Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 11[edit]

1984 (album) (disambiguation) → 1984 (album)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary and useless double-redirect. Tavix (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems: 1) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 2) Of those in the category, how many are double disambiguations? There is a difference between those and the one I'm listing. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is only standard practice for disambiguation pages that are at the undisambiguated name, per WP:DABNAME. Two parenthetical disambiguators – which is what this page has – are not appropriate. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a useful structure. Rich Farmbrough, 00:42 12 March 2009 (UTC).
  • This brings up another point, does smackbot have permission to do these sorts of changes, since it is apparent that it was intentional. I thought all bots needed to have their processes approved. How many more arguable things has this bot been programmed to do. speednat (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the way that an agent looking for a dab page will find that redirect easily. Rich Farmbrough, 04:21 14 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Do you really think think having two disambiguators is useful? In my opinion, it is way too confusing and would create more harm than good. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirecting "Foo (disambiguation)" to the disambiguation page for "Foo" is generally useful; however in this case the double parenthetic disambiguator is more likely to be confusing, and unlikely to be useful. While outside the scope of RfD, I'd think the best approach would be to merge 1984 (album) to 1984 (disambiguation) - most of the contents are already there- and then redirect it, which would make the redirect under discussion entirely redundant. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The disambiguation has got absolutely no other 1984 (album) titles. Recommend this to be gone. Versus22 talk 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect altogether, Merge the contents of 1984 (album) into 1984 (disambiguation), then turn it into a redirect tagged as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.
  • Delete. I have moved the sole new entry from the album page to the correct dab and redirected the (album) page to the (disambiguation) page as an incomplete disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this mean we need another page as a test for the general case? I think so. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Thr Simpsons → The Simpsons[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. (Note: WP:CSD R3 doesn't apply here, as the redirect was not created recently. Unscented (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep How is this typo inplausible? Do you know what a typo is? It's an error where you hit the wrong key, not an error where you think it's spelled differently to what it is. "R" is right beside "E" on a Qwerty keyboard. Someone typing it in could easily hit "R" accidentily. It was used 44 times last month.--Pattont/c 15:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete This is not a common misspelling but rather a random typo. As to the Qwerty keyboard argument above, with that logic we can create billions and billions of such redirects that they would be impossible to manage/maintain. And number of hits is not really a valid argument here, because we can't guarantee that all these hits were the result of a typo from readers intended to type "The Simpsons". For example, when you type "thr" in the search box, the title "Thr Simpsons" comes right in the third suggestion, so it might be the case that readers searching for something starts with "Thr" wanted to see where the "Thr Simpsons" suggestion link goes. Mxipp (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A random yet very common type. E and R are right beside each otehr ont he keyboard. I really can't believe this discussionis turning out like this. Someone obviously typed this accidently and created the redirect.--Pattont/c 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easy to type that by accident; I don't think anyone disputes that. The real question is: Could anyone possibly think that the alternative spelling "Thr" is correct? I think the answer is "no". Brian Jason Drake 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that exists is because it's so easy to type it by accident. If someone does type it by accident they get to the page they're looking for. I really can't believe the discussion is turning out like this. See WP:RCAT for reasons why redirects exist: one of them is a misspelling or typographical error.--Pattont/c 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said above due to the placement of the keys I think it would be fairly easy to make that typo. Also considering that the search results for that page don't directly point to the simpsons article if someone does make that typo it would do nothing but force them to fix their typo, costing them extra time when they could otherwise be at their intended target. —Nn123645 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - An incredibly easy mistake to make, plausible typo. — neuro(talk) 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirect from plausible misspelling. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - will show up as "Did you mean" The Simpsons — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC) (tested with Thr Shootist) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will search return "The Simpsons" if the page is deleted? On the search link above it does not provide a spelling correction for that search query. --Nn123645 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No need to keep this around as a redirect because the misspelling isn't correct and The Simpsons are the first page to pop up if searching for that. Although they are right next to each other on a keyboard, what are the chances that particular letter is hit instead of an E or even any other letter. If this is kept, it could be a predicent for a whole other load of typo errors, and I believe that would get really messy fast. For example: why not have Rhe Simpsons, The Simosons The Simpsoms, etc. Tavix (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

