Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 2

January 2

Completed Articles Archive/November 2006 → Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Completed Articles Archive/November 2006

The result of the debate was

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Doubtful anyone is going to type this in intending to find this specific project subpage. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also part of this discussion: Completed Articles Archive/December 2006 → Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Completed Articles Archive/December 2006. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unneeded CNRs. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No way those are useful. delldot | talk 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Assburger syndrome → Asperger syndrome

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as attack page. Mr. Darcy talk 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible personal attack. Has been created before by same user Simply south 19:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User talk:Omnivore Oprah

Delete again. --67.68.152.212 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fart fetish → Fart fetishism

The result of the debate was Deleted by NawlinWiki (db-redirnone). -- JLaTondre 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target article deleted. Samuel 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as R1. I have taged it as such. --67.68.152.212 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jediism → Jedi census phenomenon

The result of the debate was Keep (restored & unprotected). -- JLaTondre 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philwelch deleted this redirect without discussion (and protected it and its talk page(?)). Apparently, "Jediism" is the name of some faux religion, [1], but it is unclear how related it is to the actual census phenomenon, in which a significant number of inhabitants of England, Australia, etc. reported their "religion" as Jedi. It might also warrant being retargetted to Jedi. —Centrx→talk • 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this deletion log, I have never deleted that page. It was deleted for copyright violation by User:Alabamaboy. I have dealt in the past with vandals adding unsourced, probable hoax material on fiction-based religions before (see the note on Talk:The Matrix for more information). Jediism is simply another occurrence of this same thing. After the deletion, a separate user (User:Sikon) restored the article as a redirect—however, as the term does not appear in the redirected-to article, the redirect was (and is) inappropriate, and protecting the article against recreation seemed to be a more prudent option. The real cause of this, of course, is that weeks ago, Centrx and I had a dispute on unrelated issues. Instead of letting it go, he has chosen to wikistalk me and try to undo everything I do, confusing the issues with lies, personal attacks, and made-up assertions of fact.. This is pure harassment, targeted at me in particular, and this should be immediately closed as a bad-faith nomination for that reason. Philwelch 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but while you may not have technically "deleted" the redirect, removing it and replacing it with a deleted page accomplishes the same affect. Calling that a "deletion" seems perfectable reasonable to me. If you and Centrix are having issues, then you should seek dispute resolution. As for this redirect, if you had disagreed with it, you should have sent it here to begin with. It doesn't qualify as db-repost as it's not the same content and a redirect is not a copyvio so the original criteria doesn't apply. Whatever rationale Centrix may have had, his nomination brings up good points and we already have 3 other opinions recommending the redirect be restored. Closing this a bad-faith nomination would not be proper . -- JLaTondre 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our dispute was already resolved. This is just personal harassment on his part. Philwelch 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Jedi census phenomenon and unprotect - this is a plausible search term and ought to be going somewhere. As an article on that topic has never been through any deletion process, preemptively protecting against recreation is premature. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- False. It HAS been through a deletion process: protecting against recreation is not preemptive. Philwelch 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion as a copyvio applies only to the copyright-infringing text. A subsequent article with different text or a redirect is not a copyright infringement and is not at all covered by the previous deletion. There has been no re-creation of deleted material whatsoever. —Centrx→talk • 09:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per BigDT - plausible search term with significant number of Ghits. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per BigDT. --Wizardman 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and unprotect per BigDT. Dionyseus 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has been consistently wikistalking me for weeks. Philwelch 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commenting in the debate is fine and alleged wikistalking doesn't affect this debate so long as all users act appropriately for RfD. If you have an issue with a user harassing you, I encourage you to bring it up through the appropriate channels. BigNate37_(T) 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and unprotect per above. Also would comment there are some books that give Jediism a mention.[2] Plus a BBC journalist has used the phrase to connect Jediism with the Jedi census religion. [3] Overall a useful redirect. Addhoc 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per all. Xiner (talk, email) 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and unprotect. Valid redirect as useful search term. There was no reason to protect this almost a year after deletion, aside from trolling and edit/wheel war baiting. --- RockMFR 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

