Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 27[edit]

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

Templates:Trofeo EFE[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted as an implausible redirect (R3). JamieS93 21:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect Svick (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it does indeed appear in the mainspace as a search term, and thus is not allowed. --Taelus (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template/Infobox outlines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as general housekeeping. --Taelus (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Svick (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it, it was some leftover from page moving. Cacycle (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

21st Century Breakdown (Green Day Song)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep both. Tikiwont (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both (contested prods). These were created at a time when 21st Century Breakdown (song) was redirected to 21st Century Breakdown (the album from which the song originates), in an attempt at gaming the system. Since they were near-identical copies of the original song article, they were swiftly redirected to the album as well. Since that time, 21st Century Breakdown (song) has been kept at AfD and developed into a better article. Both redirect titles are rather implausible, as a user would have to be familiar with the concept of disambiguation to enter either as a search term, yet would have to get the dab entirely wrong (as the most intuitive and correct dab is the one where the article currently resides). "21st Century Breakdown" is the most likely search term, but since that is the album title/article a hatnote there directs them to the song. "21st Century Breakdown (song)" is the next most likely search term, and in fact is the target article. Redirects may be cheap, but having one at every possible dab and caps variation is entirely useless. IllaZilla (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Green Day Song), the article has enough traffic to suggest that it is used as an external link elsewhere. Deleting this redirect would break these external links which would be detrimental to users. I am tempted to also say Keep (Green Day) for this similar reason, although it has no article traffic to suggest it is used as an external link. At the end of the day, whilst saying we shouldn't have every redirect possible, we shouldn't go around deleting any for this reason to the detriment of other users. Whilst it is an unlikely search term, we should remember that it is not the only method for accessing articles. Additionally, no need to retarget, as disambiguation is handled as pointed out in the target article. --Taelus (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both- as prod contestor, both are plausible re-directs, and quite frankly re-directs are cheap. I saw no reason then to delete, and still don't. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as both redirect titles are valid disambiguations (albeit the first one with an alternate capitalisation). Sometimes disambiguating by act makes for a "easier" search of various recordings, songs, etc. Should there be a cover version of the song, the disambiguation by act becomes even more important.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Westrift[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, it is a location in a game universe which is of such tiny notability it will never be covered in the target article. It is a highly unlikely search term, and even if it is searched the user will never find any information regarding the topic on Wikipedia due to the notability guidelines. Taelus (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No need to create a redirect for every minute aspect of a game. Let's stop this before it becomes a pattern for every game. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to prevent fanboys from creating articles at these titles. Redirects are cheap. GlassCobra 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they do continue recreating them, just salt the article. Redirects shouldn't exist to prevent article creation, that is not what they are for. At the end of the day, they will only serve to confuse the reader/end-user, and thus we shouldn't put background process before the long-term goals of the project. --Taelus (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Icemist Village[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 14:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, it is a location in a game universe which is of such tiny notability it will never be covered in the target article. It is a highly unlikely search term, and even if it is searched the user will never find any information regarding the topic on Wikipedia due to the notability guidelines. Taelus (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No need to create a redirect for every minute aspect of a game. Let's stop this before it becomes a pattern for every game. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to prevent fanboys from creating articles at these titles. Redirects are cheap. GlassCobra 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they do continue recreating them, just salt the article. Redirects shouldn't exist to prevent article creation, that is not what they are for. At the end of the day, they will only serve to confuse the reader/end-user, and thus we shouldn't put background process before the long-term goals of the project. --Taelus (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Riplash Ruins[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 14:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, it is a location in a game universe which is of such tiny notability it will never be covered in the target article. It is a highly unlikely search term, and even if it is searched the user will never find any information regarding the topic on Wikipedia due to the notability guidelines. Taelus (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No need to create a redirect for every minute aspect of a game. Let's stop this before it becomes a pattern for every game. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to prevent fanboys from creating articles at these titles. Redirects are cheap. GlassCobra 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they do continue recreating them, just salt the article. Redirects shouldn't exist to prevent article creation, that is not what they are for. At the end of the day, they will only serve to confuse the reader/end-user, and thus we shouldn't put background process before the long-term goals of the project. --Taelus (talk) 16:24, 3 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_October_27&oldid=1211679792"