bloody penalty" is too vague, ambiguous, and nebulous for a Wikipedia redirect, dab, or stub article. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Queensryche band members → Queensrÿche[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently some sort of aborted attempt at an article that simply copied material from the target. It is a very unlikely search term, because there is no reason to be searching for the band members as a group without simply typing in the band name alone. MSJapan (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, implausible search term, unnecessary redirect. ~ mazca t | c 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikelÿ search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - foreseeable search item (although not that probable: once I entered "Genesis band members" in the search engine without thinking), not worth creating from scratch, but not doing any harm. It certainly points to the appropriate article and causes no confusion, but it's not really worth a fuss one way or the other. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 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_September_29&oldid=1088202047"