Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 27

October 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 27, 2008

List of ABC shows (disambiguation) → List of ABC shows

The result of the debate was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely search term (with "disambiguation" in parentheses) Bwrs (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to actual dab page - not disambiguation is needed here. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to keep per discussion below. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect surely serves a purpose. While not a possible search term, I have just added List of ABC shows (disambiguation) instead of List of ABC shows per WP:DISAMBIG#Links to disambiguation pages to the ABC dab. The guidelines encourage these types of redirects, so I don't see why this one should be erased. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documents a very recent pagemove, and it's not that unlikely of a target (at least as likely as any other page ending in "(disambiguation)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy-keep because it helps document a very recent pagemove. (I argue for speedy keep because this pattern of attempting to hide the evidence of a pagemove by immediately deleting the automatically-created redirects has exhausted my ability to assume good faith. These nominations have become borderline disruptive.) Rossami (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down, man. Not everyone understands that documenting a page's move history can be important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documents page history, and redirects are so cheap that there is no real reason to delete them unless they are misleading or offensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Heliogabalus (God) → Elagabalus (deity)

The result of the debate was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)unlikely search term (with capital "G") (Note: this deletion was proposed before and kept, but consensus can change.) Bwrs (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is your argument seriously that "God" is an unlikely typo for "god"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a routine capitalization variant. The original RfD is here. While consensus can change, there is no evidence that it has in this case. No new issues or evidence has been presented since the last time the user made this nomination. Rossami (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is about the first letter, not the G/g. And I'dstill say keep, because its a reasonable spelling variation. 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't believe so. The nominator of this discussion is the person who created Heliogabalus (god), an identical redirect except for the capitalization of the parenthetical. Pretty clearly, he/she thinks that the Heliogabalus part is appropriate. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep. Although we should not turn it into a goal to form every possible redirect under the sun, there is nothing misleading or harmful about this redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sentouryoku → Dragon Ball

The result of the debate was retarget to Choujin Kyoudo#Power Levels in other works. WJBscribe (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. It has nothing to do with Dragon Ball, and I fail to see how this is a helpful search term. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Choujin Kyoudo#Power Levels in other works - it is mentioned in this section as "first mentioned in [Dragon Ball Z]", but it's the only mention - not in the Dragon Ball article at all. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per B.Wind. GlassCobra 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Walker Methodist Health Center → Minneapolis

The result of the debate was Keep, noting that the target section still needs to be updated accordingly. Tikiwont (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect; on the off chance someone looks this up, they'll be confused at why they're at the Minneapolis article. If an article on this hospital is warranted, someone can create it later. (n.b. This page pointed to Minneapolis, Minnesota until recently, but I changed the redirect target when the Minneapolis article was moved.) szyslak (t) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Walker Methodist Health Center is one of the five hospitals in Minneapolis (and one of two not mentioned in the target article, an oversight that should be rectified as the hospital has recently been in the news regarding union activities). Both the WMHC and the fifth Minneapolis hospital should be added to the target article. Fine tuning the targeting to Minneapolis#Health and utilities would probably be quite helpful, too. B.Wind (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plainly, the WMHC and Minneapolis aren't the same thing - clicking on one shouldn't lead to the article about the other. Alternatively, if you can find some reliable sources to use as references, write the article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (section-retargeted as B.Wind suggests) until and unless someone writes an article that clearly demonstrates that this institution meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. If a stand-alone article can someday be written, it can be done by overwriting the existing redirect. There is no need to delete the pagehistory first. Until someone does, the redirect is marginally more useful than a redlink. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it section-targeted, but I think a good case can be made for making this into a separate article. Almost reasonably large hospitals in Norway have separate entries in Store norske leksikon, and I see no reason why American hospitals should be any less notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects aren't always synonyms, we also use misspellings as redirects. I think all geographical terms that don't have their own articles should be redirected to the next largest supradivision. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Murderapolis → Minneapolis

