Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2010

Basket of Puppies[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully request deletion of this redirect. I believe it is a hoax. Basket of Puppies 23:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not sure its a hoax, per se. I believe it refers to the statement the band made around the time of the Anthrax terror scares, suggesting they could change their name to Basket Full of Puppies. Its simply a derivation of that name. Rockpocket 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I edit conflicted posting the same link, so I endorse the above comment. However, I'm not certain we need the nominated redirect, given that the correct name already redirects to the same target. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They didn't name themselves this, and just joked about it, as is clearly stated in the article. It's not their name, and in my opinion it's not appropriate to create a redirect to them as though it is. For that matter, the more precise term, "basket full of puppies", is also not appropriate. In the event anyone actually input this phrase, the wikipedia search engine results should display pages containing the words. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the joke (which is mentioned at Anthrax (band)) uses the wording "Basket Full of Puppies", this redirect should be deleted. Basket Full of Puppies, on the other hand, should remain. Cnilep (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a mistaken version of what is at this point a very unlikely search term.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glenfarclas.Pcap ping 12:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need an incorrect link to an off-hand joke.--agr (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --MW talk contribs 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful cross-namespace redirects. Why would an editor type a question into the search box? And should such behavior be encouraged? — The Man in Question (in question) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. These things come about because of misunderstandings as to what the search box is for. We already have a search engine with boxes to select if one wants to search articles, templates, help sections, etc. And in any event, normal users don't input something like, "how does one edit a page", as though he's talking to a sentient being. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I do believe that cross-namespacing is something we should avoid, and this is not what the search box is supposed to be for. This is why we have welcome templates and deletion notifications, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary and unhelpful cross-namespace redirects. Cnilep (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They don't really help the user, and they play havoc with article maintenance lists (which is how I found this one).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

What was I just thinking of[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness. Wikipedia cannot accommodate the notions of individual users. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suppose this has a barely plausible relation to the target, but it's better for the encyclopedia if queries like this return nothing at all, rather than trying to accommodate them with such targets. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsensical, implausible, not helpful. This isn't a search engine or thesaurus helping people come up with words to match their thoughts. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not really appropriate. I doubt the majority search for this actually hoping to find the target. It's probably better we don't have vague things like this, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. But it would be kinda nice if it redirected to Special:Random. Si Trew (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Android (operating system[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot for the life of me figure out a reason for the creation of this. I asked the creator a little while ago (who could well be inactive/on wikibreak) but to no avail. On the surface, it seems like an implausible typo, but it does seem to have been created intentionally. I cannot figure out why it gets the page hits it does either, so I've brought it here for discussion. I'd propose deletion, because while harmless it ain't good practice have redirects for every disambiguated page less the final paren. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible and unhelpful. The willful creation of the article is confusing. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible and unhelpful. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I think this was me, I am back from wiki break. Whenever I commit a typo, especially an easy typo or a type caused by a likely user behavior I create a redirect from the page to the final result of my search. I assume wikipedia works the way I want it to work, and whenever it doesn't it, I fix it by adding a helpful redirect. I think yall have between you presented a strong argument for many of the redirects I've made. They are at worst harmless, and they were very helpful for me, it's why I made them. I often make the same mistake twice. I make a point that everything is redirected to the mostly likely desired page. Wikipedia has awful, awful, awful search functionality. Fortunately it is very public, so google makes up for the poor search. But any user can help by making redirects such as the ones I do. But I am admitted inclusionist. Thank you for your time. Rant over. Mathiastck (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per YouWillBeAssimilated.Pcap ping 12:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

What Is The Name of This Book[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below, It also redirects to nonsense. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 21:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not useful at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nomination below. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: What is the name of this book? appears to be the title of a book that Raymond Smullyan wrote. -- Cat1205123 (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's the title of a book he wrote and is mentioned in this page, the search engine results will list pages that mention the book. There's not substantive information about the book on the author's page, and in the event some other page on Wikipedia mentions something about this book, this redirect will prevent users from finding it, because it overrides the search engine. That's why this practice should generally be avoided. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. While it isn't nonsense, having redirects like this hinders article creation. I used to get really confused about this when I was new here, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

