Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 13

February 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 13, 2008

Kressler → List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
 The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice to its possibly being resurrected as a disambiguation page like Owen. Redirects for discussion - The (existing) redirect might cause confusion, as it's a widely used personal name, not an invented name exclusively identified with a fictional character. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Per "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." and "The redirect might cause confusion". Completely non-notable character, the episode article does no longer exist and is unlikely to be recreated (the shorter plot summary does not mention this character, and even the old article only mentioned him/her(?) in the infobox), and my housekeeping page-blanking with the edit summary ''Blank. Non-notable one-off fictional character. There are many other fictional character with the same surname, similarly nn'' was reverted, so I'll take this here. Strong delete. – sgeureka t•c 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not articles by definition, so this injunction does not apply. This redirect was nothing ever than a redirect, and it can never be more than a redirect. – sgeureka t•c 09:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait I tend to think deleting a redirect for notability reasons violates the spirit (possibly the letter) of the injunction. Deleting it is bound to upset someone, and make the ArbCom's job harder. Once the ArbCom is finished, I would likely vote delete. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A redirect does no harm and it is not unreasonable that someone may be searching for this character by name. Ursasapien (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having taken a second look, I think this may need to go to a disambiguation page. However, a search indicates that we do not have a lot of articles to put on that page. Ursasapien (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — this is a common enough name and whatever Stargate character bears this name has no claim to precedence over the many other possible redirect targets and the possibility of a disambig page. FWIW, I see no mention of a "Kressler" at the Season 9 redirect target. One of my primary concerns about all the non-notable shite clogging up this site is about namespace. Heaps of dreck increase the need for disambiguation and taint fine articles with up-front missives such as maybe you're looking for this pop-culture turd. All of these crappy articles (and redirects) amount to a Cleavland steamer on the main article namespace. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. A redirect to a minor character on a television show is less encyclopedic, in your view, than Wikipedia's extensive coverage of filthy sex acts? Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't seem to have gotten the gist of what I said. There are many things "Kressler" could refer to. See http://www.kressler.de/ and http://www.kwminc.com/. My point is that it is a massive, and poor, assumption that someone typing "Kressler" into the wiki search box has any interest in whatever character appeared in Stargate. See Montoya for what this article could possibly be like. See also namespace and the links it offers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I have initiated about 700 household speedy deletions of surname redirects for (redlinked) real people (see WP:SU), and I would have done the same here if one of the speedy templates had applied. I already find the bureaucracy of this deletion more than striking. – sgeureka t•c 13:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment — So, some admin please delete this redirect and its worthless history and Sgeureka (or anyone) please start a surname/disambig page here. FWIW, there's a Craig Kressler mentioned on Speed skating at the 1980 Winter Olympics and United States at the 1980 Winter Olympics who is surely more notably than any Stargate character. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Uptown Clint → Bill Clinton
 The result of the debate was delete. Redirects for discussion - The redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A search for "Uptown Clint" returns 43 results, mainly in an article suggesting that Clinton's name, if he were a rapper, would be "Uptown Clint". Probable in-joke. Delete. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, before it spreads. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has forgotten to tag this redirect for deletion. No worries, I did that now. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it, but unfortunately delete, redirect serves no useful purpose, and is in no way a common nickname. EJF (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, glad you renominated it. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Radical-Dreamer (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete almost G10 speedy material... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of notability and lack of probability for searches.  Jd 027  chat 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Several redirects to List of animated television series
 The result of the debate was redirect all to animated cartoon per TheBlazikenMaster. Redirects for discussion - The existing redirects might cause confusion, as they relate to a genre, not to specific productions. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating: I really think that few people looking for most of those terms would be expecting a list, that's why I made a dabnote. People that look for something that ends with "series" want to know information about series, not a list. I'm not suggesting deletion, instead I'm suggesting all of those to be retargeted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Animated television program