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This insulting nickname for Minneapolis is a very unlikely search term, and carries the implied POV that Minneapolis is a dangerous place, while in reality the city has good and bad areas like anywhere else. (n.b.: The page redirected to Minneapolis, Minnesota until very recently, but I changed the target to avoid a double redirect.) szyslak (t) 21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bwrs (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does seem to be used more for Minneapolis than any other place. Otherwise it should be replaced by a dictionary entry to explain the term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "a dictionary entry to explain the term", you do mean on Wiktionary, right? Also, why are you making an argument based on how often this term is used for Minneapolis in comparison to other places? I was not arguing that "Murderapolis" is an ambiguous term. Redirects don't have to be ambiguous to get deleted. szyslak (t) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes something like wiktionary, looking at how it is used it may have also referred to New York as that seems to be its first use. If there is enough subject matter then there should be an article for Murderapolis, but if Minneapolis does not mention it then it should not point there as a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be a common (nor flattering) nickname for the city. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google shows results for plenty of cities, not just Minneapolis. Seems just to be an insult. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-specific pejorative. No alternative target presents itself. (No objection to a soft-redirect to Wiktionary if someone creates the appropriate page.) Rossami (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For same reason as deleting the pejoratives for Baltimore, Maryland below. Redirect is offensive, and there is no usefulness argument countering that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that it's used by modern day yellow journalists does not make it a reasonable search term. JuJube (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

American Coot Northern Shoveler → Northern Shoveler

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Coot and the Northern Shoveler are two different birds, related only insofar as they are both waterfowl. As such, this redirect is incorrect and potentially confusing. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - title combining the names of two different species of birds is a most unlikely search term indeed. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely no logical reason to keep this. They are both waterfowl, but it might as well apply to any random two birds. This resembles a typo. --VictorC (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

A Little Town in France → Indianapolis

The result of the debate was speedy deleted AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are six irrelevant ghits for "'a little town in france' indianapolis". I could not verify the existence of this slang term, and even if it's in widespread use as a nickname for Indianapolis, it's highly unlikely someone would type this in if they want the city in Indiana. szyslak (t) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a joke. Just delete it. ---SilentRAGE! 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - while the phrase has nothing to do with Indianapolis, the Billy Jack Haynes article is about a wrestler who was frequently billed as from "a little town in France" (he actually hailed from Portland, Oregon). The problem with retargeting the redirect to this article is that there are literally thousands of little towns in France, thus making this a confusing redirect. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the creator's opinion (first bullet above), speedy-delete under criterion G7. Rossami (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:CANDISH CANTTAKE → Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no sense. GrszReview! 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Title appears to be a compression of "Can dish, can't take" - but is it an appropriate search item? Looking at the history, it is too old to be speedied as a test (the first version could have been if someone noticed it in time and used an actual WP:CSD). It appears to have been created after the origination of WP:Don't template the regulars by someone who strongly disagrees with the message. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This is a very honest way to label the message. The user who created it is being honest about the fact that he can dish out templates but he can't take them. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. First of all, let's be clear that the redirect was created by User:Anton Mravcek and not by the anonymous user 147.70.242.x. Second of all, the redirect makes perfect sense as a mnemonic, which is what the purpose of these kinds of redirects are supposed to be. Someone searching for "DTTR" could be looking for an acronym disambiguation policy rather than an essay explaining how some regular users can dish out templates but can't take them. As ShutterBug has already said, it is much more honest than either WP:DTTR or WP:TEMPLAR. A regular who chooses to use this redirect is being very honest about where the link leads. A lot more so, than say, linking the words "makes no sense" to "Deletion policy." PrimeFan (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, from a copy-paste. I meant to link to the applicable deletion category. GrszReview! 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeFan is correct in stating that I have nothing to do with the creation of the redirect (I wouldn't have in the first place). Regarding the second point: how many 15-letter mnemonics are there? No, this is clearly a violation of WP:POINT, pure and simple, and apparently done in protest. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly useful as a shortcut, WP:POINT violation. GlassCobra 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:POINT violation. B.Wind (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have struck comments by indef blocked accounts identified as sockpuppets of User:PrimeFan by this checkuser report, including the redirect creator. Grsz11 →Review! 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete created by banned user. JuJube (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

