Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2010

Passenger transportation[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 Transport#Passenger. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is completely arbitrary, as all modes of public transit transport "passengers" -- but so do personal transportation vehicles such as cars. That said, the Passenger article states that it is specifically about passengers in commercial transport, which suggests that Public transport is the best target. While private cars obviously have passenger seats, it's hard to imagine an encyclopedically notable article about their occupants. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that public transportation is shared passenger transportation (mainly bus, passenger trains, trams, trolleybuses, subways). So, not all the passenger transportation is included in the public transportation. On the other hand, public transportation is not always commercial transport (can be not-for-profit, free of charge in some places and conditions and so on). In any case, I am going temporally to redirect to public transportation, upto the moment an independent article can be created.--Nudecline (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I posted on your Talk page, you should now wait for the outcome of the RfD. I've undone that change pending this outcome. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Death of Eugene Ejike Obiora[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 move back to having the Death of article be the main one; the name will be the redirect. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the person, not the event. Unneeded. Tavix |  Talk  19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The bulk of the article is about Obiora's death, and is wholly relevant to the title of the redirect, which is a foreseeable search term that gets traffic. Obiora himself seems, to me, to be an otherwise nn person. Indeed far from deleting the redirect, a better option might be to move the article to the redirect and rework the page so it is about the death. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse pagemove - The redirect is the result of a pagemove in 2008 undertaken in order to achieve consistency with "other articles in the categories". Regardless of the standard used by other articles, Bridgeplayer's assessment regarding the topic of the article is accurate: it is primarily an article about the person's death (and its consequences) and not about the person. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to previous title. I agree with the users above that this should be titled 'Death of Eugene Ejike Obiora', as that's what the article is actually about. (It might be better to discuss this on the talk page, though.) Robofish (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hikaru Kato[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 no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not a redirect term for the target article (it appears to be fancruft or OR, and no citations as to its use appear in the target article either), the redirect should be removed and the article deleted. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The official Japanese language Star Trek site[1] (via Google Translate) names him as Kato. Plus, ja.wiki calls him Kato in their Hikaru Sulu and Star Trek articles. —DoRD (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that source copies most of its content from not only Memory Alpha (which we do not use as source material) but from the ja-wiki as well - another source that we do not use. I'd also point out that in each of these instances of Hikaru Kato, there is precisely no sources supporting its usage. For that reason, we cannot use it either as an article or a redirect to the target. Every Google search for the terms "Hikaru Kato" and "Star Trek" bring up mirrors of either the wiki-en or the wiki-ja; pretty much, the nails in the coffin. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? Did you even look at the official site? The source for the Paramount site in Japanese is the company itself, hence a reliable source. —DoRD (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect; the status of the article is without the scope of this project and should be taken to WP:AFD if the nominator wishes it to be deleted. The question as to whether Hikaru Kato is a proper term for Hikaru Sulu is way above my pay grade but fortunately this is not one that we need to address. Firstly this is a foreseeable redirect - see here. OK many of these are mirrors or copied content from Wikipedia but the fact remains that this name formulation is to be found in many external sources and readers come here to find out about it as shown in the stats. The other issue is; is it confusing? The only other possibly notable person is a second-string American tennis player - here. If that Hikaru Kato becomes notable then we can convert the redirect to a DMB page but, until then, it seems fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Correction: virtually all of those Google results are mirror sites, all taking their cue from what we do here in Wikipedia. There is no whopping proof that anyone would seek out Sulu by searching Hikaru Kato. There have been written literally thousands of books about Star Trek and yet, the only single source in all of the internet happens to be a Google translated source, written by fans? I mean, REALLY? Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a collection of original thought. As Hikaru Kato has never been reproduced anywhere else in the almost 30 years since Sulu's first name was introduced (after millions of websites, thousands of books, several films and tv series and scads of fan fic fail to even mention it once), I think we are on relatively safe ground avoid this fringe nickname that appears to be a one-off nickname by a fan. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete romanized foreign language term for an English language concept, that originated in English, and is predominantly English-language in character. — "Star Trek" is an American TV show, where the character is named "Hikaru Sulu". What does Japanese-language dubs have to do with it? 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (to above two views). Yes, many sites have taken their cue/copied content from Wikipedia but some are not auto-generated mirrors. The fact that this term is used in external sites - whether wrongly, unreliably or from Japanese dubs doesn't matter - and the stats show that there is a foreseeable use. