Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2009

NESTLR[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I get that they're going for RSTLNE, but that's way too scrambled. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of categories in the target article, and there shouldn't be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as such a list could also apply to the UK gameshow, the Australian one, the New Zealand version and ... PaulJones (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Power Morpher[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Mighty_Morphin_Power_Rangers#Arsenal, where it is the first item in the section.--Aervanath (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This term isn't mentioned in the Power Rangers article, so it should be redirected to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. David Pro (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and target it specifically to Power_Rangers#Power Morphicon. PaulJones (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Retarget per PaulJones, seems good. American Eagle (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Power Morpher and Power Morphicon are different terms. Power Morpher is the name of the device used by the Rangers to morph in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, while that Power Morphicon was the name of the first Power Rangers covention. David Pro (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:PEDRO[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. While there hasn't been an established rule against projectspace-to-userspace redirects until now, there seems to be a consensus forming here that there should be.--Aervanath (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from WP space to user space, I believe this isn't allowed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - harmless. –xenotalk 17:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware there was any kind of blanket ban on Wikipedia: to User: cross-namespace redirects. I'm sure some are bad in that they may misrepresent opinion as policy - but this doesn't seem to do that. I don't see what problem deleting this redirect would solve. ~ mazca t|c 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't. Many exist. They're fine. –xenotalk 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bad practice to have these types of cross namespace redirects, IMO. I'd support deleting all others as well. VegaDark (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark. "Harmless" is a non-argument, and it does set a poor precedent to have these types of cross-namespace shorcuts to userspace. We can't very well let some users have one and not let the other other 10 million have theirs; well, we can, but I'm a little hesitant to suggest going that way... :) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – There are some cases where shortcut to userspace may be acceptable, but not for a miscellaneous cabal. American Eagle (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not fussed, but I guess I'd better opine! Delete I guess - could set a dodgy precedent after all - also someone might wish to look at WP:EVULA on the same basis. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alien sideboob[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep--Aervanath (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target ,unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - harmless and appropriate. nearly 15000 google hits for alien sideboob. Was a common name/joke/internet meme describing the controversy . Note also this is a Wikipedia:Featured redirect. –xenotalk 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see in what way this is an unlikely search term; per Xeno this was a fairly widespread internet meme and no doubt people will still come across it every now and then. The targeted section provides fairly good context even if the specific term is not mentioned; this seems to be a useful-enough redirect to me. ~ mazca t|c 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With quotes, there're only 109 hits on Google for "alien sideboob". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't decrease the harmlessness of the redirect. It is probably the most common phrase used to describe for the event. Gamers don't comment to eachother on "the Fox News on the sex scene controversy" regarding Mass Effect, they talk about alien sideboob. Since there is no other likely target for alien sideboob, is the encyclopedia somehow improved by the deletion of the redirect? Also, as alien sideboob is the very first FR, you are seeking to delete a historical artifact ;>. –xenotalk 02:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but why does it redirect to #Fox News on the sex scene and not #Controversies ? At least one other section in controversies pertains to the redirect. -Zeus-u|c 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong keep. It links to the Fox section because it was specifically them that set up the whole meme. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for that? -Zeus-u|c 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fox raised a huge controversy over a sex scene in mass effect. It turned out to be, in effect, some brief shots of alien sideboob, hence the colloquial name for this well-known controversy. sourc'd. –xenotalk 01:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I misunderstand what you meant Zeus, you think it should redirect to Mass Effect#Sex scene coverage on the internet ?. That seems fine. The section didn't exist when I created the redirect. I do agree with Jade that without Fox it's doubtful the blog would've caused the meme to come into existence, but it did set the ball rolling. –xenotalk 01:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it would make more sense to redirect it to #Controversies (the level 2 heading that contains both the internet one and the fox one), but yes. -Zeus-u|c 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but if that happens, we should probably edit the article to swap the Fox controversy to the top. By the way, I'd like to point out that I'd never even heard of this meme until I found a link to this discussion on xeno's talkpage. I love Wikipedia! --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the two sections should be combined, they are basically two facets of the same controversy. –xenotalk 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's fine the way it is. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:78.147.156.1[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7. VegaDark (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I made them because there are links to them, and thought this would make things more convenient, but at the time I did not realise that if you type an IP user into the search bar you would arrive at the contributions page. These redirects override this behavior, and thus do more harm then good. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • If you created them and want them gone; you can simply tag them with {{db-g7}} and they can be speedy deleted. ~ mazca t|c 17:34, 27 May 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_May_27&oldid=1138576943"