Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 24

Street Fighter The Movie (video game) → Street Fighter: The Movie
The result of the debate was obvious keep. The nomination lacks a coherent or meaningful argument. The redirect title is a common spelling of the proper title of the video game plus a valid/normal disambiguation parenthesis. The target title is almost the same without the parentheses. The redirect is harmless and useful. &mdash; Timwi 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unnecesary. David Pro 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems necessary especially since a lot of people would think they would be leaded to the movie if they didn't have this in the tile: (video game) I know I would as movie is part of the game's name. TheBlazikenMaster 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Street Fighter: The Movie is a video game version of Street Fighter (film) and not a movie. Harmless. -- Loukinho 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The game of the movie of the game? Now that's just silly. This redirect is handy for getting through this confusion. - 52 Pickup 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Mya (unit) → Mega-annum
The result of the debate was Invalid nomination. The nominator redirected the article and nominated for deletion in the same step. This is not proper. If the nominator wishes it deleted, then they need to use PROD or AFD. If they wish to redirect it, that should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- JLaTondre 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Mya (unit) is an entry that IMHO should be deleted or moved to wiktionary. It is at an obsolete initialism of ambiguous meaning, better replaced by Mega-annum. Entry Annum discusses why Bya, Mya, Tya, Kya are properly deprecated, i.e. to avoid the Short and long scales problem. LeadSongDog 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to annum, it is mentioned there (and mega-annum redirects there). If someone wants to know what mya means, they ought to find the answer and it appears it is in the annum article.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: if we decide to delete this redirect, the actual page will need to be kept somewhere to preserve the history for GFDL purposes.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Bignate. Redirects are cheap, and this one seems potentially useful, especially on a disambiguation page. Being obsolete isn't a real problem.  We can tag it as unprintworthy or something like that.  And if we retarget, we won't have to worry about history merges or other GDFL-related issues.  Xtifr tälk 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians in order of importance → Wikipedians
The result of the debate was delete. This is a useless redirect and were it to go to MfD, it wouldn't stand a chance. -- John Reaves 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) This page used to be a list of Wikipedians in order of importance (duh), though I haven't checked what criteria were used to determine "importance". In any case, the page was redirected in May 2006 and no one has bothered to contest it (please also note the numerous calls for deletion on the talk page). The page has no significant incoming links and is implausible as a search term for the target. In effect, it has no purpose. So, delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The redirect certainly has no purpose. I'd rather we unredirected this and possibly moved this to mfd, but I won't do so unless someone else agrees. --- RockMFR 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per nom. - 52 Pickup 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bya → Giga-annum
The result of the debate was Invalid nomination. The nominator redirected the article and nominated for deletion in the same step. This is not proper. If the nominator wishes it deleted, then they need to use PROD or AFD. If they wish to redirect it, that should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- JLaTondre 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Bya is an entry that IMHO should be deleted or moved to wiktionary. It is at an obsolete initialism of ambiguous meaning, better replaced by Giga-annum. Entry Annum discusses why Bya, Mya, Tya, Kya are properly deprecated, i.e. to avoid the Short and long scales problem. LeadSongDog 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to annum, it is mentioned there (and giga-annum redirects there). If someone wants to know what bya means, they ought to find the answer and it appears it is in the annum article.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: if we decide to delete this redirect, the actual page will need to be kept somewhere to preserve the history for GFDL purposes.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Bignate and my comments above at Mya (unit). Xtifr tälk 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cockfag → Profanity
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Recently fuckass got deleted per this reason. And to be honest, I don't think this can be considered swearing, first off, cock isn't a cuss word. Fag could be, but that's not the point. Second, there are less than 700 Google results. Third, cock isn't considered bad if you are referring to chickens, just if you're referring to penis. Finally, Fuckass can beat that by at least 20,000. My fuckass redirect got removed since it was rare, but this word is extremely, super ultra rarely used. So delete. TheBlazikenMaster 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Confusing, no other valid targets come to mind. TheBlazikenMaster, a word of caution: bringing "your" redirect up as an example, which was deleted under CSD R3, might suggest to some you are making a point with this. Now, I've not seen evidence that you're acting in bad faith and indeed I don't think you are, but please be careful not to come off that way. Anyways, my delete vote is based solely on the merits of the redirect in question.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - 52 Pickup 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete while midly offensive (yes, I'm gay), more importantly its a bad precedent - although redirects are cheap, I'd hate to see every profanity getting a redirect to Profanity or every word in a French language dictionary getting a redirect to French language, etc. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to İQTElif
