Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 8

The result of the debate was Kept. Search aids and contain history. If titles ever overlap other content, the redirects can be turned into articles or dab pages at that time. -- JLaTondre 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Doomsday Sanction → List of Justice League episodes

The Savage Time → List of Justice League episodes

In Blackest Night → List of Justice League episodes

The Terror Beyond → List of Justice League episodes

Injustice For All → List of Justice League episodes

A Knight of Shadows → List of Justice League episodes

The Once and Future Thing, Part 1: Weird Western Tales → List of Justice League episodes

The Once and Future Thing, Part 2: Time Warped → List of Justice League episodes

delete all , I think the above eight redicets going to List of Justice League episodes should be deleted because they have nothing to do with the episode list and the two Once and Future thing redirects are too long and there is no way that anyone would search thatGman124 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all doesn't belong there UDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - redirects are cheap and since they are now created, and not adversely affecting anything else, they should be kept. Bridgeplayer 21:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, so that the names can be used for other topics, because they aren't going to be used these unless they don't exist, I know i wouldn't use a redirects and make it into an article, so they should be deletedDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it will point to existing content in another article. Besides, it's easy enough to change from a redirect to a regular article page. bibliomaniac15 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, some of them contain history, so deleting them might violate the GDFL. Plus, redirects are cheap. Xtifr _tälk 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete someone else can use it for article on another topik Upperd 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: that can be better handled by converting the redirect into a dab page. Which will, again, preserve the history. (Note: if you actually want to write a new article for one of these, and aren't sure how to proceed, feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I'll be glad to help.) Xtifr _tälk 09:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. It's not inconceivable that someone might search for an individual "Justice League" episode, and if they do they should be taken to the page that contains the relevant content. If other subjects which use these titles arise, the page can be disambiguated. These redirects do no harm, and may conceivably do some good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all deletion rationales make no sense whatsoever. JuJube 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Redirects from subtopics to the parent topic are a well-accepted use. Obviously a TV show is the parent topic of all its eps, unless individual seasons have articles. NeonMerlin 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep all per my argument in the larger listing above. Rossami (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted R1, the redirect had no existing target. In future, you can delete such redirects using {{db-redirnone}} rather than having to go through RfD. --ais523 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the target article was deleted through AFD. Otto4711 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special upload → Special:Upload

Specialwatchlist → Special:Watchlist

Special Watchlist → Special:Watchlist

SpecialUpload → Special:Watchlist --05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No links except from CNR database pages, completely redundant to the "Upload file" and "Watchlist" link on the sidebar and the top of the page in the Monobook skin, non-standard XNR. --Iamunknown 05:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! One more: SpecialUpload. --05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - Use of the "Special" prefix negates the benefit of XNRs, saving typing. These are basically typo redirects in such a way that makes them XNRs. —dgies^t_c 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; the comments above are sufficient reason anyway, but also because redirects to Special: pages are disabled. --ais523 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ALL UDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. —dima/talk/ 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as borked. MER-C 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. Search aid and contains history. -- JLaTondre 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because it's the name of a Justice League episode doesn't mean it should redirect here Gman124 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to insure eventual creation of article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Aid to searching to searching and insures existing links point to the existing content. Anyone who wants to make an article can replace the redirect. —dgies^t_c 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dgies. Ensures that search results will come up with the existing content, and it's easy enough to replace the redirect with an article if anyone wants to do so. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that it will aid in searching, and it follows naming conventions closely so it might be directly typed as well. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant. UDHSS 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, contains article history, deleting may violate GDFL. Plus redirects are cheap. Xtifr _tälk 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Upperd 21:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dgies — existence of redirect has no effect on potential creation of article. Nominator may be confused: Hereafter redirects to afterlife, and has no effect on Hereafter (Justice League episode) (although there may be an argument for turning Hereafter into a dab page, or putting a disambiguating hatnote on afterlife). Also, the existence of these redirects is in keeping with the recommendations of WP:TV-NC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deletion rationales makes no sense whatsover. JuJube 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects from subtopics to the parent topic are a well-accepted use. Obviously a TV show is the parent topic of all its eps, unless individual seasons have articles.

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

The result of the debate was Kept. Search aid and contains history. -- JLaTondre 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Just because it's the name of a Justice League episode doesn't mean it should redirect here Gman124 01:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to insure eventual creation of article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Aid to searching to searching and insures existing links point to the existing content. Anyone who wants to make an article can replace the redirect. —dgies^t_c 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that it will aid in searching, and it follows naming conventions closely so it might be directly typed as well. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non neededUDHSS 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, contains article history, deleting may violate GDFL. Plus, redirects are cheap. Xtifr _tälk 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dgies — existence of redirect has no effect on potential creation of article. Nominator may be confused: Twilight is a different page, and has no effect on Twilight (Justice League episode) (although there may be an argument for adding an appropriate line to twilight (disambiguation)). Also, the existence of these redirects is in keeping with the recommendations of WP:TV-NC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects from subtopics to the parent topic are a well-accepted use. Obviously a TV show is the parent topic of all its eps, unless individual seasons have articles. NeonMerlin 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deletion rationales are nonsense. JuJube 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was disambig. -- JLaTondre 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the rapper's name is certainly a pun on the word, the one does not "mean" the other, and nothing in the main space links there. Until something encyclopedic can be said about ludicrousness, it will have to remain empty. (I don't think it would be right for the former to be considered a "common mispelling" of the latter, either.) 66.195.211.27 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree the ludicrous will often not mean the rapper Ludacris. --Shirahadasha 07:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Aid to searching for a likely misspelling. If someone wants to make an encyclopedia arcticle on ludicrousness they can replace the redirect. —dgies^t_c 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguate - Could be looking for the rapper and not know the spelling, could be looking for a dicdef at wiktionary. —dgies^t_c 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - someone who looks up "ludicrous" is more likely to be looking for a dictdef of the word (which would be found on Wiktionary and would not be encyclopedic), so this redirect could be confusing and unhelpful. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, disambiguate per Dgies; sounds like a better idea. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to wiktionary and Ludacris. or alternatively Keep and add a disambiguation header to Ludacris. I would assume there would be a fair number searching for both. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete should not redirect thereUDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig or dablink on the target article per Rookwood. --- RockMFR 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete misspelledGman124 02:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig is a perfectly reasonable solution here. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig or dablink does indeed seem like the best choice. Xtifr _tälk 09:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig sensible option --Dweller 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig It's hard to search for terms whose spelling isn't readily apparent. Someone who has only heard the name on the radio or from a friend may not be able to spell it and go searching under the nearest known real word. NeonMerlin 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. Circular redirect has been removed so nominator's concern has been addressed. Term is used at target article. While it's unlikely to be searched for, it is also not causing any confusion, conflicts with other content. As there is the possibility someone would remember the aircraft name, but not the game title, keeping this as a search aid. -- JLaTondre 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect self-link. Air Diver is the only article that links to F-119D Stealth Fighter, which is a redirect back to Air Diver. Pettifogger 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Shirahadasha 07:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Removed self-link. Redirects are cheap. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 16:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nominator UDHSS 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteDCboy 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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