Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2010

V4641[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. Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not particularly clear that a search for "V4641" would imply a variable star search. If we make the assumption that "V4641" should be taken as a variable star query, consultation of the GCVS on VizieR [1] indicates that Sagittarius is at the present time the only constellation with variable star numbers this high, and at the risk of entering WP:CRYSTAL territory, there's no reason to believe it will always remain so (though the highest-numbered variable star outside Sagittarius is V2671 Ophiuchi, so it may be a while for this to become an issue). I'm not particularly sure whether this redirect is appropriate, nor was the editor who brought it up at WT:ASTRO. Icalanise (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - before we consider deletion we need to identify a reason to delete. Since this is a harmless redirect, that is used from time to time, the only grounds would be that of confusion. Looking at the discussion WT:ASTRO#V4641, this designation doesn't apply to any other star. Also, it is not a term used elsewhere in Wikipedia in other contexts. Consequently, it seems just fine to me. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not necessarily suggesting this redirect should be deleted: this page is after all titled "Redirects for discussion", not "Redirects for deletion". For example, it may be preferable to replace the redirect with a disambiguation page, e.g. between the variable star designation denoting the 4641st variable star discovered in a given constellation, versus the actual star V4641 Sagittarii. Icalanise (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete this is a bad misnomer that I think should not be promulgated. If it can be replaced by a set-index or dab page, that would be better than the current situation. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that WP:RNEUTRAL has some relevance. A redirect is simply a navigation aid and doesn't promulgate or restrict a particular meaning. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the name is technically ambiguous, it is overwhelmingly probable that someone searching for "V4641" will be looking for the X-ray binary in Sagittarius, rather than another object with the same designation. By way of comparison, the word "Obama" can refer to many different topics, but the Wikipedia article redirects to Barack Obama, for the reason that this is the most notable topic. The same principle should apply here. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 01:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the comparison with Obama is misleading, if only because the majority of readers are probably aware of Barack Obama. If I started talking about Obama, I am pretty confident that the majority of people would be aware I am talking about Barack Obama. If I start talking about V4641, most people wouldn't have the foggiest idea what I was talking about. V4641 Sagittarii is nowhere near as well known as Barack Obama is. Icalanise (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people who have heard of V4641 Sagittarii is irrelevant. It is the fraction of people searching for V4641 who expect to find V4641 Sagittarii that matters. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that it is "overwhelmingly probable" that those searching for "V4641" would be doing so knowing it is a shorthand for V4641 Sagittarii, as opposed to, say, entering some random collection of letters and numbers, or having no idea what the combination meant? Icalanise (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone is just entering random digits then I guess it doesn't matter what page we send them to. However, if it is a deliberate search then the fundamental question is 'What else might they be seeking?' and this is a question that no-one has been able to answer. "If at the present time the only constellation with variable star numbers this high" then I see no basis for a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did an extensive Google search for anything else that V4641 might refer to. Could someone, for instance, be searching for a fragment of the order code of a sold out Japanese wallet, or the unit number of an apartment for rental in Marbella, or the stock number of an exhaust valve, or perhaps a user on the last.fm music site? Rather than asking me to provide the impossible, why not give an example of something else that V4641 might realistically refer to? — Hyperdeath(Talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't the one who made the assertion that those who enter "V4641" are "overwhelmingly" going to be searching for V4641. That kind of assertion needs some evidence to back it up. Icalanise (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first 100 Google hits gave no alternative meanings, besides the utter trivia mentioned above. I don't see how I can do any better, besides commissioning an opinion poll. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 21:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're now saying is that the relevant quantity is not the fraction of people searching for V4641 (as you said earlier), but the fraction of people who already know one possible meaning of V4641 who would search for V4641. Icalanise (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search engine results seem to show that this variable star is by far the most probable referent of "V4641". So, if the person typing "V4641" into the box wishes to see an encyclopedia article about something called "V4641", the redirect is useful, whether the searcher knew beforehand or not that V4641 referred to this variable star. If they are typing a random string of letters and numbers into the search box for no reason, then the redirect is not useful, but presumably Wikipedia is not designed for such users. Spacepotato (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

I was frozen today[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 List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes. Lenticel (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable meme sparked by The Nostalgia Critic. Unlikely search term due to obscurity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes. Sorry, but I don't think that it is a particularly good idea for nominators bringing redirects here to immediately remove the relevant content from the target - see here. Popular culture, not being my thing, I'll leave it to others to decide whether it should go back. However, it is (at the time of writing) still in the revised target and since it gets some hits each month, and there are plenty of mentions here, there is absolutely no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the content the nominator removed from the target article was trivia and did not aid encyclopedic understanding of the topic, thus I have no problem with them removing it then listing here. I do not like the idea that Wikipedia should hold redirects of every single meme that comes into being. We're an encyclopedia. Whilst the usual "But people use it to navigate" response will oppose my view here, the only reason such redirects get views is because it's a joke, not because someone is actually looking for information regarding the film. Personally I cannot see how this benefits the projects goals in any way. --Taelus (Talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose the retarget suggestion is ok, despite the target article also containing little information, not even identifying the phrase as a meme. Whilst personally I, as a reader, would be irritated by the existance of a redirect which doesn't give any context, I suppose the content there could be expanded/improved in the future as a result of the redirect. --Taelus (Talk) 11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes. After all, this article (list) contains the "I was frozen today" gag in the list. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Roll Hardness Tester[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article title, per MOS. No reason to have both titles in existence. — Timneu22 · talk 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - we are all volunteers around here and we don't expect or require other editors to carry out work. If you see something that needs doing; either do it, or leave it, as you choose. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was trying to indicate that it was quite wrong of you to propose speedy deletion while the redirect had several incoming links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I happen to agree; I'm happy to acknowledge that I should have checked first. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CSD-R3. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original author blanked the target, so I guess it's now a mood point. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect has now been deleted per WP:CSD#G8 and all incoming main space links have been removed as well. Favonian (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I had closed this when the redirect was deleted. Now that the redirect has been recreated I have reopened the discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recreated this redirect as it is useful. It was deleted per CSD G8, but this is no longer applicable as the redirect target now exists. CSD R3 is not applicable as it is for "implausible or not common" typos, and this redirect is from an alternate capitalization, something which is very common. In fact, we have hundreds of thousands of such redirects, as can be seen by looking at Category:Redirects from other capitalisations. Spacepotato (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—redirect from alternate capitalization; satisifies no criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE and satisfies criterion 2 in WP:RFD#KEEP. Spacepotato (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lieut. Frederick Gotthold Enslin[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 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely unlikely search term, the likelihood that anyone would type exactly this search string is low to the point of nil. Otto4711 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - long-standing redirect so deletion might break links in external sites - see WP:RFD#HARMFUL. It does not meet WP:RFD#DELETE, harmless, the occasional person has used it, there is no benefit in deleting so why delete? Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redirect-cruft, if such a thing exists. SnottyWong spill the beans 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If one types that, he will easily find the desired article, does not need the redirect. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:27, 28 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_27&oldid=1136083530"