Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 15

September 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2008

Ballmer peak → Steve Ballmer

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, based on an xkcd comic, which is indeed in the target article but seems like a bit of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - trivial xkcd reference should itself be deleted as well. if fans add a page or redirect, or "in popular culture" item for every xkcd comic we're going to end up with a whole lot of clutter. save it for the xkcd forums. DiggyG (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WPP:NovelsTalk → Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard cross-namespace shortcut which I have moved to the much sorter WT:NOVELS, which is outside the article namespace (and therefore not cross-namespace) and uses the standard WT: shortcut for discussion pages in Wikipedia space. See my entries from the 13 September as to why WPP: shortcuts are harmful. mattbr 19:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lintel (Linux) → Wintel

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lintel (Linux). AfD was closed with no discussion or consensus; only two opposing views (Delete and Redirect). Term is non-notable, and is a highly unlikely search term. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete potentially confusing redirect (as the Lintel article exists). Mention on target article is more than sufficient in itself, but the disambiguation is truly unnecessary in this case. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per comment above. Lintel and Wintel are completly different. -Brougham96 (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: I also question the notability of the term in the first place, a Google seach turns up nothing but the article in question, and Post and lintel, which is unrelated. -Brougham96 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Geohashing → Xkcd

The result of the debate was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, trivially mentioned in target if at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've actually searched this one looking for details on what had become of the idea, and its definitely related to xkcd, so i don't see any viable reason to delete it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned at least three times in target article. Term appears related to xkcd, making it a worthwhile search item. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at 29000 hits on google, this could conceivably be an article, rather than just a redirect. --WhiteDragon (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. Danski14(talk) 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wetriffs.com → Xkcd

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, trivially mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Easily could be used as a Search. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's trivally in the target article, but it can be debatable is to whether the inclusion is actually necessary. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary clutter DiggyG (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the site exists and could be used in a search. --George (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Blagofaire → Xkcd

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, only trivially mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I wanted the entire set. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (last minute change from "weak keep"). Inclusion of name has no context and probably should be removed from the target article, but until that happens, the name is there and thus is a foreseeable search item. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no real use of that term outside of xkcd and related sites. --WhiteDragon (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Surviving a raptor attack → Xkcd

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Highly unlikely Search Term. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure many people have searched Wikipedia for "surviving a raptor attack" after reading this xkcd comic. Wikipedia is specifically mentioned in one of the search terms in that comic: "site:en.wikipedia.org surviving a raptor attack".--Theymos (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Raptor attack is far more plausible a search item here. We shouldn't have a redirect simply because a webcomic says we do. The more I wade through these redirects, the more I question the notability of a target outside of the webcomic, Wikipedia, and their allies... but that's a different issue. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor should it be a indiscriminate collection of redirects. DiggyG (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Only reason people would search for this is if they saw it in the comic [1] like I did. Then they would already know its about xkcd, so theres no reason to redirect. As bove, Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of redirects. Danski14(talk) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with DiggyG -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:BRIT → Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force

