Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2009


Black Dino Thunder Ranger → Tommy Oliver[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget with no objections--Aervanath (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to retarget this redir to Black Ranger, given that a Ranger title shouldn't redir to a Power Rangers character that have been from a specific color. Example: Zeo Ranger V - Red shouldn't be redirected to Tommy Oliver, or Black Power Ranger shouldn't be redirected to Zack Taylor or Adam Park. David Pro (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nitsy → Marge Simpson[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all--Aervanath (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this term is not related to the Simpsons. David Pro (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only meaning I can find (besides nicknames) in a google search is "Nighttime in the Switching Yard (song by Warren Zevon)". Creating user has tons of successful deletion notices on their talk page... seems to be a bit prolific. NJGW (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Chesty LaRue
Chesty larue

These last two redirs I've nominated them for the same reason above. David Pro (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Chesty LaRue; see Homer to the Max. Sceptre (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Do a barrel roll → Star Fox 64[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Barrel roll#Aviation.--Aervanath (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Do A Barrel Roll
Do a barrel roll!

This is a phrase used in a game[1]... do we really need it directed anywhere? Improbable search term, and WP is not a collection of quotes. NJGW (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely search term. Might also want to salt as these seem to be a meme on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This phrase has become internet meme so many people would search it and memes are notable yes Banana254 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment memes are memes... notable memes are notable. Do you have a wp:RS/wp:V source for this meme? NJGW (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This meme is so popular 4chan users even got Tom Green to say it, they also pranked C-Span with it. Arisedrew (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question where is the ref? The usage in the game is mentioned in the target article, but not cited, and with no cited indication that this line of dialog is any more notable that any other line in the game. NJGW (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up then. I know you're being some sort of wannabe mod or something (unless you are one, either way same thing) by deleting a redirect that has widely been searched to feel cool. Arisedrew (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't see how this is any more notable or important that Put shoe on head or IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND! (see entries at Dramatica). It's just something stoned/bored kids thought was funny. This is what Dramatica is for, not Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be on its way to becoming another "All your base...", but it's not there yet. An internet search only resulted in a few hits. The problem with "barrel roll" is that unlike "All your base" it is a very well known concept separate from the game so will likely only ever have the intended meaning (as discussed here) for a limited group of people. Mention in the Star Fox 64 article might be appropriate, but not a separate article. MHO --JeffJ (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Barrel_roll#Aviation, so those kids searching will find actual encyclopedic content :P --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
concur - redirect. --averagejoe (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a redirect, people, not an article. There's no need to bring in the N and V and the Ref on this. Just sufficent evidence that someone would be looking for the target by typing in the redirect. It's plausible to me. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sex move slang, not Starfox 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Do not want → Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Releases[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep and protect--Aervanath (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might cause confusion, makes no sense. Not encyclopedic man with one red shoe 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Protect, sourced internet meme from the article and totally relevant redirect. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, unecyclopedic meme, confusing, makes sense only to people versed in memes, probably offensive too. man with one red shoe 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's confusing because it's a redirect, if Rickrolling would be a redirect to Rick Astley then it would be confusing too even though the meme is documented and is related. Also we have to think about what is encyclopedic, do you really think that in 10 years people will even know or care about these idiotic memes? How is this meme encyclopedic? man with one red shoe 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NTEMP: If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic. WP:BLP1E is for living people, not abstract subjects/things. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above response actually affirms the IP's point. The doctor who declared Kennedy to be dead (His name is mentioned in the Kennedy assassination article) was actually well-known before 1963 - of course, a little research offline would reveal why, but most people who read the entries in Wikipedia do not want to check elsewhere, especially in media that was contemporaneous to his career (has anybody who has posted here seen anything indicating if the doctor indicated above is dead or alive? If it is, WP:BLP would still apply; unfortunately, too many people here do not want to verify it one way or another). Had the Internet been in existence in 1960, there would be no discussion as to his notability in Wikipedia; so what's the difference? The access to the information, that's all. Nonetheless, more people know about the doctor who declared the death of Kennedy than know about this obscure meme (and would not be looking for it at all if one of them entered - intentially or accidentally - "do not want" into the search bar). B.Wind (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't lose time reading policies, the common sense says that an Internet fad as minor as this will be forgotten in 10 years, only Wikipedia will be here to protect the idiotic memory of it. Which it would be fine it was a separate page about the fad not a confusing redirect. man with one red shoe 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potentially confusing as the phrase "do not want" occurs with great regularity in the English language, with 99.99999% of the uses having nothing to do with a Star Wars trilogy movie (dubbed or undubbed) or a relatively obscure Internet meme. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, usually there are many other words surrounding "do not want". People don't usually say "Do not want" by itself unless they're referencing this meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this "Do not want" meme refers only to Star Wars? I've seen various "Do not want" crap on the web, google for it and you'll see... man with one red shoe 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very likely the "crap" you see is a result of this issue with Star Wars Episode III. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More likely that it has nothing to do with it... much more likely, both on and (definitely) off the Net. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not relevant if notability has been established for this (WP:NTEMP), especially without evidence of a more notable "Do not want"? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meme is "do not want" without a subject or object. As I said in the last RFD two months ago, if you can cite a reliable source that the meme appeared prior to the bootleg of ROTS, I'll take it into account. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and list on WP:RFPP per Locke Cole. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Keep, its well explained at the target site, and given that the phrase a reasonably well known internet meme, people will likely come here looking for an explanation. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep well-sourced, no other uses explained, and no sources provided for other uses which could grant a disambiguation page or something (and I remember when it appeared, it really came from this translation wait, I just read the RFD from November, I remember the dog with a broccoli that had the same sentence before the star wars thing :D , I can see some mentions of this origin[2][3] but no reliable source. Anyways, the Star Wars apparition is what made it really popular and not just one more lolcat meme) At most, use this Time Magazine article on lolcat speak to make a disambiguation page listing lolcat and the star wars release. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Later came a shot of a kitten in a state of feline outrage, standing over a plate of what look like clementines and meowing DO NOT WANT."

