Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2009

Daily Heil[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. –xenotalk 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect actually a sarcastic nickname for the newspaper. NellieBly (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:GOODBYECRUELWORLD[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just tasteless with an awful, almost condescending view of what it redirects to. Redirect serves no real purpose with nothing linking in. Any single visit is possibly dangerous. One-in-a-billion, I know, but still not enough to make this "encyclopedic" content and serves no "useful" purpose. I know the creator is an experienced contributor, and I completely believe it was done in good faith as the use of internet slang for general surrender on any forum. It just doesn't redirect to something to those ends, nor can I think of anywhere that would be fitting without additional risk of insult. Play it safe, kill this orphan redirect please. ((though I admit my POV on the matter is rather IAR, so discussion is welcomed)) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Not convinced by the nominator's rationale. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's your redirect, so I'm not at all surprised. I seriously trust your good faith on this and I admit a humor article could probably be made of it. How about this as a compromise, since Wikihumor does seem to exist for this already. "For use and humor in Wikipedia discussion, see Wikipedia:Grief". WP:GRIEF being the redirect (there are humorous examples at the top). That way the entire issue would be confined within the Wikispace of content in the line of satire and not the serious end of the spectrum actually relating to policy and "official" decisions. Opinion? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems overly glib for such a serious matter. I also don't see the value of such a long and unlikely redirect. Unless I am mistaken there are already other redirects for this page that are shorter, easier to remember, and not as glib. Chillum 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all those fronts, and if you'll look the page hits are essentially zero. WP:GUILT was the existing article that came up in Wikispace after a search for the thing, hence my compromise. Humor should redirect to humor, but humor should not redirect to suicide. That's pretty disgusting. Do you have a problem per say about the redirect change? It is kind of a meme which is the only reason I give the compromise at all. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or change target to Wikipedia:Grief, though that seems unnecessary). I think MZMcBride needs to at least attempt to justify the existence of this redirect if it's to be kept. I'm not sure what the thinking on creating it was, but to say that it seems to be in poor taste is putting it mildly. Obviously a lot of suicide threats and the like on Wikipedia are not genuine, but then again probably some are (or at least could be) and it is something we take seriously as should be the case. All it would take would be one incident where an editor reports a suicide threat on ANI and some wag replies, "for starters see Wikipedia:GOODBYECRUELWORLD on how we proceed", and then for something bad to actually happen with the person who threatened self-harm. Maybe a one in a hundred million chance, but clearly not worth even that level of risk. Moving from the common sense to the policy front, there simply is no purpose for the redirect, and it's understandably not even listed as one of the shortcuts to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. WP:VIOLENCE and WP:SUICIDE serve that purpose nicely, and no one is ever going to employ this redirect for anything useful. It would be nice if MZMcBride could just admit that, regardless of why it was created, having it is not a good idea, That would allow us to avoid further discussion, which would be good since deletion of this is pretty inevitable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concerns raised above. I am just unsure it is beneficial in any way, and has the potential to be harmful, thus delete as net negative to the project. --Taelus (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Evil Empire[edit]

The result of the discussion was early close; was already boldly retargeted to existing dab Evil empire (disambiguation). –xenotalk 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a disambig page if anything, and I'm not convinced that would be appropriate either. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change the target of the redirect. Which I just went ahead and did as it's essentially impossible, even for a patriotic Yankees hater such as myself, to argue that typing The Evil Empire should only lead a reader to the page on the Yanks. Evil empire (disambiguation) lists several instances of the phrase "Evil Empire" or "The Evil Empire" in historical or cultural references (we also might some day have an article on this book which we'd need to add to the list) so it seems obvious to me that the phrase needs to redirect to the already existing disambig page since we won't know what readers are looking for. I'm sort of short circuting the RfD discussion here but I can't imagine anyone would have much of a problem of this. Incidentally there's probably a couple of things that don't belong on that disambig page, but at least four do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hamish Hamilton (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to article, not dab, which could cause confusion and is a useless link. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A link to a disambiguation page should lead to a disambiguation page, not a specific article. That's common sense. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

''[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete both. Killiondude (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, but, not coincidentally, this redirect breaks the syntax of the rfd template.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering the usages of the real world, not the Wikipedia world. The mixing up of the two in this redirect (created by a user blocked for vandalism) almost seems akin to CSD R2 (though that obviously does not apply). If a user is asking for an encyclopedic treatment of '', they should not be served up Italic type. If there were a disambig page for '', it even seems questionable whether the MediaWiki syntax usage would make the cut for inclusion. The redirect should be deleted with no replacement in my opinion. Wareh (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Let me try to simplify the above: There seems to be no Wikipedia article (or treatment in an article) on the subject of MediaWiki syntax. Until there is, this redirect as its creator intended it can serve no function. Wareh (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe I've gotten the headers to work properly by hand-hacking them; I've also added a second, very similar redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. These are unneeded self-references (redirects from wikimarkup) that don't even work as self-references because they redirect to general concepts without explaining the connection between the redirect and the target. On top of that, they cause breakage in wikilinks or pages with any wikitext at all. They are not needed and not helpful. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Serves no useful function and ultimately is merely a pain in the neck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Conus (company)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to make sense. The Continental United States is not a company. Brougham~96 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like vandalism or other foolishness. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Company... redirecting to a geographical area? That's far stranger than what a lot of cross-namespace redirects might be. I've never heard the term used geographically before; but have in old political science courses as CONgress of the United States so it matches POTUS and SCOTUS as quick reference to all 3 branches of government here. However! You're reminded me that I wanted to start an article on a different CONUS-named process, so thanks :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Up Against The Wall Ft. The Dream[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was originally created as an article claiming that it was a single from JoJo's next album, but quickly converted to a redirect. However, searching for the song title and "The Dream" on Google yields nothing that even shows it exists, except for sites quoting Wikipedia. --GVOLTT How's my editing?\My contribs 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete R3 speedy was declined. That doesn't change the fact that this redirect has no basis in reality and is a highly unlikely search term. It should be deleted thus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Thanksgiving turkey[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retargeted. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Write article, possibly repoint, otherwise delete. Redirect is broken and simply points to Thanksgiving which has become more or less a disambiguation page and makes no mention of turkeys. The redirect could be repointed to the section's new home, which appears to be Thanksgiving (United States)#Traditional_celebrations, but I think this would be POV unless the USA is the only place where a turkey is part of the traditional celebration. (The Canada article makes no mention.) In addition, I think that the history of the turkey feast itself, as well as nuanced related topics such as "pardoning the turkey", deserve an article of their own. Greg Ravn (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repoint to Thanksgiving dinner#Turkey. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support change by and per SarekOfVulcan... the turkey itself isn't a celebration so much as a common part of the meal, and claiming specific importance to the event with the turkey on top is even more American-centric than it already is. We'd have to start digging in to how Thanksgiving is celebrated by different places and cultures (as with the 500 interpretations of Christmas), but that seems over-the-top just for mention of a dead bird. Semi-related, how is Turducken NOT in that Thanksgiving article under turkey "alternatives"? Boo. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_20&oldid=1146347780"