Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 4, 2009

Bookmarked[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Bookmark (disambiguation). The dab page covers both meanings and neither seems to have a primacy when when used with the "ed" ending. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, or re-target. Should the redirect redirect to Internet bookmark or Bookmark? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm gonna have to say that it's good as it is. I've never heard anyone refer to putting a bookmark in a book as "bookmarking" or it being "bookmarked," as the case is. It's that they "marked the page" or something similar. Bookmarking is genuinely Internetitive, as is that word I just made up. [flaminglawyer] 02:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or re-target to Bookmark, which has a dab for Bookmark (disambiguation). Searching for the verb/adjective forms seems odd to me, but might be useful. Usage definitely antedates the derivative internet sense (e.g. 1968, 1938, 1912, 1902.) This redirect is misleadingly over-specific because the target has neither dab nor etymology. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1st choice) or retarget to Bookmark (2nd choice) per Ningauble. If the redirect is kept, then I think that it makes sense to have it point to the most similar page title. However, I think it is unlikely that anyone would search for the adjectival or verb form. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 02:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, it is not unlikely. For example, sometimes, I double-click on a word and select search with Wikipedia. Sometimes the word I double-click on is in adjectival or verb form. Also, in an edit window it is easier to read and type "[[bookmarked]]" then it is to read and type "[[bookmark|bookmarked]]". The redirect let's you type and read "[[bookmarked]]".--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      While redirects can simplify composition by obviating piped links, shortcuts within article space are not really one of their stated purposes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bookmark (disambiguation) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of Paper Mario series characters[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect falls under CSD G8, as it redirects to a section of an article which has been deleted. However, the article has a history and talk that resulted due to a merge which make it unable to be speedy deleted. It would also be wrong to simply blank the article in order to preserve the history, but the redirect itself is potentially confusing to readers as it may lead them in circles attempting to track down the non-existant character list. Perhaps the history can be merged elsewhere and the redirect deleted? Taelus (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if the section that was merged was deleted, it would be like deleting the article if it was standing alone, therefore making it a redlink. Tavix |  Talk  20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that is entirely correct: the merged content is still present in the page history of the article and could, theoretically, be restored, so attribution of edits needs to be preserved. I think that the safest way to go about deletion would be to do a history merge. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A histmerge would be a messy way of dealing with this. It's actually quite normal to keep a page as a redirect simply because you are using its history. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • However the redirect is misleading and confusing. There is no list of Paper Mario series characters on Wikipedia, and I doubt I was the first person to follow a circle of page links around and around trying to find the non-existant list. --Taelus (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wouldn't be the first time that's happened, but being copyright compliant should come first. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I first made that page is was an actual list of characters, but was later turned into a redirect by another person, something I wasn't fond of, but it happened. Then major characters were transferred onto the article the redirect pointed to, and now I just checked the page it redirects, and no long seems to carry any information about the Paper Mario series, and in fact, that article seems to have been consolidated into a larger article encompassing more games that just the Paper Mario series. (in fact, if you look at the Discussion for the page, it shows a deletion discussion between me and the above mentioned admin) It seems as if the whole idea I tried to instill is dying all together. I say we bring the issue up with WikiProject Nintendo, and let them decide upon the fate of these articles. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps then the page should be moved to the Wikiproject's area, or to a temporary user area for the time being, to avoid having this misleading redirect just sitting there for ages. --Taelus (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Xylo[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination for the sake of a user who keeps half-RFDing the redirect. Finally got enough of a reasoning from him on my talk page:

Hi, I tried to follow the RFD, but was not able to complete the process for some reason. Maybe you could initiate it? Anyway, regarding the 'Xylo' redirect, there are many commercial products and companies using this name, as well as individuals. It therefore feels like biased advertising promotion to have this word/name/term used exclusively for one product in particular. I am trying to stop Wikipedia being used as a platform to promote selective business interests. Thanks. (Zeteki (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I do not personally have an opinion for or against this redirect. TexasAndroid (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had created both the page and redirect- I see that Zeteki had been trying to delete the page for whatever reasons. I am happy to change the xylo page from a redirect to a disambig page. Just for curiosity, I did a search for xylo but couldnt findany pages in wikipedia for "commercial products and companies using this name, as well as individuals" . PS:Currently I am working in an automobile company which is a competitor to the manufacturer of this particular vehicle. I suppose this doesnot come under any conflict of interest :-) trakesht (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any articles that would necessitate turning the redirect into a disambiguation page. In fact, the current target page is the only article that seems to use "Xylo" as a separate word, suggesting that it makes sense for the redirect to point there. Maybe it's worth considering a soft redirect to wiktionary:xylo-, but I honestly think that the current target is better (note that wiktionary:Xylo does not exist). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Courtney Lilly[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invader Zim is not the only show she worked on. This redirect should be deleted entirely as she has worked on more shows than just Zim, but at the same time, she is not famous enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox irc[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ambiguously named template redirect left over after renaming the template. It has no incoming links, isn't used for anything, and the ambiguous name will likely confuse other editors who are attempting to add templates to IRC articles. Delete. Tothwolf (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There are a host of things to which "irc" could refer (see IRC (disambiguation)), and since it is not as important to have redirects to templates (searched for by editors mostly) as it is to have redirects to articles (searched for by editors and readers), there is no need to keep this ambiguous and potentially confusing redirect. The redirect has no significant incoming links and the pagemove history is preserved in the page history of the target page. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:08, 6 June 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_June_4&oldid=1138576793"