Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 25

April 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2008

GAMECRUFT → WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines
The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Unconstructive per WP:ITSCRUFT, Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The irony is that in the same essay, "cruft" is mentioned to be a non-argument, a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Frankly I'd like complete eradication of that neologism from Wikipedia, but unless such a community decision is made, keep as a useful redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG is a deletion reason now? That doesn't sound like him.  :)  Anyways, Keep for now per the IP above, but I think a wider discussion may be warranted to send "cruft" the way of WP:VAIN.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was arguing in another context that the term CRUFT ought to go out use in WP as a serious argument, as all arguments based on it end up a cruft/notcruft without any advance in the discussion. That does not mean I would eliminate the redirect, or all discussion of the use of the term. On the whole, I'd say to keep the redirect. In fact, I'd redirect everywhere where the term were used, to something meaningful. DGG (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we agree that the term is unconstructive, why not delete it or replace it as Randomran suggested? Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't agree. I don't think WP:VAIN is unconstructive either.  I can just envision a consensus along those lines. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The term is just unhelpful and adds nothing to discussions. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can see that makes it unhelpful is when an editor simply posts, "Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT". That gives little information to help an article improve. However, this is the fault of the editor and not the name of the link. It is the action of such editors that add nothing to discussions. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Personally, I hardly see the term "cruft" as unconstructive or even derogatory. I think the term has simply been thrown around so much that people are tired of seeing it. However, I'm not opposed to a name change. It it is renamed, I also see no reason to delete GAMECRUFT. Both can be used. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
 * If we agree on renaming it, we should use the move function of GAMECRUFT to GAMETRIVIA or whatever rename would be agreed upon, which would remove the unconstructive and derogatory term, but would keep the contribution history in tact. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Create the new redirect, but keep the old one. The term is not inherently unconstructive, the essays and two opinions (who cannot be taken as being representative of consensus to either direction, regardless of the nominator's use of them) have to do with article deletion, not general usage on Wikipedia. It strikes me that the nominator simply does not like the term, despite consistently refering the same part of the "arguments to avoid in AfD" for other reasons. -- Sabre (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping gamecruft. But WP:GAMETRIVIA, WP:GAMESCOPE, and WP:GAMEDETAIL would all make for more viable options. At any rate, it's the policy that should be judged, not the name. Randomran (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete I think that naming is pretty important in determining how people feel about a subject. It is a lot harder to get traction on an argument against 4,5 "It's cruft, delete" arguments.  I'm NOT saying that renaming this section will or should fix that in a manner that censors people.  What I am saying is that having the section named that gives the impression that the name itself is also wiki policy.  and I think there is a valuable discussion to be had about whether or not we want apparent wiki policy to look as though "Scope of information" in the Video Game Guidlines is "cruft". Protonk (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SPADE. I created this redirect, by the way. It doesn't really matter whether people like the term or not. If that would matter, we'll probably need to come up with euphemisms for just about everything (calling living people 'unnotable', for example, or removing links as spam). Furthermore, note that the shortcut refers to only part of the guideline, in the same way WP:PLOT does, for example. If an editor thinks another shortcut is necessary to refer to other parts, please make one. User:Krator (t c) 08:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's an inflammatory term that adds absolutely nothing to a discussion. I suspect there are people who cite WP:GAMECRUFT who have never even read WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. I suppose WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines could have a redirect like WP:VGSCOPE or something, but even then you'd have people citing it like the Video game WikiProject guidelines held any weight. If it's not deleted, you might as well redirect WP:GAMECRUFT to WP:ITANNOYSME (and then fix the double redirect). --Pixelface (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think the problem lies in the lines of communication. It is the editors that are not adding anything to the discussion. "Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT", says nothing. And if the link isn't even followed and read, then that only adds to the problem. But "Delete because of excessive amount of in-game details" says something that can be discussed. If editors start articulating the reasons behind their decision more, then I see nothing inflammatory about it. I think people have simply associated the frustrated feelings of not being able to compromise and communicate with the term "cruft". (Guyinblack25 talk 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep - Guy hits all my points on the head. DGG is not a valid reason for deletion any more than "cruft" would be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful redirect. If somebody is only using the word "gamecruft" and is not offering any explanation of how it violates the guideline then they're doing it wrong, not the redirect. Bill (talk 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft­ → Microsoft
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Very unlikely search terms, some seem to be nonsense. Note: The first one appears to be the same as the target, but actually reads 'Microsoft-' in edit mode it seems to be a corrupted character, not a dash, making a search impossible.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 16:00, April 25, 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * - No links, used to be a dicdef for a neologism.
 * - No links, De1Et3!
 * - No links, an old ad campaign for MS, but still not really notable enough to be searched for realistically.
 * In order, Weak delete, delete, delete, and very weak delete (alternative in last case: retarget to knowledge). First: normally, "no links" would not be a reason for deletion of a redirect, but as mentioned, the article name contains a corruption that is most highly unlikely to be duplicated on a computer keyboard. The second would be deleted as a neologism dictionary definition (it could even border only speedy deletion territory for general housekeeping if an admin has a liberal interpretation of WP:CSD). The third is newly-created leetspeak that borders on vandalism. The fourth was briefly used as a slogan for a not-too-successful Microsoft advertising campaign. It could be viewed as a misspelling of "knowledge", but I wouldn't keep the last redirect article on that basis (I know... I just cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but only after making a more legitimate argument for this discussion). B.Wind (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the first as a corrupt title (nobody will search for it, nobody will link to it). Delete the second and third as unlikely to be used to refer to the target. Retarget Nowledge to Knowledge - it's a plausible typo. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree on the first three. The fourth shouldn't redirect to Microsoft because that aren't doesn't mention 'nowledge' at all; a redirect there is just confusing. I'm not sure if a typo is plausible or not; I would probably just delete it (you get enough appearances of the correct spelling in the search results to take the hint). Richard001 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all, none are likely to be links or search targets - and anyone who does the search obviously knows the target anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete first, second and third redirects. And redirect the fourth "Nowledge" to "Knowledge" Gman 124 talk 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuke them all: 1= Possible attack, 2= Leet (who searches that?), 3= Old ad campaign, nobody would search it (and don't redirect it to knowledge, you obviously don't have much if you don't notice that typo!) ...... Dendodge . Talk Help 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FC Dallas (MLS) → FC Dallas