nonsensal → nonsense

The result of the debate was deleted & recreated per the original author's wish to remove their name from the page history. –xeno (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We delete quote redirects to protect people from being exposed for something ridiculous, right? So why can't we do the same here? I made this redirect, but I did not make the word. It's not even a real word, it's only a misspelling I made. This word isn't even in a real dictionary, what's worse I only made it to help myself, and when I made it Google's search results were less than 30. This could be ruining my future career, that's why I need support. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update It seems that more people are saying it's harmless. How do I know it's harmless? If it is as harmless as anyone says, I need to know HOW, so I would really appreciate that information. Maybe I'm too dumb to see how harmless it is. I need explanations, either from the closing admin, or someone who is part of this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note if you created it, you can ask for speedy deletion - just tag it with {{db-author}}. If you wish not to do so, it might be kept as a plausible typo simply because you created it as an inadvertent typo. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but wait I did that already. No, it won't work. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your career? What in the world are you talking about? GlassCobra 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep seeing how the future is, and I can never tell if that's what is going on in the future or not. I have to get rid of this redirect before I become the guy who made that word. I did NOT make the word, and neither do I want a future Wikipedia article telling people that I did. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hughcharlesparker, this redirect is harmless. I have no idea what the nom is talking about. GlassCobra 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, I don't know myself, if you're so sure it's harmless, please explain how it's harmless, I really need to know. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nom is willing to waive his GFDL attribution in this case, perhaps the redirect can be deleted and recreated - I would be glad to do so. The redirect itself is harmless. –xeno (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'd love to see that happen, I don't even know what I'm talking about, all I can see is future possibilities with this redirect. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, cheers. –xeno (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Do not want → Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Releases

