Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 8

February 8

List of episodes of Gingerfield and Friends → List of Garfield and Friends episodes

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was set up by User:Gingerfield rocks, but I don't see how "Garfield" has anything to do with "Gingerfield", let alone "Gingerfield and Friends". Namcorules 10:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonsense. — coelacan talk — 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless anyone can give my a reason why this might remotely be plausible. Abeg92contribs 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly not plausible. In fact, I did a Google test to double-check that, and the only result anywhere on the web was an old RFD here that you might find enlightening. -- NORTH talk 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonesense and bordering on vandalismin light of the old RfD turned up by NORTH. WjBscribe 07:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. This redirect was created at the same time as those ones (December 2005), not afterwards. They must have just missed this one when they nominated the other two a year ago. -- NORTH talk 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Route 500 Series (New Jersey) → County routes in New Jersey

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • Route 600-Series (New Jersey)
  • Route 500-series (New Jersey)
  • Route 600-series (New Jersey)
  • Route 600 series (New Jersey)

Nonsensical redirects unlikiely to be searched for. No incoming links, was only used by a long since deprecated and deleted template. NORTH talk 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete; unlikely search terms, though not doing any harm where they are – Qxz 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The County routes in New Jersey article was recently split, so the 500 ones are doing minor harm. If those two are kept, they should be retargeted to List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey, but it makes more sense to me to just thank them for their service and send them on their merry little way. -- NORTH talk 23:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the other half of the split? 500-series roads and 600-series roads are distinct grades. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other "half" is 21 (not all of which have been created yet) articles for each of the separate counties. Another possible reason to delete the 600 redirects. -- NORTH talk 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 500 redirects look harmless, although tetargetting to the list is a good idea; you will want a navigation article Secondary county roads in New Jersey or some such; the 600's can redirect there. But this is a suggestion, not a !vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I don't particularly see the need for a navigation article on top of a navigation template (({{NJCR}}). -- NORTH talk 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MySpace

The result of the debate was delete all. --Coredesat 09:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not specific to the target article. --- RockMFR 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not being a MySpace user myself, I'm not sure what these are referring to, but I don't see why such an ambiguous phrase as "top 4" should be treated as MySpace-specific – Qxz 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I doubt anyone would search Wikipedia for the phrase "Top 4" trying to figure out what it means, and if they do, odds are they're not looking for a Myspace concept. -- NORTH talk 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — redirects are not specific to MySpace, and unlikely to be searched for. In the case of the last one, a redirect to ColdFusion, if anywhere, would be appropriate. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those wondering what this has to do with MySpace: Users can add other users as friends, of which a subset (I think 8 is the default) are shown on the user's profile. You can choose which 8 friends are displayed, and some people consider this to be a very important decision (i.e. worrying about where they appear in other users' top 8 lists). Dave6 talk 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jew york → New York

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad racist joke. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, racist and irrelevant – Qxz 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is WP:CSD#G10 so I have tagged it with the appropriate Speedy Delete tag. — coelacan talk — 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Stolen land → Israel

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - G20 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, by the same author. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not specific to the target article. --- RockMFR 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is WP:CSD#G10 so I have tagged it with the appropriate Speedy Delete tag. — coelacan talk — 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Democrat Party (United States) → Democrat Party (phrase)

The result of the debate was retarget to Democrat Party. --Coredesat 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encourages mistaken linking when Democratic Party (United States) is the intended target. Since, as the actual target will show, this is both mistaken and uncivil, simply changing the redirect to point there is undesirable; this should be a redlink. Democrat Party is, and ought to be, a dab; so any search will end up where it ought to go.

