Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 8

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a typo and serves no useful purpose. The page was immediately moved to the correct redirect without the period at the end (The Journal of American Folklore). No articles link to it, and no one is likely to type it into a search form. 75.17.16.21 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a likely typo. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The creator of the redirect is the person who moved it and he/she did so within minutes of the creation. This would be an appropriate example of "housekeeping" but that's a poor reason to delete the page. It's not actively confusing or harmful. Cleaning redirects like this up does nothing for the project. Better to ignore it. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful as a search term with the period on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jeremy, unlikely search term due to the final peridod. The same redirect without the period already exists and points to the same article --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 11 May 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 speedy delete as unlikely misnomer. ... discospinster _talk 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from unlikely misspelling (with space before hyphen) that was created because editor who created article mistyped name of article — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is clearly a typo - not a spelling error. It deserves a speedy delete instead. There is and was no need to even post this silly matter on this page. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:47, 9 May 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 keep. Wizardman 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOODS Survey would mean Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey Survey – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is often referred to like that (at least informally). I would have preferred just GOODS - is it possible (or advisable) to create an article whose name is just an uppercase version of another article? How about GOODS (astronomy), to be consistent with, e.g., AEGIS (astronomy). Cosmo0 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As wikipedia is case sensitive, GOODS can be used to redirect to Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, and not effect Goods. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I have no strong opinion on whether the redirect should stay or go. I only created it because the article was requested under that title. Cosmo0 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think we should be deleting redirects on a naming technicality (or would you also nominate ATM machine as well?). --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is often called that in the astrophysical literature (see e.g. [1], [2]). However, I think GOODS should redirect there as well (and I'm going to go create that redirect as soon as I finish writing this comment). Scog (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scog's references. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the phrase is apparently widely used. [3]. The fact that people say PIN number and ATM machine are similarly inconsistent but we have redirects for those as well. Incidentally, this is an example of RAS syndrome (I knew we had an article on this somewhere). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom is correct that the redirect is wrong (that kind of redundancy is a pet peeve of mine too), but people will mess that up when they search, so better to keep it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 10 May 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 Speedily Delete under WP:CSD#R3 by Cobaltbluetony. Non-admin closure. UsaSatsui (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Looks like someone just made a typo. EuroSong ^talk 17:22, 8 May 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) 13:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firebird is different to Firefox. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both History of Mozilla Firefox and the disambiguation page Firebird you link to state that Firebird was an earlier name for Firefox. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep but Rename per B.Wind below. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as History of Mozilla Firebird Redirects are cheap so let's leave this one (ec)weak delete Mozilla Firebird is only a temporal name of Mozilla Firefox software so it's an improbable search. The are more likely to search for Mozilla_firebird which already exists. I added "Mozilla Firebird" to Firebird disambiguation page, I hope that no fan of Firebird (database server) deletes it. it was already listed there --Enric Naval (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same program or not (I really don't know), there's discussion of a "Mozilla Firebird" at the target article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Capitalisation...? This, that and the other _[talk] 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a reason to delete a redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Firebird" was briefly the name for what is now called "Firefox". That's reason enough to keep this redirect. Note that this can't be confused with other software called "Firebird", since it specifies the Mozilla software. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Establish History of Mozilla Firebird redirect, then delete this one. Essentially, it would be the equivalent of moving a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be done anyways. Done (and I suppose added to this RFD) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change per B.Wind; capitalization is wrong on this one, search will find either, so delete this and create one with the right capitalization. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 10 May 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 Disambig. We have quite a few pages with Hype in the title. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An old version of Hyperbole asserted that "hype" is a contraction of "hyperbole", hence the redirect. But that claim has been removed (by myself) as it was not sourced, and no dictionary I have checked confirms it. So, now the redirect is meaningless. Goochelaar (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wrote a section in Hyperbole on it's use in advertising this would be a good rd to that section. The rd to the article is strenuous. Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to...something]]. Somehow, when I think of "hype", I don't think of "hyperbole". But this should point someplace, I'm just not sure where right now. I can certainly see it being used both as a likely search term and a likely attack term (I thought of two people I'd want to redirect this to just typing this). --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft-redirect both of them to Wiktionary (probably using the {{wi}} template). The current contents of Hyperbole are the pronunciation, eytmology, meaning and antonyms for a common word. It's good content - exactly what I'd expect to see in a really great unabridged dictionary like Wiktionary. I don't see anything that rises past lexical content to an encyclopedia article, though. Nor could I find a version in history that had more than merely lexical content. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to promotion (marketing) as "hype" is promotional in nature. B.Wind (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! That's the target I was looking for. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per B.Wind. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation This could refer to promotion (marketing) but also Hype (TV series) . Hyperbole could also be mentioned here if a source is found. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 13:06, 12 May 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) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect; the most common (to my knowledge) use of TMDR is Internet slang for "too much, didn't read". KleenupKrew (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (the acronym finder source could have been updated by anyone, but I see that a fan page for him is called tmdrfan.com[4] and the acronym appears to have some use[5]) Delete The word "TMDR" does not even appear on the target article or its talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the target article shows, his full name is "Thomas Morgan Robertson" and his nickname is "Thomas Dolby". The standard convention for showing that would be "Thomas Morgan (Dolby) Robertson". A quick google search substantiated the use of those four initials to refer to the musician. Acronym finder lists the musician as one of three common usages of that FLA. Interestingly, "too much, didn't read" doesn't make that list. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 8 May 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#R3. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created due to move which was soon reverted. Implausible typo. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, this probably should have been a Speedy Delete. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• yup, Speedy delete --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged it for speedy. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:11, 8 May 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) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See end for explanation.

