Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 27

December 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 27, 2007

15 August 2007 → 15 August
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think we normally have redirects from full dates to day-month articles. Powers T 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, full date linking should be according to autoformatting anyway. See MOS:DATE e.g. should be done as 15 August 2007 Dl2000 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Created from improper date linking. I've fixed the incoming links from mainspace. –Pomte 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no possible gain from deleting this, and no coherent reason for deleting it has been given. Autoformatting does not work properly. It leads to the proliferation of dates in formats that are unclear to most readers, as different people will have different expectations as to whether the date of the month will be given first. Abberley2 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it were to be used, it would break date autoformatting.  Kill it before it spreads.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Football (soccer)positions → Association football positions
The result of the debate was keep. Original content may well have been incorporated into the target article at some point - little to be gained though deletion and may cause GFDL issues. WjBscribe 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Seems like someone made a redirect from a typo they made when searching for the article's previous title. Leaving out a space is not a common typo, and Football (soccer) positions already redirects to Association football positions. – PeeJay 17:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Non-trivial history, but I doubt that the creator made a change that got reflected in the actual article. –Pomte 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion would be pointless. Abberley2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Saint Clair River (Michigan-Ontario) → St. Clair River
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Redirect is no longer needed. This page is orphaned. All articles that used to redirect through this page have been modified to bypass the redirect and link directly to the target article. Truthanado (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Being an orphan is not a valid reason to delete a redirect.  Remember that in a perfect world, all our redirects would be orphans because all links would already be updated.  Despite that, links to the old title will still be scattered throughout the project's pagehistories and could be resurrected whenever someone has to revert a page (for example, to clean out vandalism).  There could also be external links to the alternate title.  This does not appear to be harmful.  Better to leave it be.  Rossami (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Punk metal → Metalcore
The result of the debate was disambiguate. WjBscribe 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC) There was no consensus in the last RfD but I'll try it again because I feel there are strong arguments to delete it.


 * Firstly, this redirect directs us from a general topic (punk metal, a hybrid of 2 main genres) to the specific topic metalcore. These general to specific topic redirects often are no good idea. It's just like WW2 (World War II) would redirect to Battle of France, or Tree would redirect to Christmas tree. Just like these 2 examples, this redirect wouldn't really help the average reader, or even worse, it could mislead the average reader (one might think metalcore is the only or most important punk metal hybrid).


 * Secondly, people might be looking for punk/metal hybrids like deathcore, thrashcore, crust punk, sludge metal, grindcore or any other punk/metal hybrid, not just metalcore. Metalcore is a late 1990s phenomenon. Punk/metal hybrids exist since the late 1970s (fe NWOBHM).

It should be removed. Kameejl (Talk) 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removed, I think it should be a disambiguation page of all related genres but that's just me. --CircafuciX (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not removed. I'll fucking boycott Wikipedia if the page will be redirected to metalcore. As said before, metalcore is a recent fad and is no way similar to other punk/metal fusions. When I want to know what kind of music M.O.D, DRI or SOD play, I don't want to know about any gay metalcore music because they are at the opposite ends of the punk-metal fusion spectrum. Why don't we redirect heavy metal or punk rock in general to metalcore? It's the same stupid idea. Make punk metal a disambiguation page and don't piss me off.

Metalcore is by the way not at all a blend of punk and metal, it's a blend of alternative metal, thrash metal, groove metal, hardcore punk, emocore, post-hardcore and screamo. --85.224.81.211 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

do not remove it! metalcore & punk metal aren't the same thing, I want my punk metal/metalpunk article back! you can not compare DRI or Motorhead with As I lay Dying or Killswicht Engage, it's just stupid!--Jpkmaster (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the deletion of the punk metal article was not supported by several people, maybe the deletion can be overturned via a deletion review. That would be a nice solution but I'm gonna leave that to someone else. Like CircafusiX said, we could make a disambiguation page of it, like this:

