Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2009

What plants crave[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by User:Ohnoitsjamie (non-admin closure) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant vandalism. (Joke from Idiocracy: "Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator. It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.") Newly created page. Could this have qualified for a speedy? Thinking of England (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beyonce Carter[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The re-direct is unnecessary. Ms. Knowles has not changed her name and she is not known by the pseudonym in the re-direct. 67.101.123.217 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep although she didn't actually change her name, it is plausible that someone might think she did. I do see a few foreign language RS have referred to her by that name and several English sources use "Knowles-Carter" which a searcher might conceivably shorten to Carter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to look her up can simply type in "Beyonce" and they'll be redirected to her page. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's policy be to make a redirect for any notable woman who gets married, no matter what she's chosen for herself? Or, as per your example, several redirects, for any possible combinations of her birth name and husband's name anyone can think of? That seems very disrepectful to the woman herself. This redirect is unnecessary and sexist. It should be deleted. 67.100.203.125 (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I am suggesting it is a plausible search term in this case because it has been used in a few reliable sources. A redirect can't be "sexist" or "disrespectful" - it merely helps people find information. We don't delete redirects from misspellings, nicknames, or any other way someone may search for a name and this case should be no exception. Please stick to actual policy based arguments and avoid "I think this redirect is disrespectful" type arguments which hold no weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy specifies that a redirect should be deleted if it: causes confusion, is offensive, or is obscure and unlikely to be used. It further clarifies that "If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful..." The redirect in question could cause confusion about Ms. Knowles legal name. It is offensive because it is applied solely on the basis of sex. It is obscure and unlikely to be useful, especially considering that searchers can easily find her page by simplying typing the far shorter "Beyonce". You haven't cited your sources for claiming that her husband's surname is a commonly used erroneous name for her (many people don't even know her husband's last name, as he usually goes by a pseudonym). Also, there's a Wiki policy on not overdoing redirects. If your logic were applied every time a notable woman got married, a forest of redirects would have to spring up, based on all "plausible" (but incorrect) combinations of her name and her husband's name (Carter, Carter-Knowles, Knowles-Carter, Knowles Carter), and that is overdoing it. 67.100.203.125 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion that it is offensive, nothing more. It is applied based on a few reliable sources using the term, not on basis of sex. Occasional, a male who marries a female star is deemed "Mr. Whoever" and such redirects would also be appropriate if mentioned in reliable sources (see Kevin Spears). If you look at the page view history you will see that it is used by 15-25 people a day, so clearly it is not "useless." No reasonable person would be confused about her correct by a redirect to an article that clearly states her name. The "overdoing it" policy you refer to says nothing about redirects - it is talking about how to name an article. Additionally all the examples it lists as improper titles do exist as redirects. Rules that govern an article's title don't apply to redirects. Indeed, far from being forbidden making redirects is the proper way to handle otherwise improper titles.
Once again, I am advocating only for one term that was mentioned in several sources (do the search yourself if you don't believe me). It has nothing to do with sexism, but rather is simply following the sources. I am sorry the redirect offends you, but that is not sufficient reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meaning of the life[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. --Allen3 talk 10:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely, ungramatical search term. Appears to have been created two years ago specifically for this edit, an unpiped wikilinking of a fractured English phrase (subsequently corrected) in the lead of the Nomad (1982 film) article, "It is about the experiences of a group of youngsters who feel lost and try to find the true meaning of the life." No discussion or nontrivial history to retain. Thinking of England (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ungrammatical and, as such, an implausible search term. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of Characters from Total Drama Island[edit]

The result of the discussion was relisted to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_22#List_of_Characters_from_Total_Drama_Island.--Aervanath (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no edit history in need of preserving; the software will direct anyone entering a capital C to the existing correctly-capitalized article. Otto4711 (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question -- By "the software will direct ..." do you mean the "Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title" note from the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" page? -- Thinking of England (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I now realize that you must have meant the front page search. I've done some reading and I think that WP:MIXEDCAPS applies here, that the software will not work as you suggest, and that we should keep if we want the "go" to work automatically for this miscapitalization. However we should replace it with List of characters from total drama island if we want it to work for all miscapitalizations. (Is that how it works?)-- Thinking of England (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

/A\[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This ascii-art approximation of the network's logo is not a plausible search term. The stations' various webpages use the stylization 'A' when representing the network's name in text, and not /A\. This is related to yesterday's /A\ Atlantic RfD. Thinking of England (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 99.226.105.112 pointed out below that CTV is using /A\ in their press materials. Hmmph. Weak keep. -- Thinking of England (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not how the network is referred to in any medium that actually gets read by the general public, and corporate branding preferences in internal press releases aren't supposed to override simple common sense on Wikipedia. This simply isn't ever actually going to get used by anybody — and Wikipedia has a standing consensus against creating either article titles or redirects out of artificial stylizations that don't actually have any bearing on the semantic content of the title. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improbable search term. Appropriate only if the material was expanded into an independent article, but not as a redirect. No history or discussion to retain. Related to the List of products endorsed by Peyton Manning and List of products endorsed by Michael Jordan nominations yesterday. Thinking of England (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as complete cruft. (Yes, thank you, well aware that's not a legal reason. Still valid as a comment.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a plausible redirect in case someone wants to find the products that Tiger Woods has endorsed. Tavix |  Talk  16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term. --Allen3 talk 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Source mapping[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a redirect from a generic term to a specific piece of software and thus is inappropriate ThaddeusB (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this redirect. The title refers to Source (game engine), and I thought it would be useful for those who wanted to know about "mapping for Source" but did not know the name of the specific software used in the process. Cheers, Kinou (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete with fire and brimstone; WP:CSD#G11. might as well redir to Mapnik, another product. We probably should have an article on Source mapping; we certainly don't need to allow Wikipedia to be used as advertising for software. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whilst yes it can be used for mapping for the source game engine, it is more likely that it will be searched by users as a general term, and thus in its current form is confusing. Perhaps it should become a disambig page, but as a redirect it should be deleted. --Taelus (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I marked it for deletion (in the wrong way) originally. Here are my original reasons: This redirect is not in use. Also, Wikipedia is not a search engine (this redirect is silly). To add insult to injury, there are other programs out there that can map for Source, so this redirect is a bit unfair. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Music writer[edit]

The result of the discussion was convert into a disambiguation page. --Allen3 talk 10:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to "composer" is inconsistent with the Category:Music writers. Either the redirect should be changed to writer, or music critic should be moved to music writer, or the category and its subcategories will need to be changed. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was previously brought here & retargeted to its current destination. I would suggest it be turned into a disambiguation page since the term obviously means different things to different people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dab; makes best sense and will end this cycle. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the page itself has redirected to different targets over time, a disambiguation page would seem to be a sensible solution. --Taelus (talk) 13:29, 10 July 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_July_9&oldid=1138576762"