Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 12

October 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 12, 2008

Talk:Imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine) → Talk:Imamah (Shia Twelver doctrine)

The result of the debate was Deleted by Edgar181 as db-author. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to it... spelling error. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G7 - originator of redirect has nominated it here for deletion. Tagged as such with {{db-author}}. B.Wind (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lancelot “Capability” Brown → Capability Brown

The result of the debate was Keep. I can't help with the logs, though, noting that they are marked as 'historical records' and the existence of such records are one of the reasons why we keep redirects after moves. Tikiwont (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a leftover of a move. Curly quotation marks should not be used in page titles, which is why I propose this redirect's deletion. Its counterpart with straight quotes exists, and can be used if the article is to be moved back to Lancelot "Capability" Brown (I find Capability Brown more suitable, but one might disagree.) This might fall under CSD R3, but I'm not sure; not being experienced with deletions, I've come here first. Besides, there is another issue: I have diverted almost all links to the redirect, but three come from WikiProjects' assessment logs, and I have no idea how to edit those. Waltham, The Duke of 21:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is plenty of precedent for keeping redirects with quotation marks around nicknames, both in terms of real people and fictional characters. While this does violate WP:NAME, I believe WP:RfD#KEEP covers it here. B.Wind (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is another redirect with quotation marks: Lancelot "Capability" Brown. I object to the curly (or "typographic") quotation marks used in this redirect, namely the one I've nominated; only straight (or "typewriter") quotes should be used. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks for details. Waltham, The Duke of 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are cheap and this is a leftover. JASpencer (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is redundant with the redirect having straight quotes around "Capability." Absolutely no need for it. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, as this is a common way of writing his name it's highly likely to be used as an inbound link as in here (at least as of the time of writing) or in a slightly different fom in the entry here. JASpencer (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Common with curly quotes, or with quotes in general? I repeat my point from before: straight quotes will do. And, in any case, shouldn't the interwiki link point directly to the article? (I guess it hasn't caught up yet.) As far as the other link is concerned, you will notice that straight quotes are used, even if the text uses curly ones. Double quotes should be used instead of single, but I don't think that's such a problem, considering the different usage of quotation marks around the world. Waltham, The Duke of 05:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The interwiki was intended as an example of why there should be a strong presumption to keep. We do destroy inbound links by deleting long standing redirects. JASpencer (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it helps document the pagemove and points the previous readers and editors to the correct page where their contributions will be appreciated. When pages are at the wrong title, we should move them as was done here but those redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for several very good reasons. There is no reason to delete the redirect after fixing the page title. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it may be incorrect as an article name, it's plausible as a search term and incoming link. (And it documents a pagemove, too.) Terraxos (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plausible search item, I'm not sure, but... Ah, well, I give up. Can anyone at least help me with the logs issue? Even if we keep this redirect, it should have no incoming links. It's just wrong. Waltham, The Duke of 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia/Our Replies to Our Critics → Wikipedia:Replies to common objections

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval gazing proper redirect MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross namespace redirect from a highly improbable search string. --Allen3 ^talk 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been location of article until 2002/2003 and so may be subject to old external inward links. See this odd part of the history [1] --Rumping (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. This is where the page existed before the creation of the separate namespaces. There are hundreds of links scattered throughout the project's history and I happen to know for sure that there are external links because this is the page that first got me interested in Wikipedia - and I found it by following an academic link. Rossami (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also check out the logs - I undeleted it because it's impossible to confuse this with an encyclopedic page, and I still don't think it should be deleted per the comments above. I've fixed my bad history merge, so what happened to the redirect is more clear. Graham87 09:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep old page for inbound links. JASpencer (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WhichWikiShouldWeUse → Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages/WhichWikiShouldWeUse

The result of the debate was Keep, historical.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper, legacy cross namespace redirect MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross namespace redirect from a highly improbable search string. --Allen3 ^talk 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update link to meta:Historical_Wikipedia_pages/MediaWiki#WhichWikiShouldWeUse, unless some other method is more appropriate to historical WP pages. I think the search string is rare, but not improbable for people seeking the historical discussion. The CamelCase linking convention is relevant here and likely to be used in searching for this article. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another old policy page from before the creation of the separate namespaces. Internal historical links and probably external links still exist to the title. Rossami (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as soft redirect to the meta page. While this is a cross-namespace redirect, it's an acceptable one as it seems impossible to imagine this title ever being used for an article, but it is useful as part of wiki-history. Terraxos (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not doing any harm. I've history merged it. Graham87 08:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The most basic encyclopedia article topics → Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics

