Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2009

Book the Twelfth (A Series of Unfortunate Events)/The Nameless Novel[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another ridiculously long and over-punctuated redirect that no one will ever search. "The Nameless Novel" was never the name of the novel anyhow. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This wasn't created by someone fishing around for redirects to create. This was once an article [[1]] back in the Dark Times when sub-pages were used in mainspace. The book got a name, the article got moved, a redirect got left, and then subpages in mainsapce went away making this look like a very silly redirect, which it actually wasn't. It's been 4 years, sure, but the redirect might still be useful somewhere out in cyberspace- not to mention the page history attached to this redirect is quite extensive. At worst, keep as harmless Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the book "got a name" does not excuse making a title up for it in the interim, though. This seems like the perpetuation of misinformation. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't but, I was explaining that this redirect didn't get created as a term to be searched for, it's a result of a change in how Wikipedia organizes itself from 3-4 years ago. We still get between 4 and 6 hits a month off this redirect, so it's linked from somewhere. Not many, I agree. Maybe even few enough to just delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google says nothing links to the redirect, deleting this will not cause linkrot. Four to six a month is consistent with unlinked articles, perhaps getting hits from Special:RandomRedirect or somesuch Josh Parris 08:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - subpages were deprecated long before 2005. This title would have been inappropriate at the time, and indeed the article was only at this title for five days. Warofdreams talk 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was about a website, not a book, and it appears to have been a duplicate of The Nameless Novel. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Nonetheless, The Nameless Novel already exists. Plus, the publishers' advertising campaign hardly seems notable. Also, any number of the books (other than the first two, published simultaneously) were nameless novels to readers until their titles were released. Delete as nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Act of war[edit]

The result of the discussion was leave it as it is. Ruslik_Zero 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for validation for a redirect change already conducted. The page Act of war was originally redirected to Casus belli. I redirected the link to the disambiguation page Acts of war. Likewise, the article Acts of War will soon be renamed and the redirect will point to the disambiguation page. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment act of war, acts of war, Acts of War, Act of War should all redirect to casus belli per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and the dab page should be moved to acts of war (disambiguation). 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • casus belli has never been identified as the primary topic (I suspect the Act of War video game franchise is high as well) and a number of article do contain Act(s) of War as their tittle. Redirecting all those links to a latin term seems inappropriate. I think the disambig. page is still the best way to go for this one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An act of war is an action that precipitates or causes a war, or is presented as a case for war, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbour, or the 9/11 attacks, and I would think is and will always been the primary meaning and usage, and the article for that is casus belli. And politicians always go on about what constitutes acts of war in their minds, such as when North Korea declared that any US search of their freighters would constitute an act of war, in the US attempt to embargo North Korea for ballistic missile shipments. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel so strongly about this one you could always put forward a request to move Acts of war to Acts of war (disambiguation) on WP:RM. Short of that, I'd suggest giving this term so continuity and directing similar version on the same term to the same place: the Acts of war disambig page.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

4skin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term. 4tune may favor the bold, but this redirect is too "bold". — The Man in Question (in question) 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, lest we set a precedent for similar redirects for every article that has "for", "fore", or "four" in the title. 4est, anyone? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this quite silly term. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Glueal region[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly typo for "Gluteal region", which is already an awkward search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judy Varghese[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably even a speedy delete for disparaging the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Don't think this qualifies for R3 speedy deletion, but may qualify as G3 (vandalism) or possibly even G10 (attack page). KuyaBriBriTalk 06:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking WP:G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tupid[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typos. — The Man in Question (in question) 02:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Idjit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Dabify. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a hoax (see history). — The Man in Question (in question) 02:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ifiot[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly typo. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

David lou[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, probably a speedy delete for disparaging the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion as R3 as it was not recently created, but may qualify as G3 (vandalism) or G10 (attack page). KuyaBriBriTalk 06:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking WP:G10. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Zeenaz[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Zeenaz and Keep Murgh. Ruslik_Zero 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marathi and Urdu words for "chicken" are hardly apt to be searched by someone who simply wants to read about chickens. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about Zeenaz, but the reason I created the redirect for murgh is that it came up in various Indian recipes, many of which freely switch back and forth between Hindi and English words for things. I have used the English Wikipedia for deciphering recipes on many occasions. Additionally, what is the harm of leaving it as it is? If it's an issue of competing namespace, that's a different matter (and disambiguation can always be considered as a solution), but I don't think that's the case here, is it? My vote is to just leave it unless you have a compelling reason to delete it. The likelihood of being searched is not a relevant criteria for me, btw.--Hraefen Talk 04:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as alternate language words for chicken. Plausable in EN.wiki? Maybe not, but what harm do they do? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zeenaz, neutral on Murgh due to relatively high traffic. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, redirects from alternate language translations should be used only when there is a direct connection between a topic and the language in question (e.g., München is a valid redirect to Munich, but Mond (currently a disambiguation page) would not be a valid redirect to Moon). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above to Delete Zeenaz for complete and utter lack of use, but what about retargetting Murgh to Butter chicken, the only real place in the wiki that the word is used? I'm with Black Falcon here that we should really only retain them when there's a good and direct connection (great analogy btw) so it seems like putting it to use at the butter chicken target might be most appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like retargeting to Butter chicken is a little misleading, given that butter chicken is murgh makhani. Metonymic redirects are a frightening prospect. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete chickens are not known by their Marathi and Urdu names except in India or Indian communities, unless someone can show WP:ENGVAR usage in India for them, they should be deleted. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If one does not know the English word for "chicken" and must search the Urdu or Marathi word for it, this strongly implies that they have a very low grasp of english. If that is the case, they are unlikely to find an English language article of any use. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bullamacow[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Bullamacow was a Samoan chief. Deleting this will encourage the creation of a proper article, if the chief is notable enough to deserve one. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Isobeef[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A website: http://isobeef.org/ — The Man in Question (in question) 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moovine[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moo Cow[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created as an article about a slang term. Current function is useless. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy Cows[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original purpose for this redirect has been altered, and now nothing really suits. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caterack[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caterack is the oldest recorded cat—which does not earn his name the right to redirect to Cat. Closer to Cataract than anything else, but even that's a stretch. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mrowie[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Very few pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

My Cat[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only circumstances under which I can imagine someone searching for this is if they are looking for tips on caring for their cat, in which case they should not be directed to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a guide. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cat/Lead photo[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages not part of Wikipedia mainspace policy. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well keep it. The genesis of the redirect, I believe, was so that Talk:Cat/Lead photo is not left as an orphaned talk-page. This matches things like Muhammad/images. As such, I see no real reason to delete this attache of an historical discussion, although admittedly there is theoretically the under-used {{G8-exempt}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page is treated as an archive (duh), so it won't really be affected. Delete away. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Special chicken[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nonsense. Apparently a 'special chicken' is something from World of Warcraft [2], but I don't see how on Earth a redirect to cat makes sense here. Delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Quick Cat Facts[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a suitable Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not made to answer such questions, anyway. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tiny puppy[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Land Seal[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not even Urban Dictionary will back this one up [3], and land whale? Onc eupon a time, according to theory [4], but that still doesn't make it a valid term to refer to a dog! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Duppie[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a term in use. Besides, according to Word Spy, a "duppie" is a "depressed urban professional". Whatever the case, redirecting to Puppy (or Dog, a blend of which two words it seems to be) is unhelpful and misleading. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_19&oldid=1140112198"