What is wikipedia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete, with the exception of Who is responsible for these pages. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a suitable Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not made to answer such questions, anyway. Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering. Misses the point of Wikipedia altogether. Furthermore, a search such as "What is South Africa?" turns up Wikipedia anyway. (P.S. This is, of course, NOT every "What is…" page, just ones that redirect to their answers. Also, no famous questions have been included in this nomination, such as Where do babies come from?, What is the meaning of life?, and even What's happening to my body and What is the matrix) — The Man in Question (in question) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is Love ?[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless space before question mark. Very little history; pages created as hoax/something very unencyclopedic (both began "Love is a rather vague word. We can talk about the way we love our job, the love of our parents, of our friends, … But here, we will mainly focus on the most common type of love, the love of a man for a woman."). No links; eight collective pageviews in December. Furthermore, putting a space before a punctuation mark will turn up the same result on the search page (for example, a search for How ? will have How? as the first suggestion). — The Man in Question (in question) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search term. Rockpocket 21:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I was about to say "The space was most likely added to get round the already existing redirect What Is Love?". But it turns out that this one is a good few years older than its correctly spaced counterpart. Anyway, I do think this one is plausible enough. I've seen this sort of typo in a few articles (I can't tell you the exact articles, you'll have to trust me). If you look at the page's traffic any time before December '09, it has some more views (eg. 42 in November, 76 in October). Or maybe I've done something wrong with the stats tool, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Spacing rules change according to countries, so different users will space differently. French for example adds man more spaces around punctuation, so non-US users may not necessarily punctuate correctly.Hrcolyer (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We speak English not French. All varieties of English (AFAIK) join the last letter of the word with the mark of punctuation. We should not pander to sloppy writing otherwise we should redirect I lOve Lucy to I Love Lucy etc. The search pages give the correctly spaced punctuation every time as TMIQ has pointed out. (I am a UK English speaker, BTW, and this punctuation rule is identical in both UKEng and USEng.) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator per nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

External links[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Internal link ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has a long history of being pointed variously at either Internal link or Wikipedia:External links, popping up on my watchlist today after the most recent switch. The cross-namespace redirect version is not especially needed, however, and targeting Internal link is not really a good fit, only a better choice than a CNR. I don't think it's likely to be a very useful target for Internal link, despite the fact that I previously was one of the editors who retargeted it there.

I doubt that anyone is seriously searching the encyclopedia for an article on "external links". Since there's no broad agreement about which of two problematic targets this should point to, deletion is probably a better alternative. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would rather it was pointed at the wrong one (i.e. Internal Link :p) than neither, as it is then only a click away to the right one. I think the cross namespace redirect is moderately useful. Especially as if you do a search for External Links or External Link it doesn't list WP:EL as a possibility (except for the redirect page). Another possibility is to make External Link a disambiguation page. By the way this also applies to External link. So the same needs to be done for that too IMO. Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you for catching External link; I agree that they should be discussed together. It's worth pointing out that the search autosuggestion function will suggest Wikipedia:External links if you input "external link", for anyone that has set "search in all namespaces" to on in their preferences (that is, not for casual readers or anyone not logged in to a Wikipedia account). At least, it does the right thing for me. Non-editing readers should not care about our external link policy. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Same now I've changed the preference. Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page seems to have been recreated four times. A soft redirect may be necessary, lest it simply be created again. Cnilep (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case maybe my self-rejected disambiguation suggestion is a good idea. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people are recreating it that frequently, does G10 apply? Even if it doesn't, let's try not to set this up for them to do it again: either don't delete the page or salt it after deletion. --Thinboy00 @143, i.e. 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Internal link. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

'What's Shenmue'[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Batsy[edit]

The result of the discussion was No consensus ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I can't see any indication Batman has been referred to in this way. No mention in the target article, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (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/2010_January_2&oldid=1148682622"