The result of the debate was No consensus (kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect Makes no sense. Mjf3719 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite its history (or because of it? I'm not sure), Speedy delete as nonsense (since an admin had once deleted it as vandalism before reverting himself/herself). Both this version and the all-caps variety have undergone repeated deletions, including at least one non-vandalism (apparently) blanking. 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's a fairly popular meme (from a badly-translated Star Wars bootleg); popularity may be borderline by Wikipedia standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an internet meme based on Engrish subtitles in a bootleg copy. It is discussed in that section (right at the end), so I suppose it's sort of relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this was meant to go under the Star Wars section. GrszReview! 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved comment to correct RFD discussion. (It was formerly at the WP:CANDISH CANTTAKE discussion above.) Terraxos (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly popular meme. I could see this being searched for. Redirect is better than an article on the meme. Chuthya (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Ohnoitsjamie above. This isn't patent nonsense, though it is nonsensical. Protection might be the answer to the vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative would be Better I think this would be better suited with it's own article, rather than a redirect to a single sentence imbedded in the middle of another article. I do not see anyone wiki-searching for DO NOT WANT who doesn't already have an idea where the phrase came from. However, I do realize that the DNW article would likely just contain the same material that's already in SW3:RotS. Mjf3719 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete People can do this to any place they find crappy, any school, government office, and stuff like that. So this will serve no purpose other than making the phrase more serious. And this clearly needs more deletion support. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete you can point "Do not want" to homosexuality if you are looking for popular memes. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect As the most recent page creator, I'm inclined to agree with Gavia Immer that protection, not deletion, is Wikipedia's solution to vandalism. The redirect points to an article that cites a source. And attributable nonsense isn't automatically grounds for deletion; if it were, deletionists would have a field day with articles about Dada works. If we delete this redirect for non-notability, then we might as well delete the entire paragraph about the Shanghai bootleg because it cites only one source that is not mainstream or scholarly media. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check that: I found a mention in a top ten list published on virginmedia.com, a more mainstream web site, and added it to the Shanghai bootleg paragraph. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. Damian Yerrick has the right idea here: The meme is discussed in the article (and sourced), keep/protecting discourages recreation while letting others know we do know about it, and there's not really a better target for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 11:22, 28 October 2008
  • Delete. The internet meme definitly exists, but it's used all over the place, not just for Star Wars 3. It may have originated in the chinese retranslation of the film, but the only source Wikipedia has to back that up is someone's blog, not a reliable source. Perhaps the redirect could be replaced with an article about the internet meme, if sources can be found to support it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe it doesn't qualify as nonsense, but the assertion that every mistake that gets quoted on the internet is automatically a notable meme is ridiculous. The connection between this phrase and this one movie (and specifically, to the one translation of this movie) strikes even me as too tenuous to support a redirect. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target article is extremely tangential to what the redirect promises, making this redirect rather misleading. Agree with Rossami's assessment on what (does not) makes a notable meme. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Sjakkalle; tangential redirect, people typing in "do not want" will likely not be expecting to be redirected to Star Wars. GlassCobra 09:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Retarget to Internet meme. Tangential redirect, meme is much older than its usage here; this is an inappropriate target. GlassCobra 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it's a meme with bizarre origins, that doesn't make it any less worthy of being explained. The Star Wars article succinctly explains the meme and its origins. This satisfies anyone who wants to know the origins of the popular memetic phrase. Kyz (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to meme or Internet meme. –xeno (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remove mention in article. The cited source has it all wrong. It was the dog picture with the broccoli, and that's been out a lot longer than Ep3. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^[citation needed] I'd like to see evidence that DNW predates ROTS, so that I can post it on the appropriate wiki even if it isn't Wikipedia. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remove mention in article. A trivial mention in the target - even if its accurately reported in the source - gives undue weight to that purported use of the phrase, which, rumor has it, has more than one meaning or use. Should we belabor the myth (and the point)? I do not want that... B.Wind (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - pure triviality. These kinds of redirects might be suitable for Wikiquote, not here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think it's suitable for Wikiquote, shouldn't that be a strong transwiki and soft redirect? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. This is entirely reasonable as a redirect; I have even used it myself, admittedly out of curiosity to see if we had an article on the term. 'Do Not Want' is a well-known internet meme, and thus a plausible search term; and this is the best place to redirect it to, as it explains where the term comes from. It's no less justifiable than redirecting This is Sparta to 300 (film) or I drink your milkshake to There Will Be Blood (both of which exist); when a line from a film (even a bootleg foreign copy of a film) becomes a meme, the sensible thing to do is redirect the meme to the article on the film, and include a line there that mentions it. Terraxos (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fairly sure that the "do not want" meme is much older than its usage in this movie. As such, the "This is Sparta" analogy is not correct; Star Wars is definitely not what popularized this meme, by a long shot, and as such is not an appropriate target. GlassCobra 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what Ned Scott said above. But I'd still like to see earlier attested use to back this up. As of right now, the ROTS bootleg is the first thing mentioned by a more-or-less reliable source as popularizing DNW. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable search term. Perhaps the soft redirect that Damian and Sesshomaru suggest is the best solution. JuJube (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly a reasonable search term, but not when looking for Star Wars. GlassCobra 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget to internet meme (but only if it is mentioned in that article). swaq 17:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Lee (guitarist) → Th' Legendary Shack Shakers

The result of the debate was keep. The AfD decided that there should not be a full article about David Lee, however a redirect to the group is fairly standard. WJBscribe (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its page history includes the original version of DavidLee which I moved but was re-created and then deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DavidLee (2nd nomination). This should now likewise be deleted as non-notable. Fayenatic (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:I can not not add more than was already discussed at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DavidLee (2nd nomination) discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears in target article listed in the Infobox as a former member of the group. Should the band not be notable enough for its own article, the redirect would fit CSD R2 after an AfD of Th' Legendary Shack Shakers resulting in deletion. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AFD was right, the article should be deleted. but (obviously) redirects have different criteria to articles. It clearly makes sense to redirect the band's guitarist to the band's article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects from a non-notable person to a notable group with which they are associated is an accepted solution. It inhibits the inevitable recreation of the deleted content. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ballet redirects

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is a bit confusing, so I'm going to have to explain a bit. {{catmore}} is a quick-header for categories that adds a link to a main page for the category, by default a page with the same name as the category.