 * Animated series
 * Animated TV series
 * TV cartoon
 * Animated Sitcom
 * Animated sitcom
 * TV cartoon series
 * Television cartoon series
 * Animated children's television series
 * Animated children's TV series
 * Animated program
 * Animated theatrical series
 * Cartoon show
 * The Animated Series
 * Animated television series
 * animated TV show
 * Computer-animated series
 * Computer-animated television series
 * My vote would be redirect all to animated cartoon. Yes I had to do this because no one else has replied yet. And if nobody would vote this would end in no cons., but I know that even the nomintor's vote counts as long as he votes for a damn good reason. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for Computer-animated series and Computer-animated television series which should be redirected to Computer animation. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait I think there may be a temporary injunction on all things episodey. At least that is what is said in the WP:POST.  Some of the redirects seem to qualify, even though this seems harmless (and an improvement).  If the injunction does not apply, I vote redirect to animated cartoon. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The injunction only applies to characters and episodes, not all concepts. This isn't even remotely covered by the injunction. -- Ned Scott 12:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to a single target, probably animated cartoon. (I'm not sure about The Animated Series; that might be a specific show on the Toon channel, for all I know.)  And this is doesn't look episodey to me, but only seriesy (seriesesy ... related to series).  Alternatively, those which are about animated TV serieses might redirect to that article, but it isn't here.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clemen → Patriot Games (Family Guy)
 The result of the debate was delete. Redirects for discussion - The redirect might cause confusion, as it has too many meanings to be usefully redirected to a single episode of a TV show (it is a personal name, among many other things). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Clemen -"Family Guy"" returns over three hundred thousund Google results. So delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you can write an article or a disambiguation page that should sit at Clemen, nobody is stopping you.  A red link helps noone. Neıl  ☎  12:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be mistaking me for someone else, because I have no clue what a clemen is. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why nominate the redirect for deletion? Until and unless we can replace the redirect with something useful, it's not doing any harm. "Clemen" was a slang word invented on the episode which (apologies) is apparently a slang term for female ejaculate. Better a redirect then a red link asking for vandalism. Neıl ☎  15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Al right, I get it now. Tell you what, if this nomination will end in keep, I will include information about that word in the episode article, like the sound of that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Taste/Basic taste → Taste
The result of the debate was Deleted (db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) I accidentally created the article when I found the Talk page already existed, what seems to have happened is that someone tried to move Talk:Basic taste to Talk:Taste and ended up creating Talk:Taste/Basic taste as a duplicate of Talk:Basic taste. That duplication is potentially confusing, and Taste/Basic taste doesn't help any searches, it would be better just to remove it altogether FlagSteward (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Lazy Chromers → Indigenous Australians
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an attack page by User:NawlinWiki  — Gavia immer (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Vandalism, racist. One of two edits by user.Nova Prime (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded Peter Ballard (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Jctclosed→Template:Jctint/closed
 The result of the debate was delete as unneeded. Redirects for discussion - Uncontroversial maintenance. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete-We have the own format-those colors is for Template:jctinttop only. They should not be use on exit list. And try to use one form only. The extra sockpuppet carbon copy cause schemes of evolution.-- Freewayguy ( Meet ) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant delete all those old template, and only have one name all those Jcttype is unneed and should be delete because we have Jctint/type. We dont need that many names.-- Freewayguy ( Meet ) 01:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Well, I think that we should keep these redirects for the sake of those who prefer typing "jctclosed" rather than the slightly longer "jctint|type=closed". They're not actively doing any harm, and I don't have an issue with things having multiple names, so I see no reason to delete them. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Eum, they just type ex. of closed on type in Jctint, that makes the bg automaticallly pale yellow right?-- Freewayguy ( Meet ) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if a user wants to use these, why should we prevent them from doing so? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've played around and these redirects don't seem to do what I thought they do. It looks like they merely exist as cruft created by pagemoves. So I suppose they can be deleted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:CAinttop→Template:Jctinttop
 The result of the debate was delete as unneeded. Redirects for discussion - Uncontroversial maintenance. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete-CA no longer use this format.-- Freewayguy ( Meet ) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)