The result of the debate was Deleted (CSD R1). -- JLaTondre 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)   Target deleted. Amir E. Aharoni 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Iqtelif
 * IQTElif
 * For future reference, you can just tag these with db-r1 which invokes CSD R1: redirects to non-existent pages. I've already tagged them, anyone who knows how can close this RfD once they've been deleted provided they cite who the closing admin was and why they were deleted (R1).  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BooleanAlgebra → Boolean algebra
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator.  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Unused CamelCase redirect. Boolean algebra is a disambiguation page, so there's no good target for this redirect, and there are fewer opportunities for things to go wrong if it's just deleted. --Trovatore 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Withdrawn I hadn't noticed the GFDL issue. I don't know if there's anything left of the original text, probably not, but better safe I suppose. --Trovatore 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Parody of Wikipedia → Uncyclopedia
The result of the debate was disambiguate; see Parody of Wikipedia. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC) "Parody of Wikipedia" is a description, not a name, and there are many more of them (as noted here and here). Regards, High on a tree 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete (changed opinion, see below): does seem to be giving undue weight to one particular parody, and I can't think of anywhere to retarget this, so deletion is probably the best option. Xtifr tälk 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget (both) to Wikipedia in culture.  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC), edited to say (both) on 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Important if you want to remove this redirect remove a redirect I made earlier as well: Wikipedia parody. TheBlazikenMaster 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget (new opinion replacing above) per Bignate. Likewise for the other redirect mentioned by TheBlazikenMaster.  A redirect to a broader topic is much more reasonable than a redirect to a minor subset of a topic.  Xtifr tälk 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment why not make a disambiguation page (at whatever title) listing parodies of Wikipedia? Not an article, for heaven's sake, but disambiguation. Since, as the nom states, it is ambiguous. Grace notes T § 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * disambig Create a disambiguation page listing various parodies, this will be more helpfu to teh user than either deeltion or letting this stand as a single redirect. DES (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fuck (word) → Fuck
The result of the debate was obvious keep. The argument presented in the nomination is invalid as outlined at the top of WP:RFD. The redirect title is the proper title plus a valid/normal disambiguation parenthesis. The redirect is harmless and useful. &mdash; Timwi 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned and unnecessary, since it is not likely to be typed in as a search expression. Regards, High on a tree 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is a film, band, and album named Fuck; the word description seems useful and accurate, and it also acts as a placeholder. In addition, the redirect and target are equivalent, so this redirect seems fine. Grace notes T § 02:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any one marginally familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions is liable to search this as an attempt to circumvent a disambiguation page...so keep. -- John Reaves 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Gracenotes. TheBlazikenMaster 12:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Nonsensal → Nonsense
The result of the debate was keep. Non-admin closure, in spite of the fact that "nonsensal" is actually not a word. Shalom Hello 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The correct spelling is "nonsensical". Regards, High on a tree 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's why its a redirect. -- John Reaves 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that this was the intention - it is not marked as a misspelling redirect. Anyway those should be only be created for common misspellings, and "nonsensal" seems to be very rare, with 56 Google hits (not even all of them in English), versus 3.710.000 for "nonsensical". Regards, High on a tree 01:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. There is no reason given to delete this. -- John Reaves 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep and tag as R from misspelling. This seems like something that might well be helpful to non-native speakers whose grasp of English is less-than-perfect.  It's a reasonable formation if you know the general rules of English, but not the specific instance.  And as John says, redirects are cheap.  Xtifr tälk 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects are cheap. Other than that, I really think redirects were meant to redirect to the correct page, as this nonsensal redirect does. -- Loukinho 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and tag with R from misspelling and also R from related word.  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, damn it, you're right, I should have checked a dictionary. TheBlazikenMaster 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag per BigNate. - 52 Pickup 12:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Idiotic behavior → Stupidity
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Not a synonym - behavior refers to actions, stupidity is a quality or condition. Regards, High on a tree 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (look further for the changed opinion) Your reasoning for deletion is far away from the reason or the opposite of the reason I created this page. It isn't question about which of these two words are different. Think about it, I added "idiotic" to the redirect for a reason. You didn't explain at all how idiotic behavior is any different from stupidity, all you did was telling the difference between behavior and stupidity, not the difference between IDIOTIC behavior and stupidity. TheBlazikenMaster 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to not have understood the argument. To be more verbose:
 * "Behavior" is a noun referring to actions.