The result of the debate was Keep as a historical redirect. Issues regarding improbability was addressed by Rossami. Lenticel ^(talk) 13:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper cross namespace redirect, no namespace prefix. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross namespace redirect from a highly improbable search string. --Allen3 ^talk 12:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Allen3 -- The Anome (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because the page has never been anything but an improbable redirect. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this page has one of the most complicated pagemove histories that I've ever seen. It took me forever to track down the first version. After sorting it all out, the answer must be keep. This page was first created at this title on 25 Oct 2001. The assertion that this page has never been anything but a redirect is incorrect. It is an old page that predates the creation of the various namespaces by quite a lot. Given the history, there are certainly a large number of internal historical links and possibly some external links. There is no reason to delete it. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inbound links, internal links and page history (even GDFL issues). If we're making the internet not suck then we can start by not deleting these old redirects. JASpencer (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Five pillars

The result of the debate was keep Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper, crossnamespace redirect to a policy page. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It may be a CNR, but when someone keys in "The five pillars of Wikipedia", you know they are talking about WP:5P. There isn't anything else this could mean. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Mizu onna sango15. There isn't more than one meaning for "the five pillars of Wikipedia". 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It's harmless and there is no possibility of confusion with this redirect. Anyone looking for that title will certainly be expecting to find the Wikipedia policy page. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

César Vidal → César Vidal

The result of the debate was RFD not applicable as this is not a redirect. Nominator may use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.Is very short and providing little or no meaning; 2.Has no content 3. César Vidal is actually a famous and bestselling Spanish writer: disambiguation (for "Augusto Paulo César De Sousa Vidal", member of an obscure Swedish band). César Vidal is actually cited in Wikipedia in Spanish and plenty of entries thorugh Google can be found. Academie (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully suggest Articles for deletion? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with redirects. Waltham, The Duke of 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

For You (James Otto song) → Sunset Man

The result of the debate was Keep.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely that anyone would add the "(James Otto song)" part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless. Using precious space.Academie (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, whatever may be the preciousness of our content, our space is limitless (well, that's not strictly true, but we, consistent with WP:PERF and WP:NOT#PAPER, may consider it so here), and redirects are cheap ("useless" does remain a valid objection to the existence of a redirect, but I endeavor only to address your latter concern). Joe 06:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as proper disambiguation (key in "For You" in the search box and note the number of suggestions showing exactly this style) - if there are more than one song with a given title, the usual way in Wikipedia is to disambiguate as "Title (artist song)". B.Wind (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per B.Wind. It's a harmless redirect. Midorihana みどりはな 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a 'redirect with possibilities' - one that could potentially become its own article someday. If anyone ever writes an article on this song, it will have to be under this title, as For You (song) would be ambiguous; until then, it's perfectly acceptable as a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Double v → W

The result of the debate was keep Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from AfD where i erroneously created it. Bongomatic (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The purpose of a redirect page is to help users who type in a potential article page navigate to the page to which they intended to go. It cannot be suggested that people could type in "Double v" to mean to go to the page "W". Moreover, there are numerous other uses of the term "double v" (the use as "W", while it may exist or have existed, doesn't show up in the first 100 Google hits generated by "double v"), one or more of which may be worthy of an article (now or in the future). Bongomatic (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm … doesn't this belong at RfD rather than here? Deor (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Implausible. And when an XFD discussion is moved from someplace else, it should be noted by the person who moved it. This was moved, but I don't know from where. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Implausible. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change purpose. Nobody would type "double V" in search of "W." However, they might type it in search of something about how in some foreign languages its name is pronounced as what means "double V" in that language. This redirect could be turned into a disambiguation page, or a redirect to a section in the W article about the foreign language use, or even a stub about the foreign language use. Right now, though, it's an implausible redirect, so deletion is preferable to keeping as is. Someone the Person (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the name of the latter in that form is used not just in foreign languages, such as French, but in older English use, though rare. It's in the OED entry for W.DGG (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there should be an article on "Double-v" discussing its usage, or, more appropriately, a comment at W, not a (silent and uninformative) redirect to that page. Bongomatic (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody would type this in. Also concur with Bongomatic's reply to DGG. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per DGG - this is the term used for W in some languages, though it still seems inexplicable why anyone would search for it. If it is kept, some mention of this name should be added to the W article by way of explanation. Terraxos (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some languages use the term, and it's not implausible that a non-native English speaker would search for it as a literal translation in English. It's also an older English form (U and V originally being the same letter), and could be searched for. Redirects are cheap. PaulGS (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if necessary disambiguate together with "double-v". I actually see mentioning of double v at W, also in Alphabetum Kaldeorum but there are other uses, e.g in welding or the Double V campaign and expanding it may make it more useful but there is no need to delete a redirect to allow for better disambiguation. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WWWWF → World Wrestling Entertainment

The result of the debate was speedy delete Rk Or To N 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible term. David Pro (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What, is today W day? Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They were once the "WWWF". This is one W too many. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No point with too many Ws.Academie (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlikely term, especially with the advent of the new drop down box. (Granted, if you type quickly like I do, it probably won't even pop up before you hit 'return'. :-P) —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Somehow??? it was made by me, well I request speedy delete since somehow I created the redirect. Rk Or To N 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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