Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 26, 2010

Hexachoron[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 retarget to Polychoron. — ξxplicit 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is an octachoron, not a hexachoron. Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andy's mom[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 keep both. Target was refined prior to this close. — ξxplicit 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This points to a section in a list that contains a small amount of information on this character. But it's not clear from the title that it would lead there. "Andy's mom" could potentially refer to a variety of characters or people, and it's unlikely many people would expect it to lead where it does. Reach Out to the Truth 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but refine the target to List of Toy Story characters generally. There is sufficient information throughout the page on this character, not just in the currently targeted section, to make this a worthwhile redirect. This redirect gets a lot of hits and since there is nothing else very obvious that people might be searching for I see no reason not to offer readers this target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a ridiculously implausible search term. This could probably be speedy deleted as G1 or G3. SnottyWong converse 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not only is it not implausible, it got 856 hits last month which shows it is entirely plausible. It is neither nonsense nor vandalism so speedy deletion does not arise. Since there is content at the target there is no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target article is not about "Andy's mom", and while that phrase does appear in the article a few times (4 to be exact), there is no section or subsection on Andy's Mom, nor is there any significant discussion of the character. How is it reasonable to redirect such a broad phrase (after all, how many real and fictional people have a legitimate claim to being "Andy's mom") to a list article about the fictional characters in a movie, and the character under discussion is so minor that she's not even given a name? Why not retarget to Hawaiian Heat, which also contains a fleeting reference to the phrase "Andy's mom"? Or perhaps we should create a disambiguation page for Andy's Mom (sarcasm). SnottyWong confabulate 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Andy's Mom added; they both should be treated in the same manner. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that the sole determinant of whether a redirect should be kept is: Does it get the user to where he was trying to go? The answer here is 'Yes'! - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no evidence that this redirect gets people where they want to go. Just because it got a couple hundred hits last month doesn't mean that everyone who clicked it was looking for a list of toy story characters. In addition, since Andy's Mom is such a minor character in this movie, it seems awfully unlikely that nearly 1000 people per month are searching for information on this character. It's far more likely that about 98% of the people who have used this redirect were looking for something else. What that is, I have no idea. SnottyWong babble 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if they weren't looking for the Toy Story character, we should give the user the most reasonable target that we have. Plenty of times I have typed something into the search box and ended up somewhere I wasn't expecting... but I always expect to end up at an encyclopedia article that most closely defines what I typed in. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheer number of hits is not evidence that the redirect is taking the majority of users to the article they were looking for. SnottyWong confabulate 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

System malfunction[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 delete. — ξxplicit 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if both articles could be written, they would only be loosely related. System malfunction often refers to a single system, while (the present state of) Information crisis refers to a set of interrelated systems which all fail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photobombing[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 delete. — ξxplicit 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. The subject is not discussed anywhere within the target article. Worse yet, the vague redirect target isn't even validly sourced. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have notified the creator, User:Richardcavell. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not able to see any good reason for this retarget; OK it is a form of practical joke but we need some mention in the target. Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - photo bombing is a well-established type of prank: See Google. According to Stats photobombing is getting hundreds of hits per month. A redirect should give the user the best page we have on the topic he searched for. Note also photobomb, which I have added to this discussion, and which is getting over 500 hits per month. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a redirect should offer our best page but it should also offer a page with some useful, sourced information. The hits show that readers are searching for information but we should front-up that we have none to offer. A red link to encourage article creation would be better. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no relevant content in target, thus not helpful as a navigational aid. --Taelus (Talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Elder Scrolls V: Shadow Realm[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Created two years ago as an article about a rumored sequel in The Elder Scrolls series (and immediately changed into a redirect); nothing came out of it since, and Google search for the phrase only returns forum posts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is certainly not an implausible search term as is shown by the stats; people are likely to have entered 'The Elder Scrolls V' in the search box and clicked on the link. Having said that, we have nothing to offer on the topic and nothing was merged so there are no GFDL implications. Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:CRYSTAL.--Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have no information on this rumoured title, so let's not mislead people into thinking we do. Reach Out to the Truth 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no relevant content at target, thus not beneficial as a navigational aid. --Taelus (Talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

File:CalculatorOne.jpg[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 Delete. The most suitable format for this file is png, not jpg. I have uploaded a png version. So, this redirect can be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover redirect from file move. I'm not sure if it should be deleted, but since I'm in doubt I'm bringing it over. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have alerted the editors involved with this redirect in case they have any views. Meanwhile, I note that no external sites use this file. The only incoming link is that of the image creator but that can be easily fixed. Delete as housekeeping. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The file should really be moved back, as .bmp in .jpg format files weren't supposed to be moved in the first place (see this version of {{Rename media}}). — ξxplicit 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alex (Software)[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 delete. — ξxplicit 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As capitalization of "software" in the title is against Wikipedia naming conventions in the first place, and as the word exists only to provide for Wikipedia naming schemes, the redirect serves no real purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokiClock (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 July 2010

  • Delete - created in February, which I guess is relatively recent, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Mind you, the notability of the underlying article is pretty marginal. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure this was created in good faith, but it serves no use, as stated. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The pussy monster[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 retarget to Tha Carter III. — ξxplicit 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Tha Carter III. As everyone round here knows I don't do popular culture, but even I know that this is quite notorious because it was inserted into some versions of this album due to a lawsuit. Having said that, the song is actually called 'Pussy Monster' but it gets a trickle of hits in the formulation of the redirect so it should be retargeted and kept. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:PGMayor[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 Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Created as a redirect when page was moved to new name, (26 November 2009) all pages have subsequently be redirected. EmanWilm (talk) 01:29, 26 July 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_July_26&oldid=1138577311"