 * "Idiotic" is an adjective.
 * Adding an adjective to a noun means giving more information about what the noun refers to. It can not change the information that is already in the noun itself. (A fast bicycle is still a bicycle and not a motorbike. A yellow cucumber is still a cucumber and not a banana.)
 * Therefore, "Idiotic behavior" is still an expression referring to actions.
 * "Stupidity" is noun referring to a quality or condition.
 * Actions and qualities are different things, Actions and conditions are different things.
 * Therefore, "Idiotic behavior" and "Stupidity" can not mean the same thing, as you have claimed by creating this redirect.
 * Besides, it is your duty to prove (citing reliable sources) that these two expressions mean the same thing, if you want to keep this redirect - it is not my duty to disprove it. You should think about such questions before you create a redirect. Regards, High on a tree 02:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand, I won't recreate this if you remove it. But hey, you're right, sometimes other people judge others, and say "Stop this idiotic behavior" to someone that isn't actually a jackass. I will change my vote to delete, since you explained it to me. TheBlazikenMaster 13:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Furthermore I will try to make more sense next time I make a redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 13:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Dumb (disambiguation) → Dumb
The result of the debate was obvious keep. The argument presented in the nomination is invalid as outlined at the top of WP:RFD. The redirect title is the proper title plus a valid/normal disambiguation parenthesis. The redirect is harmless and useful. (Are "orphaned and unnecessary" nominations en vogue?) &mdash; Timwi 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned and unnecessary, since it is not likely to be typed in as a search expression. High on a tree 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: these are useful in certain templates, and are even suggested on one of the MOS pages, if I recall correctly. May not be in use at the moment, but it's utterly harmless and potentially useful and redirects are cheap, so I see no compelling reason to delete.  Xtifr tälk 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. -- Loukinho 05:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) -- Keep. In accordance to what I understand of the guidelines. -- Loukinho 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: from Disambiguation: "'Term XYZ (disambiguation)' is not the standardized name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic with an article at 'Term XYZ'. It is acceptable, on the other hand, to create a page at 'Term XYZ (disambiguation)' that redirects to the disambiguation page at 'Term XYZ'. This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page." (Emphasis mine.)  This seems completely in line with the guideline, I see no reason at all to delete.  Xtifr tälk 07:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. First of all, orphaned (i.e. no incoming internal links) is specifically not a reason to delete a redirect. Second, very few if any of our redirects are necessary. This one has marginal usefulness per Xtifr and causes no harm.  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Common, there are many redirects with (disambiguation) at the end that redirects to a dab page without that in the title, that were made long before I joined Wikipedia. Are you going to remove them as well? Some people are unaware of there is no full article. TheBlazikenMaster 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, I might be wrong about there being redirects like that in existence, but still, some people might think there is a full article. TheBlazikenMaster 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not wrong. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. -- JLaTondre 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per our naming conventions. Redirects of this nature are useful to indicate intentional links to a disambiguation page. The extensive existence of such redirects (Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages) clearly shows that people see these as useful. -- JLaTondre 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The British Government → Her Majesty's Government
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was Keep per consensus of arguments and author's rationale. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 22:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC) WP:NC High on a tree 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep: WP:NC applies to articles; this is a redirect, and it's purpose is to help people who don't know about naming conventions and do type in "the". It's mildly useful and redirects are cheap.  Xtifr tälk 05:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It prevents those unfamiliar with naming policy from arriving at a blank page and starting an article, and shows them where the article is and what the correct title of the subject they're looking for is as well.  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You can also nominate similar redirect I made, The American Government, I made them because they are sometimes called "The Government", and also, a lot of pages that end with "of the United States" has also redirects that begins with "American". Think about it, I made this for similar reason, it is as useful as the "of the United States" and "American" like I gave in the example. TheBlazikenMaster 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say why the is necessary. Governments are referred to as simply "The Government" most of the times, that's why I made this redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bad Boys II.jpg → Image:Bad boys two.jpg
