Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 13

December 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 13, 2007

Hispanic nationalism → Pan-Americanism
The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves 08:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 'Hispanic nationalism' purports to be about militant US Hispanics, while Pan-Americanism is a whole other thing, being about the two centuries of effort to build hemispheric solidarity amongst all nations of the Americas. A wholly inappropriate redirect. SamEV (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

F-4 → F-4 Phantom II
The result of the debate was keep F-4 as redirect. There's no doubt that F-4 is used extensively to refer to F-4 Phantom II, and I'm reluctant to change a redirect which has remained in good standing for 5 years, less we mess up external links from other websites to Wikipedia. That said, there are other pages which use the term F-4, and therefore are still plausible as search terms, but they are already included in F4. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

F4 and F-4 have one dab page for quite a long list of topics. I think that "F-4" should redirect to the "F4" disambiguation page, rather than redirect to the F-4 Phantom II page. I think that there is no primary topic for F4 (or F-4). There are three other US aircraft with F4 in their name and also a US ship. The chess link is quite popular. There is some brief discussion about this on the talk page for "F-4 Phantom II". Snowman (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This concerns F-4 and I think the different but similar F4 should be left out of the discussion. Also, F4 is covered by the disamb. page already. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSDAB says this: "AU may refer to" is preferable over "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to". My understanding is that F4 and F-4 go on the same DAB page. This saves having separate dab pages for all the possible combinations. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not even sure why this needs to be discussed. There is only one aircraft called the F-4, and that is the F-4 Phantom II. The F4D, F4H, and F4U are not considered F-4s, but are part of a separate designation system. Snowmanradio spent several hours changing F-4 links in articles to the correct pages. To my knowledge, most if not all of them were referring to the F-4 Phantom II, which is where the page redirected to at the time he made those changes. Thus he himself has proved my assertion that F-4 Phantom II is the primary topic (whatever that is supposed to mean) for F-4. - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true - there was also the F-4 Lightning, but anyway... I tend to agree with Bill - in that if someone were to insert F-4 into a page, they'd almost certainly be expecting it to link to the Phantom II; this makes the Phantom II the "primary topic" for disambiguation purposes based on least astonishment. Snowmanradio, did you clean up anything pointing to F-4 that wasn't about the aircraft? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The "F-4" to "F-4 Phantom II" redirect was established in 2002, and so it has been used instead of "F-4 Phantom II". F-4 has been used as a link for over 5 years, and I can see your standpoint. I see F4, F-4 or f4 as somewhat generic, and I am aiming to make the links easier in-the-round. Quite a lot of the links needed changing from F-4 to F-4 Phantom II for clarity. I did my best, and I did briefly read the text to make sure that fighter aircraft were relevant to the page and most of them had "Phantom" on the page. I am not an expert on aircraft and I find all these aircraft F-4 and F4 numbers confusing, but I find the updated dab page helpful. Chess is popular and the move f4 is part of chess. F0 to F5 are well known tornado forces in weather. Would a chess player wiklink or search with "F-4" looking for this move?  Would anyone look for F4 or F-4 as a scale for rating tornado wind intensity? Could the various US aircraft be confused? Snowman (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they could be. But the question is actually: are they likely to be? Out of all the links you surveyed (hundreds?) were any of them misplaced links not referring to the Phantom II?. I hear your observation that the redirect has existed for 5 years, and while that's true, it would not fully explain the absence of any misplaced links to other things called F-4, F4, or f4: people wiki things all the time without checking to see where the links go, often with unexpected results.
 * The question we're really trying to answer here is: is the Phantom II the overwhelmingly most significant usage of the term "F-4" (F4 and f4 only being tangentially relevant)? If this were not the case, I'd be expecting to see at least some misplaced links. In short, if something has apparently worked well for 5 years, don't "fix" it. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There were 134 pages (plus multiple F-4 links on some pages, some of which caused me to go back to the page a second time, but not counted by me). In itself this disambiguation task is useful for the wiki, and I should add that I did this before I realised that someone had raised a issue with the redirect. I did not identify one as not being for "F-4 Phantom II", but the redirect has been available for years and it will be used if it is available, and links are checked from time to time. If a redirect had been made directing users to the chess move in 2002, the wind scale, another F4 aircraft or the ship, I expect it would have accumulated a certain usage over the years.  Should "F-4" have a separate disambiguation page called "F-4 (disambiguation)" with interconnecting links in a "See also" section to an "F4" disambiguation page?  but I gather that F4, f4 and F-4 should go on the same dab page from reading the WP:MOSDAB. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think a separate "F-4 (disambiguation)" page is needed. THe "F4" page is not that long, and the genuine "f-4" section is pretty small. "F4" is a DAB page,a nd F-4 redirects to the Phantom II, with the DAB link at top for F4. I think that's simple and straightforward enough for now, but I won't protest if a "F-4" DAB page gets a consensus. - BillCJ (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would vote for "F-4" and "F4" to go on the same dab page. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Kimberly Spiess → [redacted]
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) prodded by User:Jeandré du Toit, citing unsourced redirect, rm per WP:V and WP:BLP as reason; target article does not currently mention name but in history has that as a birth name, unsourced; claims to be Kimberly Spiess and that this is slander Rigadoun  (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:BLP. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimberly_Spiess&action=history for what this was redirected to - I've redacted it here so it doesn't end up in Google's cache. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-15t11:38z
 * Delete unsourced. –Pomte 23:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Supported Software → Wikipedia
The result of the debate was no consensus (though I doubt anyone would oppose a revert). John Reaves 08:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Unused, unlikely search term. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: "Unused" is irrelevant as an RfD reason.  Remember that in a perfect world, all our redirects would be orphans because people update the inbound links when they move a page.  The old links, however, will always be in history.  Redirects help readers who are researching old versions of pages and may not know about the pagemove beforehand.  "Unlikely search term" is also an insufficient reason to nominate a redirect for deletion.  Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  Rossami (talk)
 * Revert to the 2004 version which was a redirect to Tools and keep because it documents the pagemove of a very old page (which predates the automatic recording of the pagemove in the edit history) and because it likely still has external links. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep one way or another, since it causes no harm and may have external links. Mere uselessness is not a sufficient reason for deletion, as long as something is harmless. (All of Rossami's arguments are also good, although I think that the current, one-namespace redirect is more proper.) &mdash;Toby Bartels (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a valid target for this phrase (it should be a cross namespace redirect, but we don't do those either). Not a useful redirect imho. (I don't subscribe to the notion that "harmless but useless" junk needs to be left lying around.) --kingboyk (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I killed your baby → Infanticide
The result of the debate was speedily deleted and salted.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Distasteful and unlikely Lou.weird (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete. Vandalism that traces back to an Uncyclopedia title.  Rossami (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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