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment - I think you are missing the point, Bridgeplayer; the info about Hikaru Kato was added to Wiki-en first, and then copied/mirrored elsewhere. That suggests one of two situations: either a 'monkey-see, monkey-do' rote mirroring, or a concentrated effort to keep alive a term that is at best a fringe term. Additionally, your interpretation of the "stats" is incorrect: a page view people viewing the page for "Hikaru Sulu" remains fairly consistent (around 400-500), whilst the search for the improbable moniker has virtually no traffic whatsoever (the most over the last 6 months was last month, with six). That suggests to the reasonable person that those coming here to Wikipedia to search for the Star Trek character aren't seeing the character as Hikaru Kato. They know him by his actual name of Hikaru Sulu. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment there are a lot of romanized Japanese terms for things that have English language names, and found in Japanophile and anime websites, are you suggesting that all these terms be created as redirects to their commonly known English language names? RFD seems to commonly delete non-English names for English language terms. And this is definitely an English-language concept. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, somewhat reasonable search term. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what criteria are you utilizing to define "reasonable", Stifle? The only places it turns up in a Google search are those sites that are copying our mention of it (referring to the character) and a one-off use in a website. Page traffic says it gets little in the way of hits, esp. when compared to searches for the term that everyone - all but 2-6 people use. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment - Indeed, but you apparently those 65 hits appear to be coming from the same small group of people (it's hit 2x/day, every day - likely by the same person: hardly a coincidence). I could do that to any page, and render the same results over a 60-day period (but won't, for obvious reasons). Look at the hits for the previous months: 34 in April, 47 in March - and that's more than the redirect has been landed on for the previous 6 months.
Aside from the apparent wiki-bombing (a small-scale variation of the Google bomb technique), it is exceedingly likely that people are probably going to the page from the dab listing the idiosyncratic term out of curiosity, and not out of a confusion about the character's name. This is indicated by a simple comparison of the page stats over a period of a few months. For example: Hikaru Kato saw 0 hits on 8 Feb/2010, and Kato saw the same number of hits on that date. The same thing for 23-24 Feb/2010. Other months have significant traffic on Kato, making it difficult to filter the pattern of 2 or three hits byt the same people. These two examples indicate the strong likelihood that when the proponents of Hikaru Kato do not click on the page, it is not selected by anyone else. It also indicates that others only go to the page via the Kato dab page likely, as indicated earlier, out of curiosity instead of a specific search.
Lastly, considering the sheer volume of hits on the character (+18,500), a paltry (and suspect) 65 is statistically irrelevant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And yet, you marked the redirect as having no importance. Given that (and the fact that you missed the points made above concerning its complete lack of reasonable value), I am not sure what you are basing your decision on . - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are misinterpreting Alpha Quadrant's edit. "na" means "not applicable", not "no importance". As indicated in the resulting WikiProject banner, redirects do not require a quality scale rating. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: Got it. thanks for the clarification. However, it doesn't invalidate the questioning of his reasoning. There isn't anything approaching reasonable for this redirect. It seems to be used by the same 2-6 people over and over again, or by the curious following the link from the Kato dab page - not of any specific interest in typing an "alternative" name for Sulu. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - And the article with it. It doesn't seem like a very likely term to be searched for on the English language Wikipedia. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So here we are, no compelling reason to keep (despite the argument that a term never used anywhere else in Star Trek fandom in more than 55 years is somehow now magically notable in the English-language wiki, and despite the simple fact that the page statistics for the redirect have likely been gaslighted by a statistically insignificant number of contributors to pump the "interest" in the use of the redirect - and lastly that the Sulu article itself doesn't even consider the alternative name usage notable!), and several reasons to delete - all compelling and reasonable. Can we finally delete this and get on with more important stuff? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; Redirects do not confer notability nor endorse the use or accuracy of a term. Whether this is "a term never used anywhere else in Star Trek fandom in more than 55 years" is not relevant. All a redirect does is enable people to find stuff they are looking for. Since this name appears in external sites (reliable or not is also not relevant) someone reading those sites might want to find out about it and the stats show that people (how few doesn't matter) have looked for it; therefore it is a foreseeable search term. TerriersFan (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's utter rubbish, Terrirersfan. and circular reasoning to boot. Stating that we need to support the external sites that make note of the unique term when those external sites take their cue from us is simply dumb. If we fix the problem - ie, remove the mention of the spurious redirect - the external sites will follow suit (as they mirror us). And, as there is only one source of dubious origin for the redirect term, we aren't promoting a FRINGE theory that the term has more validity than it does (which is precisely none). As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not:
A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[2] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.
