Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 28, 2009

"Mary Poppins" on Broadway[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A description, not a title + quotation marks. Implausible, unencyclopedic. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Look to Norway"-speech[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the quotation marks, hyphen, and lack of parentheses, an implausible search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful or needed. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"EntrezGene = 58155"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird cross-namespace redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Group" Definition and Development[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect written like a description instead of a title. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"George" P.S.W. Bulman[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical ordering of names. His name was Paul Ward Spencer "George" Bulman. In English a nickname is never put before the whole name in quotation marks. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though Wikipedia does not place nicknames first, it does not mean no one does, and it is common to place nicknames into quotations. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not proper English, nor is it similar to any proper form in English. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Proper English" and usage have little in common. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um…I cannot think how to reasonably respond to that nonsense. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's true, nicknames never come first. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"FF.SS."ndashCioè: "...che mi hai portato a fare sopra a Posillipo se non mi vuoi più bene?"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has "ndash" in the name. Seriously implausible. 0 mainspace links, 0 pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a typo to me. The creator likely was trying to replace the space-hyphen-space in the title with an en-dash. I moved it back to the original location, which left the redirect.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Edwin F. Russell[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a mistake to use only one quotation mark. Implausible. Regardless, quotation marks do not affect searches in the search box. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for simplification and reduction of clutter.MuffledThud (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"D" Is for DubbyndashThe Lustmord Dub Mixes[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has "ndash" in the name—seriously implausible. 0 mainspace links, 0 pageviews. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Commune" a documentary[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both do not follow any sort of Wikipedia standard, with the use of quotation marks and the use of the qualifying (documentary). — The Man in Question (in question) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Bakchha" Bhutan's first horror film[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bakchha is the name of Bhutan's first horror film, apparently. But to make a redirect of this sort—not to mention the quotation marks—is nonsensical and implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search terms. Not helpful. Cluttering of redirect lists that we try to keep organized. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

