Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2012

Лиbераlно-Демократска Партија[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 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this recently-created redirect, and many like it. RjwilmsiBot creates redirects from diacritic-less forms of article titles, but it seems to think "б" and "л" are just "b" and "l" with diacritics. Therefore it creates many pointless redirects, none of which will ever be used.

It is possible, I suppose, that this is prompted by Cyrillic keyboard layouts, as in a recent RFD, but it seems unlikely. Gorobay (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: implausible... it's neither search term, nor typo actually. Though I'm pretty sure that every Cyrillic keyboard ever made had "б" and "л", this redirect features "Л" (upper case variant of "л"). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:UD[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 and hatnote but no clear consensus to change the target. Noting that the current target is a {{historical}} proposal and the proposed target is an active policy page, I am going to retarget to Help:Userspace draft but that is an ordinary-editor action in accordance with WP:BOLD, not part of the closure of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this WP shorthand redirect would be better served as a redirect to Help:Userspace draft, in order to be consistent with the target of Wikipedia:USERSPACEDRAFT. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Userspace draft[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect would be better served as a redirect to Help:Userspace draft, in order to be consistent with the target of Wikipedia:USERSPACEDRAFT. I definitely don't think the two redirects should point to different targets. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Various other unlikely redirects to penis[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 1,2,5,6. Keep 3 and 4 as plausible typos. Ruslik_Zero 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely spellings and names. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure that these can be dealt with as a bulk nomination. The respective page histories raise different issues.
    1. The first on the list was created by a user who has been repeatedly chided for joke edits but who also has made positive contributions. The phrase is sufficiently ambiguous (my first thought was of marinade hypodermics) that it should be deleted.
    2. The second and third were created by a user with a positive contribution history and with assertions in the edit summary that these are somewhat common misspellings. I think the google hits are more likely to be deliberate attempts to evade corporate porn filters but the contribution of the redirects appear to have been in good faith. They are not especially helpful to readers but they are also not obviously confusing. Assumption of good faith leads me to keep.
    3. The fourth, fifth and sixth were created by confirmed vandals without explanation. The fourth might be a plausible typo but the sixth is a text rendition of an ASCII art profanity. None seems to me strong enough to overcome the bad faith of the creators.
    Rossami (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1, 2, and 6 per Rossami. No opinion on the others. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2-5 and keep 1 and 6: the first one is a plausible search term for people with limited knowledge of English, the last one is an ASCII art rendition that can also be used for search purposes (though the target should be amended with illustration). The rest of them are typos and misspellings of a 5-letter word; I see no good reason to keep those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the typos. 1 is known slang, and should be kept. 6 is obscure garnering only 30 ghits, almost all mirrors or "honda-tech". Should be deleted if new, else kept. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment #1. Porn filters may let Peeenis pass, but will blank the target page. So yes, technically, readers can cheat the filter, but the article won't, because WP is not censored.
    Comment #2. "the first one is a plausible search term for people with limited knowledge of English": fallacy. That's what simple.wp (or maybe wiktionary) is for.
    Kill #1 as bad joke, and #2 as unlikely spelling. Keep #3. It is plausible and not next to the correct spelling. Kill #4, as its target would be right next to it anyway. Kill #5, as the spelling is implausible on en.wikipedia (although more plausible on otgher languages). Finally, kill and salt #6, and nuke from high orbit to be sure. After all, it is not only useless; the correct spelling is Eight equals equals equals equals equals D. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 12:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: My comment about the porn filters was not that it had anything to do with the presentation of Wikipedia pages, merely that the redirect creator thought that the google hits were evidence that those two were common accidental misspellings. I believe that people on the internet were deliberately misspelling the word to evade their own filters and google is finding those instances. Thus 2 and 3 don't qualify (for me at least) as plausible typos but the redirects were nevertheless contributed in good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: I wanted to say that querying for non-words like Peeenis might trick some porn filters "on the way up", but it won't work on the return trip, when the WP server will reply with a page featuring the word penis. The filter will then prevent the browser from displaying the page, although the query made it to WP and was properly replied to. No doubt about the good faith either, but it's still useless. Since redirects are cheap, we can keep #2 and #3 as useless but harmless either. OTOH, #4 will hardly fool ANY filter, and should probably be deleted. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, the true spelling according to User:One.Ouch.Zero, Eight equals equals equals equals equals D, was "first introduced by Albert Einstein and his fellow partners...." Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Big boobs[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely unencyclopedic and an unlikely search term. I am also nominating