Unfortunately, the ballet-related categories have used this, and created whatever pages result.

This leads to some frankly insane redirects:

Redirects of Ballet (revised to include all obviously bad redirects for this article)

Ballet related lists, Ballet designers, Ballet by country, Ballet awards, Ballets by librettist, Ballet conductors, Ballet dancers by company, Ballet films, Ballet librettists, Ballet premieres by year, Ballet redirects, Ballets by composer, Ballets by designer, 1581 ballet premieres, 1789 ballet premieres, 1821 ballet premieres, 1827 ballet premieres, 1832 ballet premieres, 1836 ballet premieres, 1840 ballet premieres, 1841 ballet premieres, 1842 ballet premieres, 1843 ballet premieres, 1844 ballet premieres, 1845 ballet premieres, 1846 ballet premieres, 1848 ballet premieres, 1849 ballet premieres, 1851 ballet premieres, 1854 ballet premieres, 1855 ballet premieres, 1856 ballet premieres, 1857 ballet premieres, 1858 ballet premieres, 1859 ballet premieres, 1860 ballet premieres, 1861 ballet premieres, 1862 ballet premieres, 1863 ballet premieres, 1864 ballet premieres, 1866 ballet premieres, 1869 ballet premieres, 1876 ballet premieres, 1877 ballet premieres, 1887 ballet premieres, 1890 ballet premieres, 1892 ballet premieres, 1895 ballet premieres, 1898 ballet premieres, 1900 ballet premieres, 1901 ballet premieres, 1909 ballet premieres, 1910 ballet premieres, 1911 ballet premieres, 1912 ballet premieres, 1913 ballet premieres, 1914 ballet premieres, 1917 ballet premieres, 1919 ballet premieres, 1920 ballet premieres, 1922 ballet premieres, 1923 ballet premieres, 1924 ballet premieres, 1925 ballet premieres, 1926 ballet premieres, 1927 ballet premieres, 1928 ballet premieres, 1929 ballet premieres, 1931 ballet premieres, 1932 ballet premieres, 1933 ballet premieres, 1934 ballet premieres, 1936 ballet premieres, 1938 ballet premieres, 1941 ballet premieres, 1944 ballet premieres, 1945 ballet premieres, 1946 ballet premieres, 1947 ballet premieres, 1948 ballet premieres, 1950 ballet premieres, 1951 ballet premieres, 1952 ballet premieres, 1953 ballet premieres, 1954 ballet premieres, 1956 ballet premieres, 1957 ballet premieres, 1958 ballet premieres, 1959 ballet premieres, 1960 ballet premieres, 1961 ballet premieres, 1962 ballet premieres, 1963 ballet premieres, 1964 ballet premieres, 1965 ballet premieres, 1966 ballet premieres, 1967 ballet premieres, 1968 ballet premieres, 1969 ballet premieres, 1970 ballet premieres, 1971 ballet premieres, 1974 ballet premieres, 1976 ballet premieres, 1977 ballet premieres, 1978 ballet premieres, 1979 ballet premieres, 1980 ballet premieres, 1982 ballet premieres, 1983 ballet premieres, 1984 ballet premieres, 1985 ballet premieres, 1987 ballet premieres, 1989 ballet premieres, 1990 ballet premieres, 1991 ballet premieres, 1995 ballet premieres, 1996 ballet premieres, 1997 ballet premieres, 1998 ballet premieres, 1999 ballet premieres, 2000 ballet premieres, 2001 ballet premieres, 2002 ballet premieres, 2004 ballet premieres, 2005 ballet premieres, 2007 ballet premieres, Ballets by Nikolai Krotkov, Ballets designed by Ben Benson, Ballets designed by David Hays, Ballets designed by Holly Hynes, Ballets designed by Ronald Bates, Ballets designed by Rouben Ter-Arutunian, Ballets based on Shakespeare's works


Remember, every single one of those links to Ballet, which neither lists nor discusses ballet by year, nor David Hays, nor Ballet redirects.

