Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 1

The result of the debate was keep. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point having a redirect to a disambiguation page. Either it redirects to an actual article or it doesn't exist. Surely every article on wikipedia could have 'The' put before it and redirected. extraordinary (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This was not created solely to put a "the" in front of the title. It was created in Oct 2005 because an anon editor had created a stub about an university tabloid. At the time, it was not clear if that tabloid would meet our inclusion criteria or not but having that as the sole name would certainly be confusing. Redirecting to the disambiguation page would force the editor to find a better title - or if he/she chose not to, clean up a non-notable article. So the motives for creating this redirect make sense to me. The question now is what to do with it. If the content was pulled out of history and used in some other article (such as the university page), we might have to keep it to comply with the attribution history requirements of GFDL. I consider that unlikely in this case. It's old enough by now that the anon user has either come back and found the correct page or is not going to. I'm going to argue for a weak keep in this case because the costs of correcting the issue (small as they are) are greater than the costs of keeping the redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - on the contrary, there is a point in having a redirect to a disambiguation page, and in fact we have several of them. It's because the Underground page contains a couple of entries titled 'The Underground' (The Underground (concert venue), The Underground (TV series)), which someone typing this in may be looking for; it makes sense to include them on the Underground disambiguation page as the names are sufficiently similar. The underground could be turned into a separate disambiguation page for the entries beginning with 'the', though I don't think that's necessary, or kept as a redirect here; either way, it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Terraxos.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kronig is spelled without the Umlaut on the "o", and the redirect is not in use for the article name space. Crowsnest (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whitdrawing the RFD: deleting the redirect will remove information on the page history, since it was created as Kramers-Krönig relation and renamed later. Crowsnest (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible typo. (For instance, I didn't realize until now that it was Kronig and not Krönig). Scog (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me it seems not useful to make and keep redirects for all plausible typo's. And such redirects with typo's may be linked to in articles. Things should be verifiable on WP, and this is verified wrong. Crowsnest (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I understand your point of view, the general consensus is that redirects for plausible typos do more good than harm, by making it easier for casual users to find the pages they're actually looking for. To quote the first point under The guiding principles of RFD above: If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. Scog (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but more applicable here seems (to me) WP:RFD#DELETE Reason 2: The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted. Crowsnest (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, just before your quote from the The guiding principles of RFD it says: The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. When performing a Google search on: Kramers-Krönig relation, Wikipedia is on top, through the redirect: Kramers-Kronig relations (which is a plausible and correct redirect). So I think your argument does not hold. Crowsnest (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as many English-speaking and -reading people are unaware of diacritics, and many of those who are aware of them don't know how to create "ö" in the search box. B.Wind (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the reverse in this situation. The article's real name does not have a diacritic because Mr. Kronig did not use an umlaut on the letter "o" in his surname. The redirect under discussion goes from a name with a diacritic to a name without one, not the other way around. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that the article was first created at the other spelling and had to be moved is clear evidence that the typo is plausible. The redirect also helps preserve the history of the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was not created with the Umlaut, the redirect "Kramers-Krönig relation" was made later, by someone who thought that to be the correct spelling. Crowsnest (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That is a strong reason to keep the redirect, see WP:RFD#KEEP, no. 1. I whitdraw the nomination for deletion, and will remove the tag from the redirect page. Crowsnest (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Proper transliteration of this character's original name. Disagree that it's an unlikely search term, at least insofar as anyone's going to be searching for The Blue Knight (Tokyo Mew Mew) (where this pointed for more than a year before it was merged). As a synonym, it's neither novel nor obscure, and no other rationale for deletion has been presented. Keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are cheap; I think it would be useful as a search term. Keep in mind that lack of articles linking to the redirect isn't a reason to delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Who knows what kibd of people that access the English Wikipedia? English, having the most articles and widely speaken around the world, might be used by people of all cultures, Indian, Candian, etc. My point is that Tokyo Mew Mew fans could be Japanese or English, the show being broadcasted in noth languages, but then the English fans could for some reason be more acquanted with the Japanese name of Blue Night, but since all cultures could access this page, Japanese people could type in Ao no kishi, but I suppose that if Japanese people wanted to find information on this character, they would go to the Japanese Wikipedia(If there is one, I'm not sure)DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one[1] :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cryptic and Jeremy. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is the name used by fans who speak languages with latin alphabets, so it's a likely search term for that character --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful as a search term; lack of articles linking here isn't a reason to delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per my above comment. DA PIE EATER (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cryptic and Jeremy. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see my arguments on the other redirect above --Enric Naval (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The transliteration's unusual but not at all implausible. Harmless. Keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is it an unusual romanization, it would appear to be unique so I see little value. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looking at google, it's a very unusual spelling, and many of the few hits seem to come from sites that spider wikipedia and try to attract visitors with empty pages based on the names of the pages --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, keep. —Cryptic 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is it an unusual romanization, it would appear to be unique so I see little value. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see my comments for above redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term, not a possible misspelling at all, and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As with Pie and Tart, this character's name was food-based; that the official translation disguises this is neither unusual nor particularly relevant. Googling for Quiche "Mew Mew" -Wikipedia gets just short of ten thousand hits. Keep. —Cryptic 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Created this a long time ago as a redirect from the real/intended name (which was used, for example, in Newtype USA long before the manga and anime were brought over here) to the tokyopopism which while official, is incorrect (I stopped buying the manga after a volume or two as the translation errors and inconsistencies were getting annoying). Note that there was quite a bit of fighting over TMM articles at the time (and probably has been since), the Kish one more than most. Don't really see why it needs to be deleted. Shiroi Hane (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems that fans have adopted this name as an alternative for Kish, so they will search for it --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably worth mentioning that they would be searching for "quiche" and there is a link to the correct page from Quiche (disambiguation) so I'm still on the fence on this one. Shiroi Hane (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This Race-Name redirect seems pointless - to use a more popular example we don't have a "Vulcans Spock" redirect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only some hits at google from fans using the combination of the race name and the english version of the name. Dren is only mentioned at target as the english version of the name, and it's a minor character, so let's cleanup these, and let the search engine direct people to the list of characters --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirect. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This Race-Name redirect seems pointless - to use a more popular example we don't have a "Vulcans Spock" redirect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See arguments for Cyniclons Dren above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and unused redirects. Not a likely search term and nothing links here. Created by overly enthusiastic editors of Tokyo Mew Mew. Would like these removed as part of the TMM clean up effort. Tried to CSD as G6 which was declined for "no apparent rationale for g6" and tried R3 but they were just reverted, so now bringing here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This Race-Name redirect seems pointless - to use a more popular example we don't have a "Vulcans Spock" redirect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See arguments for Cyniclons Dren above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was target changed, withdrawn. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple chained redirect, both created the same day by user. Yep, you guessed it, it's User:Hashmi, Usman, I'm starting to think of opening a RFC on this user. I left a few harsh words on his talk page[2] including a link to the discussion on him on this same page. Enric Naval (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Donnie Darko 2 to S. Darko. The sequel has begun shooting and has been given the title S. Darko per reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above, now this film officially exists. Terraxos (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom withdrawn Retargeted to suggested location --Enric Naval (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was } delete all 3 - I was going to keep the third since it was added late and I wasn't sure if the participants saw the addition, but upon further examination the redirect target isn't even valid. No prejudice to recreation when these movies are officially announced, of course. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikipedia as a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Notice similar redirects by User:Hashmi, Usman on WP:RFD. Related redirect created the same day:

