Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2009

Nick Burns, Your Company's Computer Guy → Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Loop problem fixed.--Aervanath (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless and confusing. Following the redirect goes to a list. This item appears wikilinked in that list (with no other mention whatsoever). Following the link goes to this redirect, which goes to the top of the list. Can you say infinite loop? Thinboy00 @028, i.e. 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This was formerly an article. See its talk page afd for details. --Thinboy00 @029, i.e. 23:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect per AfD and remove the link in the target. The latter will break the "infinite loop." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've already removed the link in the target article. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

America's Anchorman → Rush Limbaugh[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an extremely obscure synonym for the article name, and unlikely to ever be useful as a redirect. The article name is commonly known, the redirect is not. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nowhere to be found in the target. In addition he is a news commentator, not an anchorman. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is nothing more than a self-promotional sobriquet used by the subject of the target article. Target article does not mention this term. I think it is highly unlikely that anyone looking for Rush Limbaugh would look for him under this name. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Alarm Clock → Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retargeted to Alarm clock (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate The Alarm Clock >>> Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie, I don't know how to its not working please help thanks !!71.10.88.69 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination fixed and added here after DumbBOT malfunctioned in adding log pages. Original nomination can be seen here, no comment on the actual deletion of the redirect. Richard0612 09:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikianswers → WikiAnswers[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy close not a RFD issue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Google:Wikianswers.

there are both answers.wikia.com(Wikianswers, a new website, [1]) and wiki.answers.com(WikiAnswers). Liangent (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carbonated pee → Mountain Dew[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as it doesn't seem to be useful or to make any sense. CF84 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - It makes sense to me; I understand this to be a derogatory POV comment about Mountain Dew. Wikipedia doesn't benefit from maintaining a redirect that exists solely to disseminate POV. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Can we speedy/snowball this? --Thinboy00 @033, i.e. 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as foolishness. Judging from a brief Google search, apparently this term came from Homer Simpson on The Simpsons. Search for "carbonated pee" (in quotes) if you like—I won't go into it here. But Homer was not discussing Mountain Dew. •••Life of Riley (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As the person who created the redirect, I added it to some article and created the redirect. I don't remember under what circumstances that I created it. I agree that it's POV, but at the time, in addition to simply finding it funny, I thought it might have had some notability is a nickname for the product, since I remember hearing it called that as far back as middle scohol (1987-1990), and when I finally tried Mountain Dew, I hated it. Some of these things seem to get across the country, like "I pledge allegiance to the flag. Michael Jackson is a fag," but the consensus that the redirect should be deleted seems to suggest otherwise. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, although Homer Simpson was not discussing Mountain Dew at the time, we know how much Homer hates Mountain Dew from the episode where he went to New York City and got a boot put on his car. ;) --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User PKK → Template:User PKK[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a user template, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - not only is it a cross namespace redirect, it appears that the template is improperly named as well. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Improper redirect. •••Life of Riley (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:talkback → Template:Talkback[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a template. Does not link to content. MBisanz talk 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no such thing as a T: subspace. Thus this is an improperly named cross namespace redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incorrect cross-namespace redirect from nonexistent namespace abbreviation. •••Life of Riley (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Opening Day starting pitchers → Template:Opening Day starting pitchers by team[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a template. MBisanz talk 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sites using MediaWiki → Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a project page. MBisanz talk 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a redirect to a soft redirect, in other words a double redirect. I currently see no other option to delete this as I don't see a viable alternative target here... and I am not sure that another soft redirect would be appropriate. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:MediaWiki websites, if it is possible to redirect to a category. —Snigbrook 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, it's possible but not necessarily desirable as it replaces one cross namespace redirect with another one. I can think of two options that would work around a CNR problem: 1) Create a List of sites using MediaWiki and copy the list of articles in the category onto it (plus a little prose to put it into context and some referencing), or 2) retarget to MediaWiki, where a link to the category can be placed in the "See also" section of the article. Clearly either of these two options is better than either maintaining a double redirect (status quo) or creating a new CNR. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sphinx (planet) → List_of_planets_in_the_Honorverse#S[edit]