Likewise, Ballets by Arthur Sullivan links to Arthur Sullivan - but Sullivan only wrote two ballets of relatively low importance compared to the rest of his work, so his article only rather briefly discusses them. Also, none of the Ballets by XXXX redirects seem to make any attempt to link to an appropriate section of the composer's article, even when one exists (though I may well be wrong there).

Some, but not all, I'm afraid, of the problematic redirects can be found at Category:Ballet redirects (which created the Ballet redirects redirect to Ballet).

I don't know what to do about it, and I'm afraid that I cannot tag every one of the pages in question, nor can I even identify them all - doing so requires clicking on every redirect and seeing if it goes somewhere sensible, and, in addition, not every ballet redirect is actually listed in Category:Ballet redirects. For instance, Ballets by composer, Ballets by librettist and 1876 ballet premieres - all further redirects to Ballet - aren't listed there, nor, I'm sure, are many others. Being listed in that category is also not a good sign the redirect should be deleted - Useful, perfecty sensible redirects like NYCB repertory->List of New York City Ballet repertory are in there as well.

The main problem is usually the surprise of these redirects. For instance: {{catmore|ballet}} which gives:

would cause no easter-eggy surprise if at the top of Category:Ballets by composer, whereas what is actually seen:

...causes one to expect detailed discussion of composers at the link. Worse, these redirects are usually added to the categories they belong to - someone browsing Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan is going to be disappointed if they click on the first choice in that category: Ballets by Arthur Sullivan: It redirects to the composer page, which, as I mentioned before, has only a little discussion of Sullivan's ballets, and a lot of discussion of his operas.

I have notified WP:BALLET in lieu of MFD notices on the redirects, as there is no way to tag all pages affected. --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd suggest that the following are reasonable search terms, and should not be deleted.

  1. Ballet dance
  2. Classical Dance
  3. Ballet lesson
  4. Ballet lessons
  5. Ballets
  6. Ballet dancer
  7. Classical dance
  8. Balletomane [Probably]

Ballet teachers and Ballet schools might also just scrape by, but everything else on [1] should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Close this discussion and copy it over to WP:MFD. I agree with your overall point, but these are redirects and need to be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If it helps, this link should find you every page that redirects to Ballet. I would also recommend that the documentation at Template:Catmore be edited to indicate that the template should not be used if the main article does not match the category name. Also, I don't understand why we even need a Category:Ballet redirects. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you can use {{tlx|catmore}}, you just have to use it as {{tlx|catmore|proper article to direct to}}. Like I was using it above. I'll just do a pagemove on this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This discussion has been moved here from WP:MFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and change the catmore to {{catmore|Ballet}} on all the similarly-named category pages. I've seen these before, and am pretty sure they only exist for the purpose of the Catmore template on the category pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What's in the edit history and deletion logs of these pages? Knowing how AFD and CSD work, I have my suspicions! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(On checking a random sample): A lot of redirects created by User:Robertgreer? Perhaps they should have been left as redlinks? Has anyone talked with Robert and asked what's up?

In the case of Ballet dance, the page has been (merged and(?)) redirected, afaict, so deleting the redir might not be appropriate for GFDL reasons. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I checked 2001 ballet premieres and there was no deletion log entry for it. It was created by RobertGreer one minute after he put the Catmore template on the category of the same name, which he had also just created. The categories are fine but they do not need these redirects. Shoemaker has left him a note to explain how to use Catmore. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's about where I was starting to go too, yup. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I changed Catmore on some of the categories and left a note for RobertGreer on where I had got to. Some of the gaps above between the nominated redirects are because in some cases he has created a list, which of course makes a better candidate for Catmore. There is not much point keeping 2003 ballet premieres which RobertGreer has already redirected to List of 2003 ballet premieres, but it does no harm. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. I think I have updated all the category pages for premieres by year, so the year-redirects listed above are no longer needed. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now delete all. I have changed (or, in the last few cases, removed) the "catmore" templates on all the similarly-named category pages. There are no longer any pages linked to any of the above. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bodymore, Murderland → Baltimore