    -- what does have to do with Star Wars? If it does it should be an article that explains not a redirect. man with one red shoe 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete refers to gay porn on the internet, not this. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so obscure that it makes sense only to the few dozen or so fans of the purported "meme". Damian Yerrick's challenge is actually contrary to Wikipedia policy regarding notability. This is actually more appropriate to Wikia than to Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And of course the fans have bookmarked the redirect and defend it. Polls are evil on Wikipedia exactly because of this reason. We've already established a use for "DO NOT WANT for some other issue (LOLCATS for example), this redirect is confusing and makes sense only for fans, the redirect doesn't make sense for anybody who is not versed in the meme. man with one red shoe 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (upon reconsideration) Create Do not want (meme) and Do not want (Internet meme) redirects; delete and salt Do not want to protect against recreation. This should take care of all concerns brought up both in this and the previous RfD. Clearly the fans of the meme should have an appropriate redirect as they believe it is significant enough to merit one, and those who wish to delete it object on two grounds: 1) that the name of the redirect is without context and could be misleading/confusing to those who are unaware of the meme, and 2) the meme itself is an insignificant part of the usage of the phrase, to the point that the redirect should not point to a meme usage. My suggestion is a compromise that gives the needed context for the phrase to make sense to the 99.999+ percent of the users of the English language who use "do not want" in a way unrelated to Star Wars, while the disambiguation points people over to an article discussing the meme. Keeping it a redlink prompts a search of all the uses of the phrase in Wikipedia, which is probably the best option of all. B.Wind (talk)
  • I think that's the best solution, creating an article instead of keeping a confusing redirect. Again, let me repeat my point, for people who are not versed in memes which is probably the majority of people the redirect makes no sense, having a page that explains the meme is much better. man with one red shoe 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misread, do you mean still redirects? Why not articles? If it's notable enough it should be an article if it's not, a redirect would be even more confusing... man with one red shoe 19:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hastings and st leonards → Hastings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=The redirect title is a very obscure synonym for 'hastings', it is unlikely to be useful. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ross Marshall → The Stig[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stig is anonymous, so no name is cofirmed on him. The name "Ross Marshall" isn't mentioned in the article. --Eivind (t) 15:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there isn't even a viable target for a retargeting (Marshall K. Ross is credited for much behind-the-camera work in motion pictures as "Ross Marshall"; "Marshall Ross" is a pseudonym for orchestra leader Ray Martin). B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

John Jay Smith → Michael Jackson[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Stark Raving Dad as there is agreement that it least better explains the context.Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard about this name, which isn't mentioned in the article. David Pro (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Stark Raving Dad, where John Jay Smith was a characther – and Michael Jackson did his voice. --Eivind (t) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per EivindJ FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you never heard of this name doesn't mean it's not true. Michael Jackson was credited in The Simpsons as John Jay Smith.
  • Redirect per EivindJ. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect John Jay Smith wasn't a character, it was the name Michael Jackson was credited under. JuJube (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a one-off cast credit for one episode of The Simpsons, there would be two equally important redirect targets - to Michael Jackson or to Stark Raving Dad (never mind that "Michael Jackson" was also the name of the character voiced by the singer) - but in either case, the targeting would be giving undue weight to this never-promoted "voice studio name." In addition, this is awfully close to John Smith (a dab page) and John Jay (U.S. Chief Justice), enough to demonstrate potential to confuse. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the character's name was Leon Kompowski. JuJube (talk) 11:21, 18 January 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_January_14&oldid=1138576677"