Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 31

December 31
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 31, 2007

"Snake Pit" → Snake Pit
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Unlikely that someone will search for this using quotes. History under redirect is trivial - article content was created at both locations. --- RockMFR 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak keep. This appears to have been created when someone put the exact phrase "Snake Pit" in the search engine, found nothing and created the page at the title the search engine suggested (which, for reasons I still don't understand, includes the quotation marks).  The same user had previously created the page at the correct title and probably thought that either the database hiccuped or he'd done something wrong and failed to properly save the page.  It was turned into a redirect rather than finish the PROD deletion of the duplicate page.  Keeping these redirects around would stop some of the accidental duplication of content that we've been suffering - not a lot but redirects are cheap.  Rossami (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those "quoted" articles get created all the time, and usually either get redirected outright, or moved to an more appropriate title, creating a redirect.  There's no harm in keeping them.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Salt if necessary.  It's still unlikely to be entered and confusing IF entered.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's so unlikely to be entered, how do they keep being created? --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly delete no reason to have articles with quotes is not necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Continual recreation of these quoted-title pages is indicative of inadequacy in the search function. We might as well use redirects lest we end up with a bunch of low-quality forks.  &mdash;dgies tc 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No real need to delete it, but I think it's going to the wrong page (currently going to a page on a possibly non-notable game). Should redirect to Snake pit (disambiguation) or Snake pit (the article on a pit of snakes -- notice the capitalization).--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's going to be retargeted now that you've moved the destination article. :)  But I think the disambig page is a good choice. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if these redirects keep created, they are just wrong and unaccessible when the article exists the search machine goes there. Some times quotes are needed, but this is NOT the case. Since we can keep Wikipedia tidy by deleting it i don't understand why not do it. Moreover, if user creating such redirects should take a message in their talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to correct a misunderstanding here. You can't "keep Wikipedia tidy" by deleting these redirects.  Regardless of whether they are kept or deleted, they stay in the database history.  Deletion merely moves them out of the general visibility.  You save no system resources, save no user time and don't really clean up anything.  The only thing deletion does is add yet another trivial entry into the database (recording the deletion) and bulks up some of our log files.  The issue is not "why not to do it" but "why should we do it"?  What benefit occurs to Wikipedia from the deletion of a harmless, good-faith redirect to justify taking the considerable time and effort to delete it?  Rossami (talk)
 * Comment I want to inform you that i already have requested an expansion or R3b here. The opinion that "this is a common mistake so let's get used with it" is not correct. If you check the WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Punctuation there are many users that are including commas, quotes, points, explamation marks in the internal links and many users that create redirects in order to correct he mistake. The proper action is to correct all the improper internal links and warn the user to avoid similar mistakes in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if users keep adding quotes, they need to learn to stop. We can't have quoted redirects for a handful (and yes, with the number of pages we have, even every quoted redirect ever made is just a trivial percentage of the number of pages and users, and is therefor indicative of nothing) but not for 99.999999% of pages; that would further confuse users. What would be a good idea is to fix the search function so it strips out quotes before searching the db. - Koweja (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

5 years ago → 2002
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as patent nonsense as of January 1, 2008. &mdash;dgies tc 01:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC) In a few minutes, this redirect will be a house of lies. Such a link should never be used within an article, and it's highly unlikely that someone will search for this. --- RockMFR 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

WHEN I WAS → The Black Parade
The result of the debate was Delete. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Apparently this is part of the lyrics of one of the songs on this album, and it was also a fad on 4chan. The target article makes no mention of it and anyone searching for this would be utterly confused. --- RockMFR 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I agree that "When I was", although it is indeed a lyric from a song on that album, is nowhere near closely identified with the song in question. I cannot imagine an instance where one would search for WHEN I WAS (in capitals even) and need to end up at The Black Parade. I (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Those three words could refer to anything.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; shouldn't it actually redirect to the song "Welcome to the Black Parade"?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