• ＀ → Bullet (typography) (character is U+FF00 <reserved> - i.e. not even a bullet)
• ＭＡＤＯＸ－０１ → Metal Skin Panic MADOX-01
• ＧＯＬ１９０７ → Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
• ＪＡＬ９０７ → 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident
• Ｂａｎｎａｎ　Ｌｉｎｅ　(TRTS) → Bannan Line (TRTS) (this one has mixed fullwidth and standard characters)
• ｳｯｰｳｯｰｳﾏｳﾏ(ﾟ∀ﾟ) → Caramelldansen (I have no knowledge of Japanese, but the inverted A and degree symbols suggests this is rubbish)
• Also, ASCII characters in fullwidth (U+FF01-U+FF5E) exist (see Special:Allpages/！)

These contain fullwidth characters (used when typing in Asian languages, for special purposes). If we had a redirect from fullwidth to standard text, we'd be filled with this rubbish. It's unlikely these will be searched for (even by Asians on enwiki, because they will have switched Asian typing off). The single-character pages seem a bit useless, for the same reason above. They have not been tagged with {{rfd}}. This, that and the other _[talk] 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirects with encoding problems. Ugh. And I thought that conversions of ISO-8859-1 to/from UTF-8 were bad. I don't see ay reasonable chance that someone would be searching Wikipedia in anything other than utf-8. It also can cause confusion when searching on google, since people searching names using asian encoding will get the enwiki pages instead of the relevant pages from asian language wikipedias, due to enwiki having higher pagerank. People searching like that probably want to find pages written on the relevant asian language and not on english --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; highly improbable search terms for English wiki. --Russ (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but keep ｳｯｰｳｯｰｳﾏｳﾏ(ﾟ∀ﾟ),' ｳｯｰｳｯｰｳﾏｳﾏ(ﾟ∀ﾟ) is the Japanese title for Caramelldansen. Japanese do use Latin letters. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The (ﾟ∀ﾟ) is certainly not part of the title, though. It's an emoticon. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They will probably use "Caramelldansen" to search on english wikipedia. If you want the article to appear when looking the japanese name on google, then just use the japanese name inside the article itself --Enric Naval (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can a request be made for the developers to autoredirect from full-width to 7-bit ASCII characters, as is done with capitalized and non-caps right now, when using the searchbox? 70.55.88.176 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion started at technical village pump. This, that and the other _[talk] 08:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all including ｳｯｰｳｯｰｳﾏｳﾏ(ﾟ∀ﾟ); it's encoded using halfwidth kana, which we ought to avoid (actually, we ought to avoid using kana at all on enwiki, but there's no reason at all to use halfwidth kana). The others are also no needed; if we had redirects for every old variant encoding for the ascii range, we wouldn't have time or space for anything else. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke them all including the half-width kana one, just as useless. Looks like we have a new record for 'most useless redirects', beating those 'space' redirects. No-one is going to search for full-width/monospace-text versions of words, and some browsers *cough*IE*cough* have trouble even displaying the characters. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 11:50, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, none do any harm. Why is this user wanting to delete all these? TheMeepOne (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ｙｅｓ，　Ｔｈａｔ’ｓ　ｍｙ　ｓｔｙｌｅ　ｔｏ　ａｄｄ　ｃｈａｒａｃｔｅｒ　ｉｎ　ｗｉｋｉｐｅｄｉａ．R8o6d4e0d0 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 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. Wizardman 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect creates a high google placement here for this userpage, which violates BLP and numerous other wiki policies. As a side note, the actual article has been published here:Sahaj Marg. User has clear history, of coming to wikipedia and trying to publish blog quality material about this group....this is just his trickiest attempt. Sethie (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Re-direct not needed as it is for directing from one userfied page to another, and the key userfied page in question is the one everyone has been working off of (i.e., no one uses the original title anymore, meaning the redirect is not necessary). The reason it was changed was to avoid getting Google hits and putting Wiki at risk for BLP violations, and the redirect is causing it to get hits, so should be deleted.Renee (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect violates wiki BLP policies. I support the idea to delete this redirect page User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India. Embhee (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nomination -- Mayawi (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely improbable search term, BLP and Google placement issues as above. I also think userspace, talk pages, and anything else other than actual articles should have a 'noindex' tag which would avoid this kind of problem in the first place, but that's a separate issue for a separate debate. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No second thoughts needed. Duty2love (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful + BLP issues + it's a draft from a deleted article so no need to make it easier to find for people searching for the person's name --Enric Naval (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves no purpose with the article in the main space.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as content of the target is "page has been published at Sahaj Marg". – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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