The result of the debate was Speedy Close as too soon. Intimidation and name-calling is NOT the way to obtain consensus. Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd nom. It is obviously offensive to a small number of editors. See Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force#Poll on not using WP:BRIT shortcut. As the original creator, I see no benefit to keeping the shortcut if it is going to offend even a very small number of objecting editors. Crispness (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLAKEIT is the wrong link to use there - very disrespectful. It was a poll against using it at the BI taskforce. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not disrespectful in the least. We have to delete a redirect because a group of editors dislike it? That is a textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That group of editors have not requested for it to be deleted! Jesus. They polled for it not to be included in the BI taskforce on the BI taskforce talk page! Do people around here actually read? 'IDONTLIKEIT' is simply misused here!--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is completely appropriate here, "brit" is a word which refers to british people, and thus in the scope of a terminology task force. I'm Irish and I have no problem with it.--Serviam (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is WP:IDONTLIKEIT appropriate for the deletion of it? The poll was not for doing that! Whether it is used or not in BITASK is not the question here! That's a question for BITASK - hence the poll - which was over whether to use it at BITASK! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The two comments below are quoted from the second Rfd on this - it was proposed once (decision was "keep" but not use a WP:BITASK), then it was proposed again too-soon afterwards by an admin Waggers, who didn't see notice it had just been through here. This is now the 3rd proposal.
  • "The word "Brit" usually means Briton, ie. someone from the UK. British Isles terminology is a controversial and sensitive subject, and this connotation is unwelcome as it detracts from the collaborative nature of the project. In any case, there are probably far more appropriate pages that WP:BRIT could/should be a shortcut for. Waggers (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)"
  • "support actual delete here: Wikipedia:UK has been tried as a home for it, but this has been reverted. I would recommend deleting it until someone actually requires it (though is this even likely?) I have five distinct reasons to delete it (esp 4 and 5):
1) Only one person wants it at WP:BITASK (there is no consensus or desire for it), and there are plenty of other shortcuts there.
2) "British Isles" is the geographical name of an archipelagos - it not a cultural or political term in any technical sense: The Republic of Ireland is part of the archipelagos, but is not British: "Brit" gives the incorrect impression that the taskforce, the term, and even the Republic of Ireland are British entities.
3) Even though ‘British Isles’ is a geographical term, a number of people have taken offense to it on Wikipedia - hence the need for the actual taskforce in the first place. It is against the very principle of the taskforce to have a misleading name.
4) IMO, if it's not actually deleted it could always be a problem - now and in at a 'British Isles workshop' planned for the future too - especially if it is used as a shortcut regardless of the taskforce or workgroup accepting it on their pages. These things must have consensus, but this has fallen through a kind of loophole. It's like someome creating the shortcut 'NOB', and us all having to find the best article for it to point too, only to find someone keeps re-pointing it to your user page. Surely it should be deleted until someone actually wants the shortcut NOB?
5) If someone needs BRIT in the future they can always re-make it. IMO, this is very unlikely however, as the word British has always had ambiguities, and all the UK Wikiprojects etc never chose to create a 'BRIT' on its own - it was just created recently by somone for WP:BITASK.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)"
As the person who actually created the WP:BRIT shortcut has opened this third RfD, perhaps it could be deleted? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The poll was not for deleting it, as you well know tolling IP. Nobody uses this extra shortcut (we have 4 others, and do not offer the use of WP:BRIT!) If people want to see the kind of disruption this intentionally contentious shortcut has caused - just look around. It could have been deleted on the first request as it wasn't needed, its impossible to do so now. Nice one, Wikipedians. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must remind Matt Lewis that I am neither a "tolling IP" (I don't charge for my opinions or my edits) nor a "trolling IP" (as anybody who takes more than ten seconds to check my edits at this IP over the past two or three years can verify). Name calling or personal attacks have no place here - and that can be even more disruptive than what's been indicated immediately above. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = to use this name in this context is either ignorant or deliberately provocative --Snowded TALK 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting Comment: User:Crispness (who opened this case) has 3RR'd to return WP:BRIT into the taskforce mainpage. His edit-note is "just wait and see". Crispness clearly is expecting a 'Keep' result here (as policy is clearly not to delete potentially useful shorcuts). He is then clearly planning to use it to fight the clear consensus not to have it. I am saying all this, as this case, it seems to me, hightlights a intrinsic problem with what seems to be an "avoid deletion" policy here. If this was deleted first time around we wouldn't have this problem now. He returned the shortcut back to the taskforce completely in tandem with his case to delete it! Having seen this procedure twice before now, he simply knows the result will be 'keep'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirects and shortcuts are two different entities. Redirects need only be useful whereas shortcuts need to be useful and reflective of the content of the page it is on (not the exact standard, but I think you get the idea). Removing a shortcut from a page should take place on that page's talk page. Using RfD merely to delete a shortcut from a page isn't the best way to handle things. As for its usefulness as a redirect, do you think that the average Wikipedia will type in WP:BRIT and expect to find "Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force"? I think the redirect would be more appropriate as directed towards Wikipedia:WikiProject UK or Wikipedia:WikiProject_England. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism in Great Britain articles by quality seem more appropriate than where it is headed now. In any event, there should be about three months between deletion nominations when the prior deletion discussion resulted in a keep. -- Suntag ☼ 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Torvalds_peak → Xkcd

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is someone's cute variation on "Ballmer peak", an idea invented in the webcomic xkcd. It's not something that will ever show up as a sincere search term; even if it did, this would send them to the wrong place. Tracy Hall (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No google hits of any consequence. A convoluted reference to an obscure, if quite funny, joke. — ras52 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - phrase is nowhere to be found in the target article. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bandbox → Drag-and-drop

The result of the debate was Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

147.136.249.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blanked this redirect, saying that there is "no reference to bandbox on redirected page." I've reverted 147's edit and have now brought it to RFD. Cunard (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There was a reference of bandbox on drag-and-drop before 147 removed that section with the comment of "no citation." Cunard (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert 147's edit per Cunard. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - i've never heard this term and i agree with the anon edit. I googled for it and didn't find anything relevant. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Baseball park - specifically, the Band Box was a nickname of the Baker Bowl baseball park in Philadelphia; but the synonymous terms "bandbox" and "cigar box" eventually became the term for a stadium with dimensions that are conducive to home run hitting (such as Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, and Ebbets Field). This is not to be confused with the term Jewelbox, a more modern term referring to the way a stadium is constructed. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term seems invented. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as now already outlined at the page. Besides the baseball connection, there are a novel, a wiktionary entry, and the Bandbox Plot. The drag-and-drop connection seems to be called "bandboxing" if at all, which actually is a separate redirect.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Developers, developers, developers → Steve Ballmer

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. First of all, he screamed "Developers!" 14 times, not three, and second of all, is anyone really gonna type this in? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as an inplausible redirect. Cunard (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible. And 14 times would make the title too long.... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible as it is. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#R3, totally implausible search string with an implausible target. Keeper ǀ 76 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Delete! Delete! per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 18. How'd we miss this one? This one was created a month after the previous mass deletion. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the one who put this in, I can now see that it's probably not appropriate, especially in light of similar ones being deleted earlier. Mooinglemur (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really? 'cause whenever I see someone make reference to it they usually just say it three times, and right away you know they're talking about Steve. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 22 September 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_September_15&oldid=1146463664"