Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanzBot (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 27 January 2009 (substing templates, Replaced: User:Raggonix/sig → subst:User:Raggonix/sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]
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]
  • 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]
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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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]

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


October 27

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]

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] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]
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]
  • 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]
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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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]

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

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Ballet redirects

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]
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=266769294"