His Majesty's pleasure → Life imprisonment

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to At Her Majesty's Pleasure. -- JLaTondre 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not name the term once, the assumption that the terms are synonymous is doubtful. See [4] for a text using the term. I'm not a native speaker, so if it is totally obvious to you, please add one sentence to the Life Imprisonment article, and delete this RFD. Thank you. ExpImp^talkcon 00:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard term used, if a source can be found then it can stay. --Wizardman 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- at Criminal_Lunatics_Act_1800 there is a source using the term.-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then, redirect to At Her Majesty's Pleasure per two below me. --Wizardman 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to At Her Majesty's Pleasure - That phrase can mean a few things, not just lengthy imprisonment. (I've heard it used more for an indefinite election term, e.g. Bob serves as Chief Whatever at the Governor General's pleasure.) The phrase might show up again in old documents, so we might as well redirect to the comprehensive article. Quack 688 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change redirect to At Her Majesty's Pleasure per Quack 688. New redirects "Her Majesty's Pleasure" and "At His Majesty's Pleasure" should also be created; all of these are in common or historical use and all are synonymous. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to At His or Her Majesty's Pleasure; I moved the above. I just heard this used as a euphemism for life in prison on TV the other day. (Even stateside the President can pardon anyone, its just that no one says it that way.) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I appreciate the need to be gender neutral, but the phrase "at his or her majesty's pleasure" isn't actually used, so I'm not sure if it should be the article title. It does need some sort of consistent title, but I'm not sure what yet. For the record, Google finds 26,500 hits for "at her majesty's pleasure", 171 for "at his majesty's pleasure", and 4 for "at his or her majesty's pleasure". Quack 688 06:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one of the things (like "Her Majesty's Ship" and "God Save The Queen") that seems to change depending on the particular gender of the monarch at that point in time. Philwelch 09:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We might as well be consistent and go with "At Her Majesty's Pleasure", then. I don't think we want to go the other way and end up with His or Her Majesty's Ship and God Save The King or Queen. Quack 688 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You just made that phrasing up. Beyond uncommon usage, this phrasing has no usage. —Centrx→talk • 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's good to see Centrx and Philwelch in agreement, and they're both right. Newyorkbrad 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do a google book search shows it's usage as "his" as far back as 1816. Because England has only had a queen since the start of the internet the results are skewed, natch. Quack has a point though; I guess it's easier to change the main article name every time England changes the sex of it's monarch than try to figure out the right way to word it generically. Whatever's clever. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am referring to the phrase "At His or Her Majesty's pleasure" (emphasis added). The title of an article cannot be an invention. —Centrx→talk • 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to At Her Majesty's Pleasure. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Last Outpost (1935 movie) → Cary Grant

The result of the debate was Turned into article. -- JLaTondre 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink might be more useful than a redirect to Cary Grant, if there would be a redlink. This redirect is only linked to by the disambig page The Last Outpost. ExpImp^talkcon 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*I'd rather see an article made of it. I'll try and make one, but delete as a redlink would be better. --Wizardman 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I went and made an article on it, so this can be closed. If it's ever put up for deletion, then it should just stay redlinked anyway instead of a redirect. --Wizardman 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Larry stanton → Larry Stanton

The result of the debate was speedy keep as {{R from other capitalisation}} per Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. delldot is correct in that the Go function is smart enough to work without this redirect, however links are not. BigNate37_(T) 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article was created by mistake via a typo and then corrected immediately. The history has only one entry, and nothing links to it. Largo Plazo 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as very likely mistake in spelling. Iced Kola 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it more likely than the name of every other person for whom an entry exists in Wikipedia? --Largo Plazo 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Lowercase typos are ALWAYS acceptable. --Wizardman 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the name of the article has capital letters for the first letter of each word in the name and no other letter, a redirect of this type isn't needed. For example, typing in Lucille ball automatically sends you to Lucille Ball, without the need for a redirect. Correct me if I'm wrong about this or have missed something. However, as you see, links don't follow that pattern. Having the redirect for the lowercase name can prevent someone from following a red link and starting a duplicate article. delldot | talk 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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