World Trade Center/Plane crash → September 11 attacks[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep, The consensus is that the GFDL requires us to keep the history intact. There was no consensus to do a history merge.--Aervanath (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, along with a number of others, was already nominated for deletion, with the result being "delete all". All were deleted, then just this one was restored because it wasn't tagged with {{rfd}}. I'm throwing open the discussion again so we can have it done properly. Brian Jason Drake 05:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete redirect useless for searching or linking per rationale of previous discussions and consensus demonstrated by previous discussions. This link only exists because of a procedural slip-up: WP:UCS, WP:IAR and the principle of following the spirit rather than the letter of Wikipedia's rules demand it should be deleted ASAP. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete useless redirect. Verbal chat 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be the original page on the 9/11 attacks. The content has most likely been merged with other articles and thus needs to be kept. Please do not do a history merge, though. --- RockMFR 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per previous discussion. Tavix (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of historical interest. Rich Farmbrough, 00:46 12 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Comment The article might be of historical interest, but that doesn't mean the redirect is. Tavix (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of the page - which was an article and is now a redirect - is of historical interest. Rich Farmbrough, 04:58 14 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep or at least do a history merge. And make sure that there isn't any history on the other redirects that got deleted. There are some pretty historic edits in the page history here (real-time updates on September 11, 2001), even if we didn't have to preserve page histories for GFDL compliance. Wkdewey (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or history merge. Per Wkdewey.--Pattont/c 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know the phrase "its doing no harm" is greatly frowned upon here, but for the sake of the very fascinating history I strongly feel an exception should be made under WP:IAR. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - unneeded redirect. Versus22 talk 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects with significant histories should not be deleted. In addition there are possible GFDL issues and, as stated, the history is of significant, errm historical, interest. No need to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are many other very early redirects that have slashes in them as that is the way they used to make subpages long ago. If someone is browsing through early page histories on Wikipedia there will probably be links to this page. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may be a highly unlikely search term, but the history is important and worth preserving. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as historical. — neuro(talk) 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical (per Rich Farmbrough, and neuro) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GFDL to provide attribution to the Wikipedian contributors, since there is a significant page history, unless it can be ascertained that none of the contributions have been merged into other articles. Does no harm. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Various aviation accident victims (pt. 3) → Flight ####[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all except Peter Hanson (September 11 attack victim).--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up airplane accident victim redirects, part 3. You can see part one at: Joe Knight and part two at Various aviation accident victims. Delete all as unusable redirects and implausible search terms.Tavix Tavix (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Rogerb67 (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jesus juice → People v. Jackson[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep--Aervanath (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unneeded and unuseful redirect. Although mentioned in the article, it is extremely minor as it is a nickname Jackson was claimed to have had for alcohol. Tavix (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Someone looking for the origin of this term, or the origin of the most popular usage of it, would be looking for this article. --- RockMFR 16:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not needed. Versus22 talk 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was just now looking for information on the subject. Neverland Ranch says nothing about the "alleged" sex abuse going on there and it has no links to it at all. Without this redirect, I would have assumed wikipedia had nothing at all on the subject and if deletionists have their way, then it wouldn't. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - using the euphamism 'jungle juice' was actually quite significant. Rather than delete the redirect this usage needs some expansion and sourcing, for which a start can be found here and here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mentioned in article, relevant redirect. — neuro(talk) 01:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jonesing → Drug addiction[edit]

The result of the discussion was consensus to delete, so I've deleted the article and put the {{wi}} template there as RockMFR suggested. I've also full-protected the article so it'll stay that way.--Aervanath (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The SPA-selected redirect to Generation Jones is singularly inappropriate, but this, more stable, redirect appears not to be appropriate, either. At best, it's a dictionary definition, which is not grounds for a speedy, but is grounds for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace content with {{wi}}. --- RockMFR 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - off topic or useless. Drug addition is about drug addiction in general, not about Jonesing. Versus22 talk 18:32, 12 March 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_March_11&oldid=1077827244"