5th dimension[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget 5th dimension and Fifth dimension to Fifth_Dimension_(disambiguation) and Keep the rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are doing here. 4th and 5th dimension are very different to the first 3 in physics (see third paragraph of Fifth Dimension: "In physics, the fifth dimension is a hypothetical extra dimension beyond the usual three spatial dimensions and one time dimension of Relativity. The Kaluza-Klein theory used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with the electromagnetic force; e.g. Minkowski space and Maxwell's equations in vacuum can be embedded in a 5-dimensional Riemann curvature tensor."). I want the article "Fifth Dimension to be restored! --Turul2 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Although created by move, the only reference to the redirect source is in an unsourced sentence in the lede. In each case, the sentence is incorrect, as it conflates the nth dimension with an n-dimensional space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? This is the kind of thing that is so obvious you don't really need to source it. This is like adding "citation needed" to the lead of 25 (number). 4 = 2 + 2 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced inaccurate sentence in the lede, I should have said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although not acccurate they are the old names for the articles, so some readers may have the old names bookmarked or in their history and want to find them again. Someone someday will try and re-create the Sixth dimension. At least if there's a redirect there they will be fore-warned of the history of such endeavours and hopefully discouraged — or maybe inspired to create an article so good, on topics completely separate from Six-dimensional space, that it is kept. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I don't agree with the argument, I appreciate the reasoning. I expect less credible arguments from a certain 1-character editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The length of the username is no measure of its civility ;-). Keep, most people would probably type in "third dimension". They need to go to a page where they will probably find what they want, or a disambiguation page. 4 = 2 + 2 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And finally, did you know it is not possible to register such a username in the first place? I'm the same guy you met earlier at "Hexation" - I just changed my username. 4 = 2 + 2 02:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And, for that matter, its common sense in arguments. 4 = 2 + 2 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget to Dimension or Retarget to some more appropriate place if one exists (I'm Neutral as to which option). The "nth dimension" terms (with just about any number) come up frequently in films and science fiction literature, so regardless of the accuracy of the terms, curious readers deserve some sort of explanation. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or create disambiguation pages. IMO, the real questions are if it takes a large percentage of readers to what they are trying to learn about and if the search term is substantially related to the desired search result. I think the answer to both is yes. A substantial percentage of people searching "fifth dimension" are obviously looking for information on "five-dimensional space", and in fact it's quite possible that a majority of ordinary people would probably use the former term when they're actually searching for the latter. And obviously if the pages used to be named this, there's a problem. Deleting these would not be helpful to ordinary readers who are visiting the page to learn about it to begin with. Either keep or change the redirect to created disambiguation pages that clarifies the intended search by the user. I don't agree with redirecting to dimension, because the fact that the user input something like "fifth dimension" in to begin with suggests that they were looking for something very specific, and most likely they were looking for "five-dimensional space." And as far as I can tell, the dimension page doesn't even talk specifically about any fifth dimension at all. So how is that useful? ====> Question: What are most ordinary persons looking for when they search for "fifth dimension" and how can we best get them to the information that they're after? YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to reply to The Man in Question's comment, but you've just said everything I was going to say. 4 = 2 + 2 03:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it seems more likely that people looking for "fifth dimension" are looking for the band. As there's nothing that is or could be relevant to what these people might be looking for in the target article, the redirect should at least be retargeted. A DAB might be suitable if there were more than one marginally suitable target article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OOPS, it appears I was wrong. There is something in the target article. It should be split out and returned to this article (Fifth dimension), as the concepts are only loosely related, ignoring the second sentence of the lede which is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a disambiguation page: Fifth_Dimension_(disambiguation) (!) --Turul2 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- people looking for the band may ask: "What does the name mean?" --Turul2 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1st dimension[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget First dimension to Dimension and Keep the rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Not the obvious targets. Note that the numerical ordinal numbers don't redirect to the same place as the words. Occasionally, a clearly inappropriate article about n-dimensional space is also included. As an alternative, create protected redirects to dimension from all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dimension. These "nth dimension" terms come up frequently in films and science fiction literature, and curious readers deserve some sort of explanation. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would only agree with "protected" redirects to a page if it clearly results in taking almost everyone where they wanted to go. That would be the only justification, in my opinion. I'm not convinced that's the case here. What would be helpful are disambiguation pages that guide the user to what they are trying to search for. I don't think that redirecting everyone searching for nth dimension to the dimension page is a good idea at all. For one thing, as I mentioned above, I think it's quite possible that perhaps a majority of people searching for "five-dimensional space" would nonetheless input "fifth dimension" instead, and then never get the information they wanted to begin with, as the dimension page doesn't tell them the specific information they were trying to find out. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless "dimension" had sections on every dimension, which would result in a severely bloated article. I'm not sure that's what would be wanted. 4 = 2 + 2 04:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirects, they originally pointed there. --4 = 2 + 2 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dimension or a similar target. I strongly oppose the current redirects. They are inconsistent and give the wrong impression that spacial dimensions are privileged. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, but most people searching for "third dimension" are looking for depth. Ditto for "first dimension" (they're looking for length) and "second dimension" (they probably want width, but that would create a double redirecct). I have made the current redirects consistent. Spacial dimensions are not privileged, yes, but we want users to get to the page they want. 4 = 2 + 2 03:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand but disagree. I don't think that's what users are really looking for, but if some sizable fraction are looking for that perhaps we need a DAB instead. Personally I still favor the Dimension redirect.
    Cheers. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problems with a disambiguation. 4 T C 05:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects as they need to point somewhere --Rumping (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Christmas Day bombing attempt[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are alot of bombings and bombing attempts in and around Christmas, to direct it to the underwear bomber is just WP:RECENTISM at work. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect was created as the result of an ill-advised and improper page move. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This clearly needs to be kept. This is what it's being called in the media, and readers will be looking for it under that name. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the 50 or so people each week who use this redirect. There doesn't appear to be a disambiguation page for bombings in the Christmas season yet, or any other pressing need for this title, so let's boldly sacrifice a kilobyte to this redirect. Were this instead Christmas Day Bombing, I'd be right with you. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IP makes an unsupported incredulous claim. Not only should this be be kept, but this should be the name of the article. See Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253#Requested move. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly good redirect. Article name is being discussed on article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Halutzim[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Halutz. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Target makes no mention of the term. UltraMagnusspeak 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"it's a small world"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as previous, really ZS 10:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"almanac of british politics"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a plausible redirect? With the quotes around the title? It's really bizarre and would be impractical for every article - besides, searching "almanac of british politics" would bring up the target page anyway. ZS 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was made when I moved a newly created page to a better title. I've no objection to it being deleted. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not you type quotes in the search box, you will get the same result (assuming redirects like the one above do not exist to get in the way). For example, searching "United States" in the search box will take you to United States. The same, of course, goes for Google. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Deborah Martin[edit]

The result of the discussion was conversion of redirect to an article by nominator. Non-admin closure. Station1 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion this is a redirect page with no content, I wish to post an article with the title Deborah Martin. ArtPubSource (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to delete this first. If you have an article that fits under the title, just edit Deborah Martin and put your article in there. (You probably want to add a hatnote to your article pointing to Sabrina Jeffries.) Station1 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see this has now been done so will close this discussion. Station1 (talk) 19:35, 28 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_28&oldid=1136448625"