• Transformers_5 → Transformers (film)
• Transformers_3 → Transformers (film)#Sequels (newly added)

Notice that the film article would count as "Transformers 3", which also redirects there, unless I'm miscounting Enric Naval (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. That takes WP:CRYSTAL to a whole new extreme. Has movie 2 even entered production yet? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transformers_2 is scheduled for 2009..... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is offensive and uncivil. Who wants their work called crap? Also, when used on a newcomer, this is easily hostile. And per WP:DBN: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Ostap 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The only other shortcut is WP:WAX, which, while shorter, is not clear. However, if you can come up with a better shortcut that you think is more civil, I will support you, but for now I see no problem with this shortcut which has been used for since last year. --Bduke (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. The word crap is the problem, I think. Ostap 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The number of links this would break is far too great. I could support deprecating the use of the redirect, so that further use is minimized. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and depreciate in a style similar to what was done with WP:VAIN and WP:VANITY. This gets way too much use to justify a delete, but it should be discouraged. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's uncivil and it is also too long to be useful. The para that it points to is just part of an essay and is largely useless as a debating point since it has equal force both ways. People should be engaging with the article in question, not throwing facile, fecal slogans around. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it's deleted or not, it will still be cited - whether it's desirable or not - in deletion debates, as so many nonexistent Wikipedia shortcuts. In the long run, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Meh. I also suggest that WP:BEANS will quickly come into play here. B.Wind (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it conveys tone, and gets the point across, and B.wind is correct it will still be used if deleted. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many expletives are used here but often result in censure for uncivil behaviour. Why should we encourage this one when there are politer and shorter alternatives? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand about the expletive, maybe change it to a soft redirect, gradually phase it out, and create WP:OTHERUBISHEXISTS which conveys a similar tone, with less WP:CIVIL issues Fasach Nua (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think calling a person's contributions "rubbish" is as bad as calling them "crap". WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX are fine. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You arent calling anything crap, you are refuting an argument by highlighting where that argument can take you Fasach Nua (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - clearly explains a commonly-used argument. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely used redirect. Wah wah it hurts my feelings - I'm tired of these nominations. --- RockMFR 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Ostap 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and depreciate per UsaSatsui.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may be marginally incivil but it is heavily linked all through the project's history. There are almost 1500 inbound links in current use. Even if you orphaned all of those, it will still exist all over the project's page histories. Deleting this redirect would create massive and unsolvable problems as you broke all those links. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and depreciate I understand now the problems deleting would cause. I agree with User:UsaSatsui. Ostap 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists I would urge all previous commenters to consider this before the end of the discussion.--Serviam (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate per UsaSatsui above - this is an unnecessarily uncivil shortcut, and people should be encouraged to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or the shorter but more cryptic WP:WAX instead. However, it is worth preserving as a soft redirect for historical reasons. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, now independent of the "crap" word, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are two different pages is incredibly confusing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but consider retargeting all these different things consistently to either the separate essay or the section in the larger essay. I don't see this as incivil. When using it, you are not actually calling your opponent's work "crap". You are reacting to an argument in which the fact that some other material is "crap" is already mutually taken for granted, most of the time. And the assumption that that other material is "crap" is a crucial, indispensible part of that argument. "Other stuff exists" is actually nonsense, it doesn't get the point across at all. Of course, "stuff" exists, so what? The fact that the other stuff is "crap" is what the debate is all about! Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't mind if it's depreciated, but for me it's the perfect summing up in a nutshell of the paragraph. Drum guy (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The potential "offense" is extremely small beer indeed and we have enough pointless bowdlerisation. tomasz. 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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