Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 23

Well, firstly, calling this EP "The Lost" is like calling a certain Beatles double-album "The White" - it's not its name and no-one ever calls it that. More importantly, though, it wasn't by The Clean, it was by their label-mates The Chills (so it's actually like talking about "The White" by Gerry and the Pacemakers) Grutness...wha? 23:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree. Rbraunwa 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epicranium used to contain the text "It is also known as the galea aponeurosis" until I removed it as misleading if not outright false, as the galea aponeurosis is just one component of the epicranium. As Epicranium now consists of just one sentence, I believe it is not hepful to have Galea aponeurosis redirect there, rather, let it be a redlink until someone makes it a proper article. TacoDeposit 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect up for deletion has been moved to Galea aponeurotica with the rfd tag removed. If you want the current redirection removed I would suggest putting the tag back and if you are OK with this new redirect I would suggest that this be closed. --70.48.172.50 02:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically an offensive joke (see criteria) that is not discussed at all in the target article. Crystallina 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and lock the blanked Surprise sex page, as this meme's been going around for a while so it's inevitable the page will get recreated again eventually, either as a redirect or an article. --Aaron 22:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good as a topic for Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Would prefer that this be salted, but only in a soft manner, as the presence of the name is as bad as the link. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a common, if distasteful euphamism for rape. Google comes up with 40,500 references. It's not nice, it's not funny but it is widely used. NLB 14:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NLB. Just because it's offensive doesn't mean it isn't useful. If people type juvenile phrases into the search bar they should get academic answers. SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This should be kept because a lot of people (wrongly) use the phase 'surprise sex' to mean 'forced sex'. This is especially true of juvenile people who don't know better. 82.25.23.173 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't seem useful at all, to me. PJM 12:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to Help: namespace. We have a link to Help:Contents in the sidebar, so this does not improve navigation. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page has significant history and predates the creation of the separate namespaces. It was used in the creation of several pages on special characters including the target page. Furthermore, this is a reasonable search term. Not everyone knows how to navigate through our Help screens. This takes you fairly quickly to the right page. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or revert to an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to Help: namespace. We have a link to Help:Contents in the sidebar, so this does not improve navigation. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Again, not everyone realizes that the Help link is right there. Many people use the search engine for almost all navigation. This is a very reasonable search term for a new user. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete confusing cross-namespace redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to Help: namespace. We have a link to Help:Contents in the sidebar, so this does not improve navigation. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Again, it's a reasonable search term for those who are more comfortable using the search engine. Rossami (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move source to Wikipedia:Table, deleting the resultant redirect from main space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cross-namespace. Rbraunwa 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; cross-namespaces are useful! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfunctional cross-namespace redirect to a Special: namespace page. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is where Wikipedia:Most popular pages existed before the creation of the separate namespaces. Even though the redirect is not directly functional, this is a fairly clean and unambiguous way to present the link for those who don't remember the exact link to Special:Popularpages. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Special:Popularpages doesn't actually exist, so the redirect is useless anyway. --ais523 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonfunctional cross-namespace redirect to a Special: namespace page. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page also predated the creation of the separate namespaces. The history of the page, while thin, documents how early we started having to worry about persistent vandalism from anon IPs. Like the previous nomination, the redirect doesn't work as a redirect but this is still a very convenient way to point users to the correct Special page. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regardless of history. If the history is considered significant, move to Wikipedia namespace, deleting redirect from main space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfunctional cross-namespace redirect to a Special: namespace page. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, regardless of history. If the history is considered significant, move to Wikipedia namespace, deleting redirect from main space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect to a template. While there seems to be no current consensus in WP:SHORT on when CNRs to templates are allowable, there also seems to be no need for this one. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross-namespace redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. PJM 12:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfunctional redirect. While Wikipedia recognizes the foundation: namespace, it apparently does not allow redirects through it, so this does not work. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even though the ridirect does not technically work, this is useful as an aid to those trying to find the fundraising page. Without this, the search engine can't ever reach over to the Foundation namespace (and, honestly, I didn't even realize we had such a namespace until this nomination). Better to have to make two clicks than never finding the page at all. Rossami (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: foundation: is not a namespace; it is a link to wikimediafoundation.org (similar to wikt:). Note also Wikipedia donation and Wikipedia:Donations. TimBentley (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If considered important, even if non-functional, move to Wikipedia namespace and delete resulting redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2006 the call letters of this station were changed from WDTW (AM) to WWWW (AM). Now they have been changed back to WDTW (AM) but I can't move the article back for some reason. I tried swapping pages, which didn't work and created useless redirects which I had deleted a few days age. I then listed this under the proposed moves page, but nothing seems to be happening there. If the WDTW (AM) redirect can be deleted there should be no problem moving WWWW (AM) back. Thanks. RobDe68 14:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put a {{db-g6}} tag on WDTW (AM). That's asking for a "speedy deletion to perform non controversial housekeeping tasks." An admin should come alone shortly and kill the redirect; after that you can move WWWW (AM) back. --Aaron 16:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect conflicts with article Bradley Joseph and consequently this article does not show up in search Cricket02 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, reasonable redirect (Joseph Bradley has same target), the existence of this redirect is not why Bradley Joseph doesn't show up when you search for it, and you can go there directly anyways. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a reasonable redirect. Is there a redirect for every name in Wikipedia for last name first/first name last? No. If I use the "search function" (not the "Go" function) in hopes of finding all articles related to "Bradley Joseph" with that concept (last name first/first name last - i.e. Joseph, Bradley), I get articles relating to Joseph Philo Bradley instead, and if I "search" for "Bradley Joseph", I still get Joseph Philo Bradley. No-win situation for this page. Joseph Philo Bradley has plenty of other redirects - this one is not needed...and people can go to it directly anyways too. This is most definately a conflict. Also, I cite Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met: The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Plus, there is no history for this redirect. Cricket02 10:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was moved to Francis George (politician), and the old title is not likely to be searched out. ... discospinster _talk 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discospinster. Pavel Vozenilek 20:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created as a result of a page move of an article rewrite mistakently put in the main namespace. It has no incoming links or history and a note has been left on the talk page about the article's new location. The talk page should not be deleted, because it is a subpage of the parent article and is (or was) being used to discuss the rewrite. Khatru2 02:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect, Contested {{prod}}. Was originally created as an article stub plugging an unknown "documentary" uploaded to Google Video called "9/11 Mysteries". After being {{prod}}ded, the article creator removed the tag and turned it into a redirect to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center for no other apparent reason than to save the name "9/11 Mysteries" from being deleted. Aaron 06:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV pushing by conspiracy theory advocates.--MONGO 07:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsensical redirect, indeed. CWC(talk) 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are cheap. Why send potential readers to an error page instead of sending them to something at least somewhat relevent to what they are likely looking for? --Shortfuse 08:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this video isn't notable enough, even for a redirect. Please just delete it. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 11:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No brainer. Crockspot 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom GabrielF 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete end the insanity. --Tbeatty 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary. Morton devonshire 19:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a likely search term, the video is unnotable and the redirect is incredibly POV to presume that of any mystery related to 9/11 the one that matters would be the controlled demolution hypothesis. JoshuaZ 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If any of the 9/11 articles covered a number of possibilities, including the possibility that the government story is correct (which does show a few mysteries, also), then a redirect to that article is possible. This redirect is to a single "mystery". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the real mystery is why we didn't just speedily nuke it in the first place... Guy 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a likely search term.--Rosicrucian 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect it somewhere else, isn't there a more general 9/11 conspiracy article? SchmuckyTheCat 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories is not appropriate, as there are mysteries in the standard explanation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Peephole 08:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created as a result of a page move of an article rewrite mistakently put in the main namespace. It has no incoming links or history and a note has been left on the talk page about the article's new location. The talk page should not be deleted, because it is a subpage of the parent article and the target page. Khatru2 08:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created as a result of a page move of a copy of an article mistakently put in the main namespace. It has one incoming link and no history and a note has been left on the talk page about the article's new location. The talk page should not be deleted, because it is a subpage of the parent article and the target page. Khatru2 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the result of a presumed vandal move by User:Hirotarp with the following edit summary: "moved Japan Patent Office to Ontime brand: wish to check if ontime brand is registered.". Edcolins 16:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.