Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 10

January 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 10, 2008

Jewish supremacy → Zionism

The result of the debate was retarget to David Duke#Jewish Supremacism. WjBscribe 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly a non-neutral and arguably offensive redirect. The previous, somewhat more acceptable target for it was David Duke, as he wrote a book with a similar title; but according to his page, the book was actually called Jewish Supremacism (which I have now redirected there). I don't think there can be a NPOV target for this redirect, and I doubt a neutral article can be written under that title, so I suggest it be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. Terraxos (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

U,S, → United States

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has commas instead of points. It's an implausible typo Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is gonna be the first redirect ending to a comma (and the second article in total). This is very bad because I proposed awb or other bots to try and correct red links caused by people putting the comma in the brackets by accident. Then we have to make an exception list or not implement this automatic correction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not likely to end up with this redirect, and even if they do, the bots can parse for U,S, and replace it with U.S., –Pomte 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact this has already happened, at least once. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56 11 January 2008 (GMT).
Further to the AWB proposal, it would be good if most, if not all, AWB rules supported exception lists. Lack of fine-grain control means that my last 100k plus AWB edits have had General Fixes turned off, arguably wasting effort. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10 11 January 2008 (GMT).
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Your all gay → B3ta

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft — Gavia immer (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious vandal redirect. Delete immediately Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's gay. → Gay

The result of the debate was retarget to Gay#Pejorative non-sexualized usage. WjBscribe 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

HaxEd by Public Transport → LOL

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal redirect. Delete this Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Artists named lol → LOL

The result of the debate was retarget to Lol (disambiguation). WjBscribe 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a redirect to the former disambiguation article LOL. Should be deleted Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Magioladitis (talk)
  • Keep. The edit history shows that at least one entry on the original disambiguation page came from this page before it was merged and redirected to the final disambiguation page. However, revert to the version which pointed to Lol (disambiguation) which includes all the "people named Lol". The current target page does not discuss any of the people mentioned in history. Rossami (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ial internet acronym → LOL

The result of the debate was retarget to IAL. WjBscribe 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, unlikely to be typed Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lawl (sp) → LOL

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, unlikely to be typed Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirects to Jimmy Wales

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are both joke redirects (in my opinion at least). Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Jimmy of Wales is your invention >_> --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, was it? I've must have been drunk or sleepwalking. That's a bad-quality certification for those stupid redirects. Remove them! Said: Rursus ☻ 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make it a {{db-author}} candidate? --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sad Ham → Saddam Hussein

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke redirect Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would be different if it was Sad Hus, but his last name doesn't even begin with Ham. So yeah, delete away.
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to Wikipedia

The result of the debate was no consensus on The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and Why Wikipedia is so great, these default to keep. Delete the rest. WjBscribe 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are either incomprehensible, unbelievably self-referential, or meaningless.

Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs)

  • Delete all per nom -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why Wikipedia is so great because it documents the pagemove of one of our earliest meta-pages about the project. The page creation predated the creation of the separate namespaces. The move predated the function that now moves the history when moving the title. Given the nature of this particular page, there are likely to be external links to it (and there are definitely many internal links throughout the project history).
    Abstain on the rest though I'll disagree with the nomination - they are perfectly comprehensible and the history shows that they were created in good faith. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people are doing mistakes unintentionally every day :). -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the previous discussion about Why Wikipedia is so great, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 12. As a result of that discussion, it was changed to point to Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. --Zundark (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to Uncyclopedia

The result of the debate was keep Kitten huffing, delete the rest. WjBscribe 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke redirects. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (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/2008_January_10&oldid=1140201204"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 10, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.