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Orphaned and unnecessary. Regards, High on a tree 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: ITYM Image:Bad_Boys_II.jpg → Image:Bad boys two.jpg. (At first I thought it was a redirect with "http:..." in the name, which would be beyond useless.)  Anyway I agree; I see little point in a redirect for an image, especially a non-free image.  So delete per nom.  Xtifr tälk 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per above and per nom. -- Loukinho 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I made this because this is exactly the same image that got removed. I think it could be useful for people that views old revision of the article Bad Boys II. I don't care if you wanna remove it, just go ahead, I just thought it would be useful. TheBlazikenMaster
 * Delete, image redirects are Considered Harmful. Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 24">§ 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How? I should know how they're harmful so I won't do this same mistake twice. TheBlazikenMaster 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Considered Harmful: image redirects are not dangerous or horrible, but they are to be avoided. The image namespace is meant to provide content through the data of each image, not through naming. Images are not located by typing in an image's name and being redirected to it; they are accessible by image categorization. If you saw an image once and wondered where it went when deleted, check the deletion log. Creating a redirect in image namespace is not useful, because the purpose of the image namespace is to hold images. Given how comparatively volatile the image namespace is, having image redirects seem pointless, and they add dead weight to the already hard-to-manage system of image categorization. Older revisions of the article may not appear pretty, but this is a relatively common phenomenon, since images get deleted en masse every day. Also, try : it doesn't even work. (Redundant images can get deleted speedily, btw.)  Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 24">§ 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for your question. I appreciate that you wanted to dig deeper about the issue; if you have any problems with my explanation, feel free to ask me about it. Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 24">§ 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind. But it still sucks in my opinion to see old revision and I can only see the old text, not on how the images used to be back then. But I now fully understand that redirect is not the solution, thank you for explaining, I will keep that in mind. TheBlazikenMaster 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Him (disambiguation) → HIM
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was obvious keep. The argument presented in the nomination is invalid as outlined at the top of WP:RFD. &mdash; Timwi 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-orphaned and unnecessary, since it is not likely to be typed in as a search expression. Regards, High on a tree 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: these are useful in certain templates, and are even suggested on one of the MOS pages, if I recall correctly. May not be in use at the moment, but it's utterly harmless and potentially useful and redirects are cheap, so I see no compelling reason to delete.  Xtifr tälk 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. No links point to the main redirect either. -- Loukinho 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) -- Keep. In accordance to what I understand of the guidelines. -- Loukinho 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Common, there are many redirects with (disambiguation) at the end that redirects to a dab page without that in the title, that were made long before I joined Wikipedia. Are you going to remove them as well? Some people are unaware of there is no full article. TheBlazikenMaster 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, I might be wrong about there being redirects like that in existence, but still, some people might think there is a full article. TheBlazikenMaster 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not wrong. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. -- JLaTondre 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per our naming conventions. Redirects of this nature are useful to indicate intentional links to a disambiguation page. The extensive existence of such redirects (Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages) clearly shows that people see these as useful. -- JLaTondre 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Cultural references → Popular culture
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Not a synonym at all. A reference is a kind of relationship between two objects. A cultural reference is a relationship between two objects (works, mostly) in culture, but it doesn't need to be pop culture, and culture is more than references. Regards, High on a tree 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Looks like it might be some fallout from the anti-trivia-section wars. Anyway, I agree, there are lots of other kinds of culture, so it's misleading and not at all useful.  Either retarget if someone can suggest a better target or delete.  Xtifr tälk 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and Xtifr's observation is spot on. Although their meanings are often conflated in titles of articles, many of which are being slowly paraded through the afd process on their way to the bit bin, there is no reason to perpetuate the mistaken confusion. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)