T:UE-R1 → Template:Ue-revert1
The result of the debate was speedy delete, author request.  Spebi  21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC) One of a handful of T: redirects. No incoming links, though may not reflect its actual usage. The DYK and ITN redirects are the only T: redirects that are in wide use. Now is as good a time as any to decide whether the usage of T: cross-namespace redirects should extend beyond those. --- RockMFR 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * It's a redirect to a template I made ages ago, back when I didn't know much about redirects and templates, so I'm in favour of deleting it (G7 applies here, I think).  Spebi  02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per author request. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephan James Thliveris → Tin Foil Phoenix
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC) procedural nomination: Found this PROD'd when it belongs here. PROD nominator stated "No indication that this Stephan is the same Stephan that was in the band? Unlikely that anyone will type in this full name when looking for the artist Steven Kray." User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Serials, periodicals and journals → Category:Serials, periodicals and journals
The result of the debate was no longer a redirect. Not convinced the present content is worth keeping mind you... WjBscribe 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Pointless cross-space redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep No rationale given for alleged pointlessness. Abberley2 (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert. Clearly pointless to any rational observer.  Reverted to last page before redirect, thereby making this RfD moot.  It probably should be sent to AfD, but I'm not going to bother.   &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot → WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines
The result of the debate was Revert. Popplewick (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC) This was a redirect to What Wikipedia is not, though the current and listed shortcut is WP:NOT. The redirect to Plot has been challenged because some people have been using it in place of WP:NOT. My view is that NOT is appropriate for NOT and WP:Plot is appropriate for PLOT. So this is a request for the shortcut to remain as it currently stands - a redirect to Plot  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert While I somewhat agree with the above statement, the current redirect links to 3 years worth of discussions. WP:Plot points to the main policy relating to fiction, that policy links to WP:WAF which explains the policy. I see no reason to redirect it, and I see even less reason to redirect it to MOS:FILM, if it was going to be changed to redirect to anywhere it should be WP:WAFRidernyc (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:PLOT was established as a redirect to What Wikipedia is not back in April 2007 and has remained unchallenged. I assume WP:Plot was intended as a version typable without recourse to the shift key.  An examination of pages which link to WP:Plot suggests a fair number of people are already using it in this manner; I can't help but wonder at the potential for confusion and disruption should the page remain directed away from WP:NOT, given the problem already seen at an AFD today. --Popplewick (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the complexity of this with possible confusions with WP:PLOT, and suggestions to redirect to WP:WAF I feel I have stepped into and caused a bit of a stink. WP:Plot appeared to me to be a recent creation - I wasn't aware of WP:PLOT. I'll create an unambiguous film plot shortcut - WP:FilmPlot - and then back quietly away from this, leaving it to wiser and more involved heads to sort out. Sorry for any mess I've caused - and Happy New Year!  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to What Wikipedia is not Given SilkTork's decision to withdraw and go with a different redirect, I shall support to revert to what appears to be the original consensus. --Popplewick (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the nominator. PLOT and P/plot should not be distinguished from each other, as this would create confusion and mis-linking (is that a word??). Regardless of capitalization, they should all redirect to the same location. I also believe said location should be WP:NOT, as that is the logical place one would think a shortcut would go to, in my mind. I (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment Can we not get this speedily reverted? This should be a "no-brainer."  I would do it myself but, since it is listed here, I am not sure if it requires admin intervention.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