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Not needed michfan2123 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete after reading FC Dallas talk page discussing the history of the moving of the FC Dallas (MLS) article to the current name. According to the discussion, a cut'n'paste move needed to be completed with the merge of the histories, and an unnecessary redirect is left but not deleted (disambiguation is not needed as there is only one FC Dallas with an article here). Clearly the redirect should go, and it can be argued that it could be speedy deleted as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6) to complete a move and a complicated merge. B.Wind (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. You could probably use prod for cases like this. Richard001 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Real name → Genie (feral child)
The result of the debate was Deleted as courtesy per WP:BLP's "do no harm". This includes the redirect that was also nominated on 26 April (which I have removed for consolidation with this debate & courtesy blanking). I have also replaced the redirect name in the header as a courtesy blanking. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Per discussions on this page: Talk:Genie (feral child), Genie's real name should be removed from Wikipedia. For An Angel (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest a rapid deletion, per that page. DGG (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I concur that this redirect should be removed per BLP.--Slp1 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for as long as she is alive. She didn't ask for the notoriety any more than any other domestic abuse victim. This is the exact opposite of the RfD of the redirect page pointing to Pixie (porn star) (in which the woman wanted to walk away from her very public past). It would be better if we have someone turn this redirect into an article for someone else having the same name. Are there possible candidates? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to BLP concerns. I recommend the courtesy blanking of this Rfd entry or even oversight.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Cyrogenic → cryogenics
The result of the debate was Kept and tagged as misspelling. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Unreasonable typo rescue. Lainagier (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's highly possible for someone to hear about cryogenics and not hear the "s" part of it. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the typo: "cyr" vs. "cry". (For the record, Cryogenic (correctly spelled) is indeed redir'd to Cryogenics, which I agree is quite useful.) - Lainagier (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: I guess you're also nominating cyrogenics then? If you use that as the heading nobody will make the same mistake. I'm not sure if anyone will make this typo (how can you tell?), though it can just be tagged as unprintworthy and left - someone obviously felt it would be useful, and discussing it wastes more disk space than leaving it. Richard001 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the typo has been made before - the redirect had two three links in, both all of which articles I corrected. I figure those articles would have been correct in the first place if each had shown "cyrogenic" as a redlink. Tell me if that's an overzealous rationale for nixing the redirect. (Seriously - I don't claim to be au fait with rfd convention.) - Lainagier (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Plant ecology → Ecology
The result of the debate was Deleted. Valid article topic and the two are not synonymous. Red link encourages article creation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Plant ecology is a topic desperately in need of a Wikipedia article, but redirecting to ecology makes no more sense than redirecting to plant; it is the overlap between these two topics and redirecting to one or the other does not work. Richard001 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel an article is needed, then one can be created. Until it is, I see no reason why this can't stay a redirect (I'd say point it to Plant).  --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: why not retargeting to botany? It seems there might be multiple legitimate targets for this as a redirect, and it can redirect to only one place. It might be better to delete it and leave it as a redlink in the template to encourage the writing of a fully-fledged Plant ecology article. (Hmmm... did I just "talk myself" into recommending to delete? I think so!) B.Wind (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The fact that there are at least three equally valid places to redirect strongly suggests it shouldn't redirect to any. The reader would benefit much more from looking at what is available from search results than being pushed to one specific article. A red link also makes it clear that there is no such article and that there should be one (does botany suggest to you that we don't have and much need an article on plant ecology at present?) Richard001 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Red links aren't helpful to someone looking for info, and someone looking for info isn't likely to know enough to start an article. Someone will just create the redirect again.  Until an article is written, it should remain a redirect.  If that's an issue, just write a quick stub in.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, redirects like this are what is not useful. As I've said, a search at least gives the reader a range of articles that are related. They also encourage people to make them not red by writing an article. If someone tries to create it again, they will notice that it has been deleted before and think again. Richard001 (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the redirect somehow misleading? Will someone be shocked to get "Plant" out of this?  If someone is looking for information on plant ecology, will the "Plant" article give them misleading or wrong information?  Will a search that is likely to lead them to "Plant" or "Ecology" really do a better job of this than a redirect?  I'm really not following your logic at all...some information is better than no information.  As for a redlink encouraging people to write an article, it's unlikely.  If anything, it will encourage someone to put in...yes, a redirect.  And it's doubtful someone will see the deletion log and decide not to put something in there...in fact, doesn't it discourage the thing you want to happen in the first place?  Again, the redirect can stay until that article does get written, and if you don't like waiting for that to happen, do something about it, even if it's a stub.  I'll give you a stub right now:
 * Plant ecology is the study of ecology as it relates to plants.

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Stub-template it, categorize it, bada-bing, bada-boom, problem solved. We start an article and put the proper links in.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)