The following genres combine elements of heavy metal and punk rock.
 * Crossover thrash (hardcore punk/thrash metal)
 * Crust punk (hardcore punk/extreme metal)
 * Deathcore (metalcore/death metal)
 * Deathgrind (grindcore/death metal)
 * Grindcore (crust punk/death metal)
 * Metalcore (hardcore punk/melodic death metal)
 * NWOBHM (hardcore punk/traditional heavy metal)
 * Sludge metal (hardcore punk/doom metal)
 * Thrash metal (hardcore punk/NWOBHM)
 * }
 * Should I replace it? Any other opinions? Kameejl (Talk) 10:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not keep as it is The above disambiguation page sounds like a decent idea except that Grindcore should be (crust punk/thrash metal) and NWOBHM should be (punk/traditional heavy metal). It certainly shouldn't stay as it is just redirecting to metalcore. Munci (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that there's a lot of alternative and post-hardcore in the metalcore blend. Just saying hardcore punk and melodic death metal is not very correct. For example, the "soft chorus" stuff in metalcore, where is that from? Not from hardcore punk or melodic death metal as I know it, at least. And I listen to a lot of melo-death and some hardcore. Otherwise, great disambiguation. --85.224.81.211 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to agree with the disambig. idea. Metalcore has elements of alt. metal, thrash metal, post-hardcore and other unrelated genres. Thundermaster TRUC 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to an disambiguation page, and left out the genres between brackets as they seem to encourage needless discussions. Kameejl (Talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Do not delete If this is a real term, deletion cannot possibly be the correct response. Disambiguation may or may not be appropriate - I cannot say as I am not familiar with this subject - but deletion would certainly be wrong. Abberley2 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell went wrong → Windows Vista
The result of the debate was delete as vandalism. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't befit a neutral encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshach (talk • contribs)

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

Vi$ta → Windows Vista
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Doesn't appear to be widely used in any serious circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshach (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Unlikely misspelling. It is a reference to criticize the product, and its little use in the internet is only for that purpose. Certainly users, including those who do not like Windows Vista, know the correct name and can type it just as quickly. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common usage on the Internet with 1,220,000 hits on Google. Perhaps it is better to redirect it to Satiric misspelling as that is what it is just like M$. -- Cat chi? 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That search is also finding uses of "vi ta". Powers T 23:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * DOH! you are right. I have redirected the page to Satiric misspelling as this is such an example. -- Cat chi? 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with LtPowers that the google search above was malformed ($ is a wild card).  I am not finding enough usage to justify a redirect for what appears to be both obvious and deliberately pejorative.  Rossami (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, Google Search just treats a dollar sign as space. Compare e.g. and . —  xDanielx  T/C\R 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've seen it often enough in blogs and news aggregators, but not it's not encyclopaedic in tone, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gordon Findlay (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawth Vader → Darth Vader
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Not an appropriate entry, and it's harmful. David Pro (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how this harms the encyclopedia, and it's at least a plausible misspelling.  Powers T 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see how this is actively harmful. It does not seem any less plausible than other misspellings.  Keep unless a better reason can be given for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've done a Google search and there are 8 reliable sources mentioning Dawth Vader's name. David Pro (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable sources. –Pomte 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue of reliable sources is of no relevance to redirects. Abberley2 (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - if this is a plausible misspelling there are a few billion other redirects we need! Gordon Findlay (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need to create new ones, but we don't need to delete existing ones either. –Pomte 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs improving in this area as much as in any other. Abberley2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Harmless, plausible, and we'll need it for when Elmer Fudd looks up the Sith Lord.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is exactly the type of thing that redirects are for. Abberley2 (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaf aids → The Beatles
The result of the debate was retarget to Hearing aid. WjBscribe 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Misleading redirect. Also it appears to be vandalism. David Pro (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, without prejudice. I don't think it's vandalism, but certainly an unlikely search term (and anyone who does search on it is not likely to be looking for anything related to the Beatles).  Powers T 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A cursory review of the pagehistory shows that this was definitely not vandalism. Retarget to Vox (musical equipment) since the history indicated that this term was slang for that particular brand of amplifier.  The relationship with the amplifier is stronger than the relationship with the band and the song, especially since the mention on The Beatles page is currently limited to a single see-also link to the Vox disambiguation page.  Rossami (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Vox (musical equipment) as per Rossami. David Pro (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hearing aid. Common phrase, if slightly pejorative. MikeHobday (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hearing aid as the most plausible search term. I couldn't find the term "deaf aids" or any special mention of the vox amps in either The Beatles or the The Beatles' instrumentation articles. A hatnote could be added to the hearing aid article linking to any one of the Beatles articles, but why direct users to an article who doesn't discuss the term or its meaning at all? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Elvis The Pelvis → Elvis Presley
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Innapropiate redirect. David Pro (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Definite keep - even my Mother used this term. But the correct convention re capitalisation should be used. Gordon Findlay (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, unlikely but possible search term. Powers T 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this nickname has been used in association with Presley, therefore a relevant search term e.g. . Dl2000 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, although lower case would be closer to the precise match of the term used. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep obviously. Abberley2 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Chip race (poker) → Chip race
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Strikes me as unnecessary. Only one page ever linked there, and there are no other senses of this phrase as far as I'm aware. Rissa (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, no need for disambiguation. Powers T 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it documents the pagemove. Pagemoves are generally considered useful history per the "keep if" criteria above.  This does not appear to be actively harmful.  Rossami (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of whether it's "necessary", this redirect causes no problems by existing. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep plausible search term as well, considering other articles end in (poker) a user may expect to have to type it in. –Pomte 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)