The result of the discussion was kept as nom has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one else advocated deletion or retargeting (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion All Honorverse article now use Sphinx (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and since it is the less obvious redirect compared to Sphinx (Honorverse) it has no function. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as someone researching the planet Sphinx might not be aware that it is in the Honorverse. This redirect is not doing any harm unless there is an actual planet Sphinx, which, the last time I checked, has not been named or discovered. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as while it may be less obvious, it is still correct. PaulJones (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target, and there's no real planet named Sphinx this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to keep this redirect now. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Planet Sphinx → List_of_planets_in_the_Honorverse#S[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion All Honorverse articles now use Sphinx (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and nobody ever searches first for "Planet" and then for its name so nobody will ever use it. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so against logic of search function that I would say strong delete. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a person looking for a fictional planet named Sphinx may not realise that it is part of an entity called the Honorverse. Since (as of the morning of 2 February 2009) there has been no actual planet, either discovered or identified, to be named Sphinx, this is not a harmful redirect. Should such a planet be so named or discovered, of course the redirect can be overwritten with the appropriate article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as until a real planet is called sphinx, at which point it would become a dab page, the redirect is completely logical for the search term. If this goes, then so should Planet Mars, Planet Saturn etc PaulJones (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missed the point The point is that even if one should keep "Sphinx (planet)", NOBODY will ever search "Planet Sphinx". That's an illogical wordorder. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • As a native English speaker, there is nothing illogical about the word order. Planet Sphinx is a very apt expression describing the subject being searched for. PaulJones (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target (like "Planet Earth" or "Planet Mongo") , and there's no real planet named Sphinx this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't agree You all mention Planet Earth, but there is no such article, just a disambiguation page. Don't forget that if somebody would look for "Planet Sphinx" the Wikipedia search engine would show him that there is not such page, but the first alternative it would provided would be "Sphinx (planet)" (you can check this yourself by searching for "Planet Medusa" e.g.) Debresser (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're making it sound that there is some exclusivity here - why not both? If you're looking for Mars - and not the Roman diety or the candy-making family - chances are that you'd be looking at either the non-disambiguated Mars, the disambiguated Mars (planet)... or the title as it would be spoken from one person to another: Planet Mars. In addition, the P is capitalised not because it is part of the planet's name but because of WP:NAME requiring a capital first letter. Both "XXXX (planet)" and "Planet XXXX" work as some people will look for the former and some for the latter.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Verge (Honerverse) → Office of Frontier Security[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep--Aervanath (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion Typo. Should be Verge (Honorverse) with an "o". That redirect has been created and this old typo is now not in use any more. Debresser (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the fact that the one-letter mistake exists represents that the typographical error is not "implausible" as WP:CSD lists as a category for speedy deletion. Whether this redirect merits deletion itself is still an open matter. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous Keeping a typo is ridiculous. Your argument is the same. No disrespect intended. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest re-reading WP:RFD#KEEP or WP:R#Keeping redirects (I am assuming good faith in that you've read the appropriate section before. Please reciprocate that assumption. Thanks). Note that my post on this nomination was a comment, not a !vote, and should be regarded as such. Please also WP:CHILL. Thanks again. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read all of these before. And I really do not want to insult you. Just that the idea of keeping a real typo makes me laugh by its absurdity. Please do not be offended. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, starting a reply with a bold "ridiculous" is not a good way to avoid offense (in fact it can be argued that it violates the Reasonability Rule), but - as I posted above - I am assuming good faith. Regardless, WP:RFD#KEEP covers this quite well. Now I'll say it: Keep per WP:RfD#KEEP. While we shouldn't credit redirects from plausible typos ahead of time, one-letter miscues can be accounted for (as humans have a nasty habit of being imperfect) - and the resulting redirect makes Wikipedia a little more reader-friendly as a result.147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the argument "that the one-letter mistake exists represents that the typographical error is not 'implausible'" hard to agree with. Were accepted as a valid reason, we'd be keeping every one-letter-typo redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As IP 147.70.242.54 says, this one-letter typo seems reasonably likely given that someone else made the same mistake. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a not unreasonable spelling mistake. PaulJones (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • typo I checked the page history and found that it was created by a user who had worked extensively with articles on the Honorverse before. He didn't make a mistake thinking that 'Honor' is spelled 'Honer'. It was a slip of the finger of a user who had made numerous edits that day. So we needn't keep it, as it is clearly a case of 'redirects from implausible typos'. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2009 (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/2009_February_1&oldid=1141906832"