for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two of the three redirects have troubling histories which have been (mostly) successfully preempted since the creation of the redirects. While sophmoric in their phrasing, I can't see an argument that they should point anywhere else (though one of the redirects did once point to the bird of a similar name). Reluctant keep after tagging with {{unprintworthy}}. Rossami (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1 and 2, delete 3 (unless it has a separate meaning): the first and second are words used in a wild, so it is possible that someone would search them on Wikipedia. I never came over the last one, and my search doesn't return off-site hits, so I would consider it implausible. Those surviving should be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1 and 2 or change target to dab Large breasts => Breast engorgement, Breast augmentation, Brassiere measurement (where, unfortunately Breast size redirects); keep 3 or make a dab between afore-mentioned and Great tit. Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

B00bs[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 its about even on whether it should point to leet or "breast". But as A412 points out they probably will expect Breast.--Salix (talk): 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Leet"-speak for boobs. This could possibly be retargeted to leet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a corcordance. Not every instance of leet-speak should point to leet. This particular example is not especially noteworthy or illuminating to the article. That said, the redirect is also not in the way of any legitimate content or obviously confusing to readers. The creator's contribution history is favorable, supporting the assumption of good faith. Retarget to "leet" is reasonable. Rossami (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action required If somebody is searching "B00bs", they probably want to arrive at the "Breast" article. A412 (Talk • C) 00:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retaget to wiktionary:boob: I can hardly imagine that someone would search for encyclopedic information on female breasts with this term; instead it seems more likely that the goal of a search would be to understand the meaning of the word "b00bs". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Niqqer[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 and salt --Salix (talk): 19:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely misspelled redirect by an indefblocked sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one is harder to call. While the creator's contribution history is troubling, the page history prior to the creation of the redirect shows that this title was a magnet for even more inappropriate content. The redirect has successfully preempted the recreation of that content. It is not patently confusing or in the way of legitimate content. To me, that is an argument to (just barely) keep the redirect despite its sketchy provenance. Note: If this is deleted, then it should be salted as well. Rossami (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: the difference between "g" and "q" in some fonts is not evident, so I would believe that one can possibly search with this term after getting misguided by an obscure font or another one's attempt to bypass forum filter somewhere. That said, my rationale implies low level of English, which is something I hardly can combine with English Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

NIGGEER[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 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad spelling / caps and created by an indefblocked sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-delete as overlooked vandalism. Creator's contribution history confirms. Rossami (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as G5 and/or G3.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: very implausible search term (all caps and typo). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pewp[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 < 4 hits a day, does not point to great use.--Salix (talk): 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely spelling of "poop". Salt too since it keeps getting created for vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as probable vandalism. The creator's contribution history around the time of this edit does not substantiate our normal assumption of good faith. While the creator has made some legitimate contributions since, his/her history is at best mixed. This spelling is not in such common usage that I am willing to overlook the source. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: quite a few hits in the wild, it may be considered plausible. Being created by vandal doesn't necessarily equals to uselessness. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Deep doo doo[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 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt people interested in an encyclopedia article on feces will be looking up a term like "deep doo doo". Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedily, as overlooked-vandalism. The creator's contribution history strongly suggests that this was not a good-faith effort. While a few of the user's early edits were reverted on neutral grounds, all his/her edits since were patent vandalism. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Westminster City Hall[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 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tenth point at WP:R#DELETE applies here. There's no substantive mention of the subject in the target, and an article on the City Hall could well be valuable. – hysteria18 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: it seems to be a leftover since the early days of Wikipedia, when the use practices in relation to redirects were not as advanced. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MIDAS Series III Infrared Sensor[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 Speedy Delete, G7 by User:RHaworth. Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term, and there is very little chance of an article ever being created on this. Redirect seems to have been created because of a bad link in List of space artifacts in the Smithsonian Institution, editing that article to pipe (or better still, reword) the link would have been more appropriate. W. D. Graham 08:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect can be deleted. Wiki link in question has been changed to Missile Defense Alarm System.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_28&oldid=1142587574"