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This extremely unlikely search term carries the implied POV that Baltimore is a dangerous, crime-ridden city. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should let the murder statistics speak for themselves. (n.b.: I changed this redirect's target from Baltimore, Maryland to Baltimore because the city page moved, making this a double redirect.) szyslak (t) 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I suppose if someone wanted to know what Bodymore, Murderland referred to, this redirect would let them find out. Someone from, say, Australia, probably wouldn't know American cities well enough to guess what was meant, and might check Wikipedia to find out.
    I'd probably be inclined to keep it for that reason, of course presuming the description is in use by a reasonable number of the city's critics. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • .1% of the ghits compared to Baltimore, Maryland + offensive + noone notable in the first couple pages = delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - from the same blogosphere that produced Obamessiah. Nothing from outside of chats and blogs here - a few years ago, "Murderland" would apply to Detroit - it's all a matter of perspective. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard the term, but it does get quite a few hits and could be a reasonable search term for someone wondering what this refers to. The fact that it's POV doesn't matter for redirects, nor that it's not that notable. If it were notable enough, it would have its own article on the use of the term and presumably critics addressing Baltimore's murder rate. Chats and blogs aren't generally notable, but redirects are different than articles, and a term showing up on lots of blogs means that people are more likely to search for it. And the term as used here can't apply to Detroit, since it's a pun on "Maryland". PaulGS (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable pejorative. The standard for redirects is deliberately low but even I don't believe it's this low. Reviewing the google hits for "bodymore", most appear to be about topics other than the city (though the record label, for example, does appear to be based in the city). The google search itself returned only 424 non-duplicative hits, suggesting that the nickname is not particularly common. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The redirect is offensive" is listed as a reason for deletion, and I see no counteracting usefulness argument here. Anyone seriously looking for Baltimore would type in the name properly ("Baltimore", "Baltimore, MD", or "Baltimore, Maryland"), and not use a silly pejorative. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's used by modern day yellow journalists does not make it a reasonable search term. JuJube (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Baltimorons → Baltimore

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect serves no purpose other than to disparage people from the city of Baltimore. Unlikely slang terms are fine for Urban Dictionary but not appropriate for the Wikipedia namespace. (n.b. This page pointed to Baltimore, Maryland until very recently, but since the article was moved to Baltimore I fixed what had been a double redirect.) szyslak (t) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless some pretty good evidence showed this was in wide use, delete it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - from the same blogosphere that produced Obamessiah. No acceptance from anything close to a reliable source. No need for anything this inflammatory. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does serve a purpose other than offend people from Baltimore - to redirect people who search for it to the article rather than dumping them to the search page. The redirect doesn't go to Baltimore because people from that city are in fact morons, but because that's the most appropriate page to go to since the term refers to the city. Plausible search term. PaulGS (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reliable source:blacklinked examiner.com link removed but unless it is mentioned in the Baltimore article it will not be helpful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a self-evident pejorative. While a few reputable sources use the word in passing (primarily when discussing sports teams from what I can tell), I have found exactly zero reliable sources about the word. That sourcing of usage can support a dictionary definition but not an encyclopedia article - not even a redirect. Note: I have no objection to a soft-redirect to the appropriate Wiktionary page if someone ever creates it. Rossami (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason we should delete Bodymore, Murderland. Offensive redirect without a counter-acting usefulness defense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that it's used by modern day yellow journalists does not make it a reasonable search term. JuJube (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Editing Template:User Maryland Import/animated → Template:User Maryland Import/animated

The result of the debate was Delete as mistake rectified by creator themselves.Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect - title appears when editing the current target of this redirect. Malformed CNR as a result. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drug test/Temp → Drug test

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was a sandbox in article namespace, but now appears unnecessary, having been turned into a redirect, and I assert that no one will link to this page off-wiki. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clearly was intended to be a temporary page, not a permanent one. The article has been moved, and the history moved with it. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed, what links here shows that it's got hardly any links to it, and per the name, it's obviously not meant to be permanent. :) The Helpful One Review 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete temporary page; usefulness has long passed. B.Wind (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