In short, no one is looking for this term, with the possible exception of one or two individuals. Anyone else is following a dab link out of curiosity. Redirects imply that the search term is likely to be used. As has already been amply demonstrated, this isn't one of those.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fechar[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) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such Fire Emblem character as "Fechar". As this appears to be a nonsense redirect, it should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have not been able to source a connection nor identify a reasonable retarget. The creator is still around, from time to time, so I have placed an alert on their talk page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: according to my Googling, "Fechar" may be a usage on a couple of internet boards from "Fire Emblem character." It remains a confusing, misleading, and unnecessary redirect, and it's also the Spanish infinitive "to date" (i.e., determine the age of something).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guns which shoot deadly rays[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Apparently created as a joke, as shown by creator's edit summary. 2. Is not linked from anywhere; orphaned. 3. Unlikely search term, and is needlessly verbose: If someone who's searching for this subject knows enough to type "GUNs which shoot deadly RAYs" then it follows that he's obviously looking for "RAYGUN" and needn't type the extra verbiage. Ϫ 09:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this phrase appears in the page Gayniggers from Outer Space. Before 6 October 2008, when the redirect was created, that phrase was directly linked to Raygun. However, this redirect was used in that page, at precisely the same time as this redirect was created (14:19), undoubtedly by the same person (and I agree probably as a failed attempt at humour). It was reverted within the hour. However this phrase, probably taken from the Wikipedia page, is widely used in external articles that deal with the subject - see here. Even though the phrase may well have originated from us, it has now been broadly disseminated. Anyone reading any of these many instances might well come to Wikipedia to find out what it is all about (indeed we hope they do :-)). Whilst, as the nominator rightly says, they should be able to work out that the page they want is Raygun, there is no reason why we should not make it easier for them. This redirect is long-standing, harmless, and not misleading and does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. Because of the number of occurrences its use is foreseeable, probably by cut'n'paste, and may well prove helpful. As always, we need a good reason to delete redirects, rather than a good reason to keep them, and I see no benefit in deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as a pointless joke. Contra Bridgeplayer, I don't see this being "widely used in other articles" -- it shows up on a bunch of mirrors, that's it. Try searching without the next part of the sentence. The only other usage I can find is in a forum comment from 2006.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what has happened is that sites, blogs, correspondents etc have lifted a chunk from Wikipedia and many are not automatically updated mirrors - some at random that don't appear in your revised search.[3][4][5]. The redirect may well have been created as a joke but even if the phrase is only used occasionally it is a foreseeable search term nthat doesn't meet any deletion criteria. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oh -- that just means that someone's copied a paragraph from Wikipedia to provide a description of the movie's plot, not that "guns which shoot deadly rays" has become "known" as a phrase and bandied about on its own. So it's no more plausible a search term than other phrases from the same paragraph, like ecstatic gratitude, male population, Gay Ambassador, and new way of life. And I think, at a minimum, that this redirect qualifies for WP:RFD#DELETE #7, as "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I went ahead and changed my !vote to a straight delete.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Imaginary Football[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, confusing cross-namespace redirect  Chzz  ►  08:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strange indeed.. and absolutely zero pageviews in the last few months. Delete. -- œ™ 09:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cross-namespace redirects are generally a bad idea and the utility of this one is imaginary. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. –Grondemar 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure why it exists. —fetch·comms 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Free myspace layouts[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 MySpace#Profile customization (HTML). JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very improbable misspelling. Such redirects add no value to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. hydrox (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not voting, but to put the redirect into context, it was added long before people cared about redirects so much. Basically, some guy came up with a list of frequently Googled terms, and so he figured that by making redirects for them to real articles, it would help out Wikipedia. I don't really care what you do with the redirect nowadays. harej 01:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we don't require such SEO anymore, as the Wikipedia article is now listed as the second most relevant search result for e.g. myspace – only after the website itself :) --hydrox (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here appears to be the original list. --hydrox (talk)
  • I think we should we still keep the redirects from that list, as any potentially popular search term is still a useful redirect. This particular one has had over 350 pageviews the past few months. Also, I'm a bit confused by the nom, I don't see any misspelled words in this redirect, just a change in capitalisation. -- œ™ 09:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharpen target to MySpace#Profile customization (HTML). As OlEnglish says, this redirect gets good traffic and has plausible usage. My one concern is that it might be confusing (deletion criterion 2) since the page does not offer the 'free myspace layouts' for which I would guess is what searchers are looking. To lessen the confusion somewhat, I think that we should sharpen the target as indicated, which is a way of creating free layouts, so at least readers will be immediately aware as to what we have on offer. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:36, 9 June 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_June_9&oldid=1148047916"