Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2011

ChallengeYou[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a browser game that went through afd, was found not to be notable, but was redirected instead of deleted to List of multiplayer browser games, which is a list of multiplayer browser games that have an article on Wikipedia, which ChallengeYou doesn't anymore because it was deleted. Sloane (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. If it becomes notable in the future, we can write the article at that time. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:AVERYGREATDEALOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATULTIMATELYREDIRECTTOTHEARTICLEREGARDING
THECONCEPTTHATONWIKIPEDIAONEOUGHTTOBEAGIANTDUCKRATHERTHANASMALLOREVENMEDIUMDUCKSOTHATWECANBANYOU[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. Ruslik_Zero 14:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a point to this, and using it would violate civility due to all the shouting. I'm not adverse to humor, but this one could disrupt.  Chzz  ►  19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect in itself is not overly useful; it exists so that the article can truthfully say it exists. I am against deleting it and pretending it does exist in the article, so if it is deleted I would request it is removed from the article.
So in effect the point to consider is is it acceptable to have a redirect that exists purely so it can be said to exist? (whether it actually works in the article is a seperate issue) Obviously (as creator) I oppose deletion as I feel that is a good enough reason for it to exist, but not super strongly or anything... Egg Centric 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please explain how this redirect is harmful and/or another reason why deleting it will benefit the project? Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, if someone posts this on the talk page of someone accused of socking...
Please see Wikipedia:AVERYGREATDEALOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATULTIMATELYREDIRECTTOTHEARTICLEREGARDING
THECONCEPTTHATONWIKIPEDIAONEOUGHTTOBEAGIANTDUCKRATHERTHANASMALLOREVENMEDIUMDUCKSOTHATWECANBANYOU
...then that'd be uncivil, and shouty. And if the redirect cannot be used, then it isn't useful.
edited Chzz's link to fit! Egg Centric 18:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The potential for disruption is demonstrated right here, in TfD, to me - because, it is making me have to scroll sideways quite a lot.  Chzz  ►  21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"if the redirect cannot be used, then it isn't useful" <== that's the part I disagree with, and to be honest that is the crux of the debate, really. Can a redirect be useful merely by its existence? I would say so. Reasonable minds may disagree. Egg Centric 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(You may, separately, believe it doesn't enhance the article, but I would say that is a content dispute, not a deletion issue) Egg Centric 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: disruption - there is nothing to stop it from being broken into several lines, like it is in the article. Similarly, there is nothing to stop a link to WP:V titled with a gazzilion letters... Egg Centric 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no justifyable reason (even for humor) why we should keep this redirect. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query to Egg Centric: Would, perhaps, using {{fakelink|Wikipedia:AVERYGREATDEAL...}} serve the same humorous effect, perhaps (but without the danger of someone actually using it)?  Chzz  ►  19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree keeping some humorous things is useful the thing to remember is we are building an Encyclopedia and this sort of thing is just unencyclopedic. --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you draw the line? There doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind your argument. Egg Centric 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would acheive a similar effect, but not as great an effect as it has at the moment. The actual existence of the redirect provides some of the humour. Egg Centric 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Well, it is in Wikipedia space, where a lot of other Wikipedia-cruft exists anyway like this similarly named redirect so it should not do much harm. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You know, I saw this just today and thought I might use it. Then I realised that by doing so I would be a bug duck and decided not to. But really. It's not in the enyclopedia, so being "unencyclopedic" is completely irrelevant. It's humorous. It's unreadable, so I doubt there's any particular risk of it being interpreted as shouting. It hurts nothing. It's just good for a laugh — well, for me at least. —Felix the Cassowary 22:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see the potential for humor, but I really don't like the scrolling and don't really see much scope for use of this. I'm not even clicking on the "edit" link next to the redirect's name. I think I'd be 60/40 in favor of deletion. If it adds anything to the discussion, further ridiculously long "short"cuts can be found at User:Animum/Anti-long shortcut cabal. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't mind the humour, but it's disruptive. --Sloane (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it disruptive? The only disruptive thing about it is the string of characters being carelessly shoved onto a page, which I doubt is going to happen in practice (it's happened here - not carelessly, I hasten to add, but by using the template without working around it. Actually I'm going to fix that if no one minds in my next edit). Please distinguish that from the existence of the redirect itself. Egg Centric 18:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. here is a copy pre my fitting to space, out of disclosure. But I emphasise my viewpoint that it really doesn't matter that it could be used disruptively; the point is it absolutely does not have to be - the overwhelming point of it is to EXIST and we should await evidence that it will be used disruptively before removing it. Egg Centric 18:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that you say "how is it disruptive", and then have to make a sequence of complicated edits to the coding [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] just to stop it causing problems, right here. Is this really helping to build an Encyclopaedia? And yes, OK, so that was needed because I listed it in RfD, but later, it might well cause similar issues elsewhere. What good does the existence of this do, if it is never used? And, frankly, why are we wasting time on it? I'm not going to waste any more; I've got better things to do; if it's kept, it's kept - and I'll just note it down as another example of world == mad. Best,  Chzz  ►  19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz, dude, you're one of my favourite and most respected editors here, I'll never forget the considerable help you've given me on a couple of occasions - maybe I'm reading too much into the above but you sound pissed off and I really don't want that, to the extent that if necessary I'll go for speedy-by-creator (rather than argue with you)... but first please let me try again to explain and let's not get too excited about this - like I said reasonable people can disagree! Once again I go through my reasoning step by step:
  1. It improves the big duck article (in my view) to have this listed as a redirect there - this is the improving the encyclopedia part. However, if you disagree with this point only then I would call it a content dispute
  2. When listing it as a redirect, we have two choices. We can actually have the redirect, or we can pretend it is there
  3. The former is neceesarily funnier (if only for the mouseover effect!)
  4. This means that there is a redirect created not so much for its use as in redirection... instead, it's of use by its very existence
  5. In my opinion, if something is of use then it it doesn't matter that the use is somewhat unusual for what it is - e.g. it's an unconventional use of a redirect to redirect from an improbable term, but that does not invalidate it having some use
  6. Thus, while it may be difficult to actually use in normal discourse without causing difficulty, that isn't a problem as it isn't intended to be used. It's there to exist.
Finally, I'd point out I'm not that great at wiki markup so it took me some time! You are perfectly right that it would be ridiculous to use this as a conventional redirect, and I totally accept that. But this is an unusual case. Egg Centric 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not angry - see [6].  Chzz  ►  11:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-per WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Seriously, though, after reading the above arguments, I just don't see any convincing reasons to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it should have its duck cooked. Do you really need such a long allcaps redirect, even for humor? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need these sort of jokes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many people use this redirect regularly? How silly and annoyingly shouty is this redirect? Compare the two and you get a ratio of about ONETOONE MILLIONBAZILLIONKATRILLION. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given it's nomination here was less than 3 days after it's creation, figures reflecting normal use of the redirect do not exist (it typically takes up to about 4-5 days after the creation of a redirect for it's newness to wear off (new page patrollers, etc, checking it out). Being listed at RfD almost invariably brings a usage spike.), and even if they did exist, lack of regular use is not a reason on it's own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, you've misunderstood in part - the redirect doesn't have to be used in practice to have a use. Its very existence is humerous and improves the Duck article. Egg Centric 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what the problem is with having a humorous redirect to an essay marked "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous." Qrsdogg (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of this redirect is not disruptive to the encyclopedia in any way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bred-bread split[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. Ruslik_Zero 13:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redir should be deleted; its very title is OR. The term (a neologism) is not well-known—in fact, I have never seen it outside WP—in the field (i.e. Australian English phonology). The destination article does not discuss the phenomenon, because no-one who wants to discuss it has ever been able to provide any sources. All relevant Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors; there are no relevant Google Scholar hits. It is not linked-to from any articles, and only two talk page articles link to the redir, announcing it as a new article. —Felix the Cassowary 17:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—A term made up by one of us Wikipedians is not likely to be typed into the search thingo + what Cassowary said. Of course the split exists but that's not the point. JIMp talk·cont 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Puppy blender[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. Ruslik_Zero 13:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect, unlikely search term. It's not completely inexplicable - a Google search for the term shows that there was once an internet meme about Glenn Reynolds putting puppies in blenders. (See here, [7].) But it's hard to imagine anyone searching for it, and even if they did, this redirect wouldn't be very useful, as the target article doesn't mention the phrase. Robofish (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm leaning towards delete here, but the redirect is getting a consistent 15-20 hits a month, so it might be retargetting it somewhere, I don't know where though. There is some background in a Wikipedia Signpost story from 2005 - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10/Instapundit (Instapundit is Glenn Reynold's blog, but that article doesn't mention the puppy thing either). Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:EXPERIMENT[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 Wikipedia:Experiment. Ruslik_Zero 14:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's true Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, perhaps this redirect is better suited to target WP:SANDBOX, where users can carry out actual experiments in Wikipedia in peace. It's linked to from a few pages, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. This is only linked once on talk pages, but the context of that link is firmly about it redirecting to WP:NOT. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Experiment, the "What Wikipedia is not" section can be added as a "see also", and a hatnote can be added linking to the sandbox. The context of the link suggests that it is an obscure shortcut. If there were links to it without any context there would be more of a reason to oppose, as retargeting would change the meaning of the comments, but that seems unnecessary here. Peter E. James (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Trespass (2010 film)[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title is incorect, as the film is coming out this year (2011), not last year. Original author, about 0 minutes after creating the page, copy&pasted it to the correct title and redirected this page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note: "0 minutes" is apparently a typo for "10 minutes" Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is incorrect and there is no edit history to preserve. I would not object to deleting this under speedy criterion G7 (Author requests deletion) if they indicate they also do not object. Redirecting the page manually (i.e. not as part of a page move) is not one of the situations we can take as being a deletion request without explicit statement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apparently created in error and non-plausible as a search term. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think definitely removed. The movie was filmed in 2011, is indicated by many sources. Snowy Hawk (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

list of geniuses[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 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list here. Bwrs (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is a collection of types of geniuses... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is successfully preempting the continued re-creation of content deleted as the result of this AfD discussion. (SALTing the page is inappropriate when the redirect is working.) Rossami (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ABCD (ethnic slur)[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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and confusing redirect. The link itself gets 5 -8 hits a month but I doubt that they are looking for Asian American. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The pagehistory alleges that this acronym stands for American-Born Confused Desi, an entry on the List of ethnic slurs which refers to Indian- and Pakistani-Americans. The redirect was "corrected" in 2007 by a bot to point to the current target. The overwrite was in error. If the "American-Born Confused Desi" article is allowed to stand, then the acronym should be reverted to target it. If that page is transwiki'd (which I think it probably should be since the content is more lexical then encyclopedic), the the redirect should soft-redirect to Wiktionary as well. Rossami (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to American-Born Confused Desi. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (soft) retarget to American-Born Confused Desi. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unilaterally replaced with correct redirect (and removed link to this discussion) since the nomination is apparently based on misunderstanding due to badly behaving bot. Egg Centric 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baker Island[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 —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect to WikiProject United States. Only 1 hit since Oct 2010 Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I was expecting this to be the result of the upmerger of an overly specific wikiproject to a more general one. however it was apparently created as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jarvis Island[edit]

Unlikely redirect to WikiProject United States. Only 1 hit since Oct 2010 Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I was expecting this to be the result of the upmerger of an overly specific wikiproject to a more general one. however it was apparently created as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bajo Nuevo Bank[edit]

Unlikely redirect to WikiProject United States. Only 5 hits in the last 4 months Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I was expecting this to be the result of the upmerger of an overly specific wikiproject to a more general one. however it was apparently created as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2011 (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/2011_March_29&oldid=1141906501"