  • Support; although I agree with the above argument, this is a procedural completion of an incomplete nomination by User:Griot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a repeat nomination of a debate that was closed just 5 days ago. The current target is a result of that debate. -- JLaTondre 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I see, but Griot nominated it immediately after that; I believe his reasons are above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Democrat Party. -- NORTH talk 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Democrat Party, a good suggestion by NORTH. Someone using this redirect may have wanted either the pejoritive or the actual party, so we should just link to the disambiguation page and let them figure it out from there. — coelacan talk — 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two valid arguments here, which together argue for a redlink:
      Democrat Party, which is largely a dab between two non-United States parties fails both of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I get it now and I agree with you. It doesn't serve a purpose here. It should just be a redlink so that nobody tries to push it around. — coelacan talk — 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a redlink makes it so that nobody tries to push it around. If anything, it encourages people to recreate it pointing to an imperfect target. -- NORTH talk 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At which point it may be speedy deleted or brought back here again. No problem. Watchlist the redlink and kill it if it comes back. It'll get salted eventually. — coelacan talk — 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Democrat Party. does the job. People need to be informed that it is a controversial phrase. The comment re "this undesirable term" shows we have lots of POV at work here that users should know about if they use the term. Google has over 1.2 million links to "Democrat Party" so it's not exactly rare. Wiki of course does not announce whether terms in common use are desirable or undesirable. Rjensen 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Democrat Party" is one thing and that page is fine. But what is Democrat Party (United States) used for? It's either going to be used mistakenly when the editor actually wants to link to Democratic Party (United States), or it's going to be used to look like a link to Democratic Party (United States) while actually linking to the pejorative. In both cases, a redlink is what should be there instead. — coelacan talk — 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that's exactly why it needs to redirect to the dab page. People linking to this page, or searching for this page, are going to be looking for either of those two uses, the definition of what a disambiguation page should be used for. Saying that it should be a redlink isn't exactly valid. Redlinks are temporary at best; I guarantee you that if we just delete this outright, someone will recreate a redirect to one of the two pages somewhere down the line. -- NORTH talk 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much worried about malice, as about non-American editors linking to [[Democrat Party (United States)|]] out of ignorance; and, since it is a bluelink, not noticing any problem. A redlink will encourage goodfaith editors to find, and probably link to, Democratic Party (United States). If they recreate this redirect instead, it can be speedied. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Septentrionalis (but anyone can answer), who said, "Democrat Party, which is largely a dab between two non-United States parties fails both of these," above. If instead of retargeting to Democrat Party, we converted Democrat Party (United States) to a separate disambiguation page, would that be more appropriate? -- NORTH talk 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would have both disadvantages. It would not explain to the reader that this name is invective; and the existence of a bluelink will continue to mislead helpful foreigners. If this is kept, I would prefer it redirect to Democrat Party (phrase) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support either of North's suggestions to retarget, because they are the most enlightening to readers of the pages. However, I'm concerned that the second page idea might be a little too detailed and tedious. Sorry about the weird looking edit summary -- Firefox is acting strangely. Abeg92contribs 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the current time, no one is using the redirect in good faith. It is only for pov pushing. What would be most enlightening to anyone who tries to use the redirect would be to find that it doesn't exist, and go searching for the page that they actually want to link directly to. I agree with Septentrionalis that the most likely good faith issue here is simply "non-American editors linking to Democrat Party (United States) out of ignorance; and, since it is a bluelink, not noticing any problem." Having a bluelink of any kind will not help this. — coelacan talk — 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to the disambiguation page, which clearly states, "It is also a pejorative term for the Democratic Party (United States)," will easily clarify the matter for anyone confused about the use of the term. And if the redirect is tagged as Category:Unprintworthy redirects, bots and human editors can easily change any incoming links.
I strongly disagree with the statement that no one is using the redirect in good faith. While the proper name for the party is Democratic Party, the noun form is Democrat. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are Democrats. It really is a much more honest mistake than people are making it out to be. Having a blue link is much more useful for education than a redlink, provided that people do the responsible thing and double-check their edits. Editor irresponsibility, however, is not a valid reason to make our decisions. -- NORTH talk 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't looked at Special:Whatlinkshere/Democrat Party (United States). Not one single article is linking here at this time. Every mention of linking comes from discussions around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States). A look at the article history reveals that this was originally a POV redirect directly to Democratic Party (United States),[1] very probably not done in good faith. The AFD came up because this link was being used to look like Democratic Party (United States) but was not that article.[2] Thus it has obviously been used for POV pushing in the past, and is not now being used for any article-space links, because those redirects have already been bypassed. There's no reason to keep it around. No one is using it in good faith. Anyone who uses it accidentally, in the future, should not see a bluelink, since they don't want to link to Democrat Party; they either want to Democrat Party (phrase) or [[Democratic Party {United States)]]. And yes, editor responsibility is always a valid reason to make our decisions; we base all POV-related decisions on precisely that. — coelacan talk — 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages exist precisely because someone linking to them is looking for one of the two links on the page. As I said above, "Democrat" is a legitimate, non-perjorative term to refer to members of the party (as a noun, not an adjective), and there's absolutely no reason to believe that the original redirect must have been POV and not good faith. (Whatever happened to assume good faith?)
To argue from a different angle, keep in mind that Dubya, a perjorative nickname, exists as a redirect for George W. Bush. Perhaps you can consider this the same thing, with the added issue of having a separate article discussing the perjorative nature of the phrase. Since there are two viable targets, redirecting to the disambiguation page is the proper course of action. -- NORTH talk 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dubya" is a term that people actually use. "Democrat Party (United States)" is not. The only thing this redirect does is look almost exactly like Democratic Party (United States). — coelacan talk — 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Democrat Party, since someone linking there could be meaning either usage. Any linking will be fixed by people cleaning up disambiguation links. --NE2 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any target other than Democrat Party (phrase) fails to warn the reader that the phrase is abusive. But no one would deliberately use this redirect when they mean the other. — coelacan talk — 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, as I've pointed out several times, a redirect to Democrat Party, which contains the words, "It is also a pejorative term for the Democratic Party (United States)," warns the reader of exactly that. -- NORTH talk 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Democrat Party (phrase). Redirecting it anywhere else (especially Democratic Party (United States)) supports use of a pejorative. The question of making the links red so people know they've linked incorrectly is not germane to this particular term; it applies to all Unprintworthy redirects. — Randall Bart 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Siege of Cirta → Cirta

The result of the debate was Deleted. A red-link seems more appropriate in this case. Especially since we already have another article, Battle of Cirta, on the Second Punic War battle. -- JLaTondre 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creates the illusion that such an article exists when it doesn't. If they want the town then it is common sense to remove the "Siege of" so I don't believe it aids in finding articles, either. gren グレン 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Cirta article briefly covers this topic, and "Siege of Cirta" could be a somewhat likely search term. Seems it's got potential to be useful, and it's doing no harm that would detract from that utility, so I err toward keeping. — coelacan talk — 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Siege in question, at least as linked to, is the one under Jugurtha, which is not mentioned. This is misleading. Now this can be fixed by rewriting the article as well as by writing a new one; but a redlink will draw attention to the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Charles Murray (racist) → Charles Murray (author)

The result of the debate was deleted, as CSD G10 (attack page). Titoxd(?!?) 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:ATK Sdsds 04:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as offensive, made for attack purposes. — coelacan talk — 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused, offensive redirect. I did notify the editor who created this redirect of this RfD, however. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Node Type → Node type (NetBIOS)

The result of the debate was retarget to node. --Coredesat 09:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "node type" is very generic, but the redirect is to an esoteric sub-topic of NetBIOS which may confuse readers. Saligron 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambiguation page Node. —Dgiest c 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, retarget to Node, the more generic meanings are covered there – Qxz 23:35, 8 February 2007 (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/2007_February_8&oldid=1138574581"