EHUX → List of Linux distributions
The result of the debate was Deleted. Redirects are only useful if they redirect a user to where applicable content is located. They are harmful if they do not. A link should be blue only if we have content on it and red if we don't. As for an potential GFDL issues if the content is ever restored, the original "merge" used a minimal statement that could qualify under fair use. I see no reason for a complicated solution when a simple one is satisfactory. -- JLaTondre 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) EHUX exists due to AFD-mandated merger. The target-content for the redirect was removed as an editorial decision. There is a simple outcome to this and a complicated one. I have articulated the problem at List of Linux distributions. The simple solution is to delete the redirect as an interpretation of WP:CSD; however, I don't like that solution as CSD is interpreted quite specifically and replacing 'page' with 'content' would make many editors spin in their chairs in horror and a floodgate would open for redirect deletions. Most other general solutions, though, involve some really painful WP:CREEP thinking around, for instance, treating in-merged content differently from standard written content. This is actually a heck of a lot more complicated than it sounds on the surface, I realize, because consider the following cartoon scenario: Article A merged into Article B → Article A content removed from Article B → Article A (redirect) deleted → Article B reverted so that Article A content is recovered → violation of GFDL. I have heard rumblings from time to time that history-merge should be mandatory alongside content-merge and this scenario convinces me that perhaps the more stringent history-merge is actually the way to go (though I don't understand how that is done). So ... should this redirect be deleted or not? Simple question, isn't it. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * If the redirect is really problematic, we could move the content to a subpage (e.g. Talk:List of Linux distributions/EHUX) and leave a note at Talk:List of Linux distributions. This approach is discussed at WP:DELPRO. It would satisfy the requirements of the GFDL. But I'm not persuaded that there is anything very harmful in leaving this redirect as it is. So absent a good reason for the more complicated approach, I weakly recomend keeping it. WjBscribe 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cutest Thing In The Universe → Kitten
The result of the debate was Delete&mdash;deleted by User:Dgies under WP:CSD. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading misnomer. I found this nominated for deletion via WP:PROD (which is not Redirect-applicable) and thought that I might be able to send it on its way using WP:CSD, but I had a doubt about the applicability of that criterion in this case. If it turns out that this is deleted here, that will dispel my doubt regarding future use of the R3 criterion. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to list here what the PROD nominator stated, with which I agree: "Completely unnecessary redirect. It's unlikely anyone's going to type this in the search box, and besides, it expresses a POV." --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. I was the one who nominated it for PROD; I wasn't aware that it didn't apply to redirects. In that case, wouldn't R3 apply here? It's clearly not an appropriate redirect for Wikipedia to have. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced. –Pomte 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete as vandalism. The user's other contributions (such as this) do not support an assumption of good faith in this case.  Rossami (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Xbox Corporation → Microsoft
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) This redirect is unhelpful. David Pro (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment - Seems a plausible search term from someone that doesn't know Microsoft makes it. &mdash;dgies tc 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Stupidity is plausible, but that doesn't make it OK. &mdash;dgies tc 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree someone who doesn't know who makes Xbox might find this a useful redirect, I doubt someone would actually search for Xbox Corporation. So I don't see a need for it. I (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I know redirects are cheap, but come on, this isn't Ask Jeeves.  Honestly, what's next?  Will Walkman Company redirect to Sony? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:NOT. We shouldn't anticipate every terrible search term someone might type in. People type painfully dumb queries into search engines, but that doesn't mean that Whats the thing people use to download movies should redirect to Bittorrent TheBilly (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete to search for Xbox and then go to Microsoft is normal but typing Xbox corporation to see who's behind Xbox is not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Job → Employment
The result of the debate was disambig. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeking deletion so much as consensus on targeting. Job originally held a disambiguation page which on November 29th Hellno2 moved Job (disambiguation) and then retargeted the redirect to Employment. We did a little reverting and now we're here. Hellno2 argues it should point to employment because there are a large number of internal links using it in that meaning. I think that since the internal links can be fixed (as done by WikiProject Disambiguation) usefulness as a search term is more important. As a search term, I think it's bad form for a general search "job" to land on a specific meaning, especially when the target page is titled differently from the search. &mdash;dgies tc 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why I made this change about a month ago was not just because of linkage, but simply because the most common meaning of the term "job" in the English language is employment . The first time I ever looked for the employment page, I entered "job" myself. It led to the job disambiguation page (simply called "job" back then), where I find most of the other terms listed there to be more obscure. The only other one that is known to many people is Job (Bible), which could just as easily be called "The Book of Job." Besides, it originates from a language other than English, and is pronounced differently. The general custom on Wikipedia is when a term is associated with one meaning far more than any other, entering that term by itself will bring you to the page with the common meaning, and at the top, a single line will direct you to the disambiguation page for all other meanings (see Atlanta, Georgia for an example). Occasionally, this link will also mention where to click for another, relatively common meaning (see Greyhound for an example of this). Meanwhile, if a term has two or more meanings of equal frequency in the language, entering it leads straight to the disambiguation page (see Georgia, which could be the state, the country, or all the more obscure meanings for an example).Hellno2 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the reasoning in both sides of the argument. However, I cannot really see most people searching for "Job" looking for anything other than employment or the Biblical book/character. I don't believe either employment or the Biblical character should have the Job with no (appendage) on it, so I suggest creating Job as a disamgig page again, since the aforementioned terms are the major targets, but neither should have the main Job page. I (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The page should redirect to a disambig page. I can see both "employment" and "Biblical whipping boy" as common search terms.  To be honest, though, it works both ways.  If someone looking for Job the Biblical character ends up at Employment and has to do a little more clicking to get to the article he needs, it's no big deal.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This minor problem can be remedied by changing the text at the top of the Employment page to say something like "Job redirects here. For the biblical character, see Job (Bible). For other uses, see Job (disambiguation)."''Hellno2 (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC) p.s., I just made the change using the redirect6 template.Hellno2 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really fix the problem: a generic search term is landing at a specific article when it should really land at a disambiguation page. &mdash;dgies tc 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean this in an entirely civil way, but the only "problem" appears to be one you two are imagining. I understand it's a good idea to get consensus on things like this, but no matter which way it goes, it's really not a big deal.  Anyone who speaks English knows that when they look up "Job the Bible guy" in any sort of media (except maybe a Bible), they're probably gonna get something on jobs.  They're not gonna get pissed, shut off Wikipedia and never go back, write a letter to the editors, or so on.  Please don't go imagining that this is a serious flaw that needs to be corrected.  Nobody wants to end up at Lamest Edit Wars (and for the record, so far, kudos to you two for doing everything you can to stay off that page) --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the concept of disambiguation pages, this is not the place to fight it out. They're well established and widely considered useful. They're an integreal part of Wikipedia these days. If you want to completely overturn the concept of disambiguation pages, you'll have to start somewhere else TheBilly (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I had a problem with disambig pages. I'm just saying that if it isn't a disambig page, it's not that big of a deal.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambig This is not the place to fight whole policies and concepts. Job (disambiguation) has 13 links. The generic word "Job" should point there, because it has so many meanings, and these are listing on the disambig page. This is a clear-cut case. This is how things are correctly done on Wikipedia. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point TheBilly (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several pages where the word can have may meanings, but the generic word points to the main article while other meanings have a link to the disambig page. The word could only point to a disambig if some meanings are equally common.  Otherwise, it should go to the most common one (and it could be argued that would be "employment" for Job).  --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate. I'm not persuaded that any one target is overwhelmingly the correct one for Job, so I propose that the page be deleted and Job (disambiguation) moved back to Job. WjBscribe 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject → WikiProject
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect and is thus discouraged. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * This was discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 24 and there was a strong consensus to keep. --- RockMFR 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As there will likely never be an article on WikiProjects and it's very likely that somebody would be searching for information on the Projects. - Koweja (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. If other Wikis have WikiProjects, then a real article could be written.  As it stands, the redirect doesn't hurt, even if it is cross-name-space.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - XNRs are OK when named such that a real article would never be created at that title. &mdash;dgies tc 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Enigmaman (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)