CT:INV → Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate pseudo-namespace, does not redirect to a heavily used page and does not point at content. MBisanz talk 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This shortcut points to the *Talk* page of CAT:INVALID. The latter is Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. This is empty at the moment, but will be repopulated whenever Rich Farmbrough does another run to collect ISBNs with invalid checksums. At the time this mini-project was active, there were seven people who needed to compare notes on correcting these ISBNs. It was convenient to use CT:INV as a central place to have the discussion. Including the Talk archives there were 110 Kb of discussion reached through this redirect. Over 2,000 ISBNs were corrected altogether. Does anyone have an idea for a different pseudo-namespace in which to create shortcuts for Category Talk? If that particular shortcut is needed for another purpose, we might be willing to give it up. CAT:CSD and CAT:RFU are two other shortcuts that do not point at content, so I'm not clear on the principle being mentioned. (This is a maintenance shortcut, not one intended for our readers to use). EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it appears in the mainspace and would show up in searches of articles and the like. CAT:CSD is in the same situation, and I'm trying to find a way to fix that, but there about about 20 CAT: prefixes and only 2 CT: prefixes, so I was trying to eliminate this smaller exception. MBisanz talk 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, is there a namespace it could be moved to? A Wikipedia search for 'invalid ISBNs' brings up not only this Category talk page but also some individual user sub-pages. Not sure that eliminating this redirect would make any difference to what appears in the Wikipedia search results. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first I've heard of the "CT" pseudo-namespace, but I see no reason to slap it down. We have CAT: and MOS:, why not this one?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

CT:Tasmania → Category talk:Tasmania Portal

The result of the debate was Delete. Cenarium Talk 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate pseudo-namespace, does not redirect to a heavily used page and does not point at content. MBisanz talk 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's assume that "CT:Tasmania" was initially a short cut for a talk page for [[Category:Tasmania]]. Clearly the talk page exists, and the category exists, but I'd like to hear from the appropriate Wikiproject (Australia, I believe) before any action. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an Australian volunteer, I'd go for deletion actually. We don't really use talk pages on categories much and most people would be able to find Category talk:Tasmania, which would be the most intuitively logical target were it to be fixed. Orderinchaos 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the redirect during as a part of a project when the syntax of shortcut template was changed. If you delete the redirect make sure to edit the project talk page as well so there is no dead link. This should be considered a db-author. --DRoll (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

0.7 FILMS → Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Wikipedia 0.7

The result of the debate was Already deleted. (Non-admin closure.) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to a Wikiproject, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd suggest speedying it, but R2 doesn't include the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces in the criterion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and speedy - I merely forgot to include the WP: on the front of the shortcut. This has since been amended on the redirect target page, so 0.7 FILMS and FILMS 0.7 may be deleted at will. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WM:TEMP → Help:Template

The result of the debate was Delete. GlassCobra 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR to Help space, Wikipedia does not use the WM: pseudo-namespace MBisanz talk 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not useful because of the nonstandard pseudo-namespace prefix. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not only for the badly-formed name, but also for something that is clearly temporary in design and nature. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We don't use the WM: user space, it's all WP: namespace. The Helpful One Review 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pokemom → Pokemon

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A articctle made by a ip that was turned into a redirect. Not really needed. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza

  • Hmm... maybe someone might miss-hear "Pokemon" as "Pokemom" so I'm not sure about deleting that one. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97,000 ghits for Pokemom, 68 million for Pokemon. That's about .1% of ghits, which may be just about enough to justify a redirect as a common typo. But it's certainly pushing it a bit, and, of course, I haven't checked what proportion of that .1 percent are making bad Yo momma-style jokes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "m" sits to the immediate right of "n" on a standard English keyboard, this making this a highly likely typo. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a highly plausible misspelling. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easy to enter as a typo as well as by ignorance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo, redirects are cheap. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap. GlassCobra 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_27&oldid=1138576315"