Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2009

Child sexua lity[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is recommended for deletion - it's an implausible typo with a completely random space in the middle of a word. It's not an abbreviation or alternate spelling. There are no incoming links to the redirect page (other than one where I asked about how to do this listing), so no links will be broken when it's deleted. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info -The first version of the page when it was originally created was a nonsense page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep Child_sexua_lity has been viewed 8 times in 200909 which astonishes me. How does that happen? Anybody? Josh Parris 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Having had time to consider, I don't think anyone's going to miss this. Josh Parris 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If any other articles had redirects with random spaces inside the words, you'd see traffic for those also, it's an easy typo. How many people have typed "wikiped ia" when they intended wikipedia? Redirects are useful for common misspellings, but they're not intended for catching random typos. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As originally created, the redirect was vandalism, before it was redirected to the target article. However, there is no plausible reason for this redirect which would legitimize keeping; the only internal link to this redirect is on a talk page and pertains to this RfD, as indicated. --Kinu t/c 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I figure there's got to be a broken incoming link out there on the interwebs. People need this redirect to get to the right article. Josh Parris 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always felt that the need to maintain such redirects for links from outside of Wikipedia applies when the redirect is reasonable; for example, the "Attorneygate" example provided at WP:R#HARMFUL, or some other plausible typo, misnomer, etc. In this case, I would argue that the redirect isn't something people "need," per se, to get to the right article. --Kinu t/c 21:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Takamoto Megumi[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Redirecting a real person to a fictional character does not seem to be appropriate. However an article about Megumi Takamoto is welcome. Ruslik_Zero 13:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takamoto Megumi (Megumi Takamoto) is real person and not other name of fictional character Winry Rockbell. Megumi Takamoto worked in many other anime serias besides Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. -- Alex Spade (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to create an article or do you think the person is not notiable enough for an article and want it deleted. If it is the former a new article can be created without the use of an RFD.--76.69.171.159 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No and no. Megumi Takamoto is also known as Ushio Kazama from Sasameki Koto and Misaki Sawakura from White Album for examples. Why Windy Rockbell is in such priority. Alex Spade (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify per above discussion. It is clear that the voice actor works with many pseudonyms, and receives a fair amount of coverage in independent media. Should the redirect be deleted instead, I urge a listing in WP:RA as the subject clears the WP:BIO notability bar. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that if an article is created it should be at Megumi Takamoto and not at Takamoto Megumi. The reason is that the WP:MOSJA states anyone born after the Meiji period (1868 onward) should be listed by given name and then family name and I doubt that this VA is over 130 years old. --70.24.181.217 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't matter, since the reversed order name would have to exist as a redirect, because that is how they are named in Japan (when rendered into Latin lettering) 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement was a reference to the suggestion to create a stub for the person is question. The article does noy yet exist so it was being pointed out that if or when the article was created that it should go with the given then surname order and that the new article should not be created under the name Takamoto Megumi.--70.24.176.195 (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Common Sense (paper)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. You are free to recreate it as a stub. Ruslik_Zero 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R4: It is bizarre to redirect a paper to its editor. It is listed on the page Common sense (disambiguation) page too. Should probably be a redlink in the McGingle article, as suggested by R4.

Split. On consideration, a good half of the McGinley article is about the paper, and should be split to there. The two articles both would be stubs (or start class), though. I dunno whether formally I should propose a split having already listed for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you list it for deletion? If so where? I would have no problem, with someone creating this as an article, even stubby. The only reason for the redirect at the time, was that people were looking for references to the newspaper itself. The redirect was only to let them know that we did have details on the paper and it's editor. So please go right ahead and create the article.Wjhonson (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not list it for deletion while it is here for discussion. As above, I think a split would be best. I will wait until this expires (tomorrow) then go ahead and split it into the paper and the editor. (Doubtless with some minor overlap) and of course link each to the other. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "Common Sense (paper)" can be confused with Common Sense (pamphlet), the far more commonly-cited context of the term (Common Sense (newspaper) might be a more appropriate name for an article about Conde McGinley's periodical, though). Retargeting the redirect to the dab page that lists the redirect directly is not helpful. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with IP 147.70.242.54; as a disambiguator, Common Sense (paper) doesn't actually disambiguate. Since there's no actual article, there's no reason to keep it. Having said that, I endorse having some clearer redirect like Common Sense (newspaper) instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Belmez[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to new dab page Josh Parris 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think that is should be redirected to a disambiguation page, which would includes Bélmez, Bélmez de la Moraleda and Bélmez Faces. I could make this page. Smarkflea (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and create a disambig page here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you meant by here, but I created Belmez (disambiguation). I think I fixed the redirect, too. Did I make the disambiguation page correctly? Thanks...Smarkflea (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has deleted that disambig page ("obviously unnecessary disambiguation page" - a bit harsh!). But, seeing as there are so few pages, it looks like we're better off with hatnotes. I notice that Bélmez Faces has not been linked into the tree yet. It may be add a hatnote to Bélmez, pointing to Bélmez Faces, and improve the prosodic linkage in the Moraleda article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm through with this...thanks to Autocratic Administrators Smarkflea (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's back, I've made it compliant with WP:MOSDAB, we can move on. Josh Parris 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jeremy Jackson/Temp[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another of a long series of "temporary" redirects, this time from 2006. The article itself is at the target, and the "/Temp" makes the name of this a most highly unlikely search item. We have pretty much cleared out the "/redirect" redirects over the past several months; the redundant "/Temp" redirects should disappear, too. To this end I also nominate

147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article - The Paraguayan Guaraní language temp article can be deleted. It had been created by User:Kwamikagami back in August as a temporary storage palce, but later he must have been unable to delete it. All the relevant content, history, and discussion are now included in either Paraguayan Guaraní or Guaraní language, so this article is completely useless now. Pasquale (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant criterion G6. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they've clearly served their purpose. Note: there's history. Josh Parris 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

F---[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from "censored" version of this word. No pages link to F---, and the redirect target is ambiguous at best. No similar redirects seem to exist for other words characterized as profanity (yes, I checked). As Wikipedia is not censored, there is no reason for anyone to link to f--- in an article when a link fuck will suffice. --Kinu t/c 00:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Side note - it is interesting to see that WP:F*** exists as a short cut to Wikipedia:Profanity. Just an observation - I have no recommendation on the nominated redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect is so bowlderised as to have lost any meaningful connection to the target. May cause confusion due to F--- also corresponding to a(n intentionally exaggerated) bad school grade. --Allen3 talk 13:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Allen3. Doesn't use it as redirect per WP:CENSORED. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely search, and slightly ironic, considering the target of this redirect. Intelligentsium 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep F--- has been viewed 14 times in 200909, so at the very least outsiders are coming here via that term. But, why that is I can't guess at. Bowlderisation? If Allen3 thinks it may cause confusion: change it to a dab page. Josh Parris 10:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would surmise that there are any number of reasons for a page view... perhaps when a Wikipedia article is copied by certain mirrors, the software counts this as a page view? Who knows. Maybe someone actually wanted to know why their teacher gave them an F---. :P --Kinu t/c 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's a form of Rickrolling? Josh Parris 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder how it compares with its 3-star variant F***... The 5-star (F*****) and 5-hyphen (F-----) variants have been nominated for deletion today. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 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_25&oldid=1146692578"