Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 24

The result of the discussion was no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Diet of Vorms → Diet of Worms

Vorms? I assume this is a redirect in case of a typo. Not needed. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but not entirely; I did that because the German way of pronouncing W's is as V's, right? So it's pronounced the Diet of Vorms. However, it might be unnecessary. If you have the power, feel free to remove it. -Panther (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this being an extremely common typo....--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sure, remove it. -Panther (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a German Wikipedia also.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems a perfectly reasonable redirect to me; I would imagine it's a pretty common misspelling given the pronunciation. ~ mazca ^talk 13:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've been trying to think of who might search for this redirect. Native German speakers won't, because they'll know that the name of the city "Worms" is spelled with a "W". Native English speakers won't, because they'll most likely have heard the event referred to with the English pronunciation. Maybe if a native English speaker heard it from a native German speaker...? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If a native English speaker heard another native English speaker say it correctly, then the assumption would be Vorms. I am aware that most people would read, not hear, the term, but this is an odd pronunciation of the word W and otherwise some people might not be able to find the article. Can you create a Did you mean... on the search page, after someone has searched Diet of Vorms? Because that would work. -Panther (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if it's possible to confirm that while the redirect still exists, but I did a test on a similar phrase. Searching for "Parasitic vorm" brings up a search page with "Did you mean: Parasitic worm" at the top. The same is true of a search for "Computer vorm" (see search page). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not implausible. meshach (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete both.--Aervanath (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is a Filipino? → Filipino people

Wikipedia is not Wolfram Alpha. This redirect is an implausible search term with no history worth preserving, no significant incoming links, and no traffic. Even if, by some small chance, the title is searched, "Filipino people" would be one of the first result—if not the first one. Delete. (Redirect creator notified using {{RFDNote}}.) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also included in this nomination: Who is an Arab → Arab. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• See related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 17#What is a legend ?. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the RFD page explicitly says that lack of incoming links should not be used as a reason for deleting a redirect. These are implausible terms but not impossible and redirects are cheap. meshach (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that impossibility is a viable standard for judging redirects... Any search string consisting of characters that are supported by MediaWiki is technically possible and, unless there is a limitation on the number of characters that can be typed into the search box, the number of possible searches is infinite. "Lack of incoming links" was only one reason I offered (and I would never nominate a redirect for deletion for that reasons alone), the others being "implausible search term" (even if searched, the target would be among the first results) and "no traffic". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Term no longer discussed at target so redirect no longer appropriate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fledgling Jason Steed → Raymond Steed

Fledging Jason Steed was deleted, with a suggestion in the AfD that it be changed to a redirect to Raymond Steed, as that was the inspiration for the book/character's name. However, I'm not sure there's much point in keeping the redirect, especially since nobody's been able to source the claim to anything except the author's website. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 13#Fledgling Jason Steed, closed on 22 June 2009 as "keep". However, the closing rationale of "term is discussed at target" no longer seems to apply. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, I voted "keep" last time around. *headdesk* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redirect for a non-notable book from a non-notable author that has, frankly, caused a lot of problems from certain editors who didn't take the original AfDs very well. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - The redirect and target aren't really a good match. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of terms in Xenosaga → Xenosaga
• List of planets in Xenosaga → Xenosaga
• List of starships in Xenosaga → Xenosaga
• List of organizations in Xenosaga → Xenosaga
• List of major characters in Xenosaga → List of characters in the Xenosaga series
• List of minor characters in Xenosaga → List of characters in the Xenosaga series

Delete as unnecessary redirects. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Several of these pages had content that was transwikied, so I am not sure whether we may need to keep the page histories. (Added later: If copyright policy does not demand that we keep the page histories, or if they can be preserved elsewhere, then delete all per nom.) Delete List of major characters in Xenosaga, which was moved to List of characters in the Xenosaga series (the pagemove history is preserved in the page history of the target article). Delete List of minor characters in Xenosaga, which was deleted at AfD and currently has no significant undeleted page history). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please tag all of the nomianted redirects with {{rfd}}. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, except for the List of terms, which is protected for some reason.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I added the tag to the list of terms, which seems to have been protected to prevent edit-warring about its status. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • RE: Black Falcon - I don't see why the page history needs to be "preserved" if it's already been transwikied. All of this information is most likely in the Xenosaga Wiki, making detailed pages about it unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive game guide.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm concerned we are deleting the histories, and therefore easily accessed content here. Redirects are cheap so I don't see the rush to remove them. As well, especially on fictional items, they help push would b new articles back to the main instead. The removal of these, in this case, may perpetuate a cycle of split, merge, redirect. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the linked articles can be kept in check, I don't think it would be at all necessary to split them. These redirects are unnecessary and I don't see anyone going into their edit history to dig up information when they could go to the Xenosaga Wiki to get more detailed info. I don't think they ever were, or could be encyclopedic. Is there a valid reason to keep them?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the reasons I just outlined; also I've never even heard of the Xenosaga Wiki - personally I don't use any outside wikis at all so am uncomfortable having us rely on them in such a way. We may just have to agree t disagree here. -- Banjeboi 10:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikia wikis are widely referred to when fictional universes and such are concerned. While larger ones have their own Wiki, like Star Trek, the smaller series have Wikia wikis with all the game content. However, that does not matter here, since I don't see any reason people would use them as search terms.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Banjeboi, I don't see what the issue is with losing the information contained in the edit histories. If the decision was made that the article wasn't wanted, doesn't it follow that the content in the article wasn't wanted (with the exception of information that may have been merged)? At any rate, the main article contains an interwiki link to wikia:Xenosaga:Xenosaga. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I may not be expressing it well. First off interwiki links mean little to me. I don't think we should rely on other websites to serve as repositories as a default "waiting room". If other other users find those helpful to guide our work here then more power to them. My understanding is that we had a large list, it was split apart and then re-merged - or some variation therein - this is quite common. If the redirect is an unlikely search term and an unlikely future article term and there is relatively no contributions beside the break-out article being started and then remerged back then deleting the redirect may make sense. My hunch is that the same folks who thought the original split was a good idea may do it again or someone else will in their place. Hence just leaving the redirect in place may make the most sense here so when editors try to use them they are instead redirected back to the main article where we want the content to grow sustainably and organicly. Not sure if there is any perceived harm in keeping them. -- Banjeboi 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all These redirects all have value for their existing usage, their history and their potential. The suggestion that they have no value as search terms is false as they still have significant traffic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Tavix |  Talk  04:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaze no Naka no Shoujo Kinpatsu no Jeanie → Jeanie with the Light Brown Hair

Delete. The title in question is an Anime which only aired in Japan and Italy. I can see some rationale for it existing on a foreign language Wikipedia site, but having a redirect on the English site for an uncommon Japanese phrase doesn't seem plausible. HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as redirects are cheap and this is a common romanization of the title. It's possible someone may not know the English title, so having a redirect is valuable. Additionally, WP:MOS-ANIME#Redirects specifically indicates redirects should exist as this is an alternate romanization of the title (a non-macronned version of Kaze no Naka no Shōjo Kinpatsu no Jenī). I also fixed the redirect to point to the correct article. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re-targeting does seem to make more sense. I wasn't aware that an article existed for the Anime. HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They both used to be in the same article back when I created the redirect. I guess it was never updated until today when I pointed it to the right article. I agree it shouldn't point at the article about the song. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just fixed two more redirects to point to the anime article instead of the song article. I also corrected a link which should have pointed to the anime article. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, I'm guessing you're withdrawing your deletion request? ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the redirect has been improved to the point where I think it can be useful in it's current context. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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