Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 1

< January 31

February 2 >

February 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2010

Lee mckay

The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lee mckay → Mckay (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This was created as an article reading, "Lee McKay (pronounced Mik-eye) is a common name used particularly common name used especcialy in Central Scotland and is mostly found in the McKay clan." Then it was redirected to Mckay, which itself redirects to McKay, a list of people with no explanatory content. But there's no Lee McKay on the list, and I don't think we need redirects to surname articles from all potential full names. Or why not Srikanth McKay or Ernesto McKay → McKay ?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. An article on this particular person should be created if he meets the relevant notability guideline. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - this borders on speedy delete territory as lacking in encyclopedic content, having no valid destination, and being a recently-created redirect with significant typographical errors. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• And what encyclopedic content would you hope to find in a redirect, exactly?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless. Peridon (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I concur with the comments above. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy delete it doesn't border, it's over the border (especially with the capitalisation failure). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Steam table

The result of the discussion was keep. The issue can be revisited if/when there is an article about the food preparation/service use. Please note, however, that a disambiguation page does not need to be created "if only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation"; such situations can generally be handled through the use of hatnotes. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links? for details. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Steam table → Water_(data_page)#Water.2Fsteam_equilibrium_properties (links to redirect • history • stats) 

A "steam table" is a table used in restaurants to keep food warm. This redirect doesn't make sense. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the point of this redirect is that the table is called the 'steam table' - I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty sure it refers to density and things like that of vapor at a certain temperature. JulieSpaulding 11:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Well, there is a citation in the target article that shows the table of numbers is referred to as a "Steam table", however as you said this could be used in alternate ways. Possibly this should become a disambiguation, and an article created for the use in restaurants? --Taelus (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Considering that eight out of the first ten hits on Google for 'steam table' are for the current redirect use, I would say that the current usage is more popular. I know this smells like WP:GOOGLE, but generally when only one out of the ten top hits are related to a topic, I would say that the topic with eight hits is more popular. JulieSpaulding 13:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  A fair point, I suppose as there is no article for the alternate use, there is no real change that can be done here, disambig page or hatnote. All usage on Wikipedia that is [[linked]] seems to be for the physics use too, however there are usages of the term in the restaurant context briefly on some pages. --Taelus (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  That's true. I would say that until some real information can be garnered about the restaurant topic, keep for now. JulieSpaulding 13:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  I agree, keep for now. The oldrfd tag from this result will prompt other users who encounter the redirect and may possibly lead to article creation, if someone with knowledge in the area happens to stumble upon it. --Taelus (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  Both uses are correct. This tneeds to be turned into a disam page, and an article written for the food preparation use. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  I would agree, provided that the food preparation article is created before the disambiguation page. A disambiguation page with one red link and another to a section wouldn't be very useful. JulieSpaulding 12:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Mass Effect (video game)

The result of the discussion was Keep the redirect. As noted, this is not the correct venue for a move discussion, the article talk page and/or Wikipedia:Requested moves is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Mass Effect (video game) → Mass Effect (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete/Move: Now that Mass Effect 2 is clearly more popular than Mass Effect, it can't be argued that the first game deserves the main namespace over the series page in contradiction of WP:VG naming guidelines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak keep (keep the status quo, that is). Halo (video game) redirects to Halo: Combat Evolved (the first in the series), although Halo 3 is clearly more popular than the first. I can't find anything at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) which suggests what you are saying - although I do understand your point about the series redirect. However, the naming convention says that the series page should reside at the primary name only if the series possesses three titles. So far, that is not the case. I can see where you're coming from though, so I'll say weak keep for now. If you can point out something that says otherwise, please let me know, as I'd be happy to change my stance. JulieSpaulding 09:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the difference is that Halo: Combat Evolved requires no disambiguation, and Halo (series) will obviously never be in the main name space. The series does possess three titles, when you add the iPhone game into the equation, and Mass Effect 3 is obviously in development.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support move, no deletion needs to take place here however except for technical reasons. Mass Effect should be moved to Mass Effect (video game), then Mass Effect (series) should be moved to Mass Effect, leaving a redirect behind as to not break any links, either internal or external. Then a hatnote should be applied to the new home of the series page to disambiguate the series and the first game. --Taelus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that's an acceptable solution. Even though the video games naming convention says otherwise, the Mass Effect series does have enough games in it to meet the three-game minimum if you count the 'related' one. Anyway, a new game in the series appears to be coming out next year so this move is going to have to take place somewhere along the line. JulieSpaulding 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move or retargeting. I appreciate the reasoning given above; however, I think a lot more people are interested in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 than in Mass Effect (series), which is a made-up wikiterm and, all in all, a somewhat crufty article. Stats.grok.se bears out that Mass Effect gets around ten times the traffic of Mass Effect (series). Maybe when there's more to the series it will make sense to give the series article priority of placement, but as of now I think it would just result in a lot of people having to click another link to get where they expected to go. You can consider the strength of my opposition to be somewhere between oppose and weak oppose.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep redirect as it serves its current purpose. This is not the venue for move discussions (WP:Requested moves or the article's discussion page is). Should there be consensus for a move at the appropriate venue, this nomination/discussion would be moot. B.Wind (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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