Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 10

January 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 10, 2008

Jewish supremacy → Zionism
The result of the debate was retarget to David Duke. WjBscribe 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC) This is pretty clearly a non-neutral and arguably offensive redirect. The previous, somewhat more acceptable target for it was David Duke, as he wrote a book with a similar title; but according to his page, the book was actually called Jewish Supremacism (which I have now redirected there). I don't think there can be a NPOV target for this redirect, and I doubt a neutral article can be written under that title, so I suggest it be deleted and salted to prevent recreation. Terraxos (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Change link. Change it to David Duke. Dreamy   §  00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Change link to David Duke as a reasonable search term for the book. Zionism is not the same thing as Jewish supremacy. - Koweja (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

U,S, → United States
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) It has commas instead of points. It's an implausible typo Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have made this typo, so not totally implausible. Dreamy   §  22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comma and period are side-by-side. This is a very plausible typo.  Keep until we have consensus that typo-redirects are bad regardless of plausibility (which has been proposed below).  Rossami (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment This is gonna be the first redirect ending to a comma (and the second article in total). This is very bad because I proposed awb or other bots to try and correct red links caused by people putting the comma in the brackets by accident. Then we have to make an exception list or not implement this automatic correction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles are not likely to end up with this redirect, and even if they do, the bots can parse for U,S, and replace it with U.S., –Pomte 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact this has already happened, at least once. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56 11 January 2008 (GMT).
 * Further to the AWB proposal, it would be good if most, if not all, AWB rules supported exception lists. Lack of fine-grain control means that my last 100k plus AWB edits have had General Fixes turned off, arguably wasting effort. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10 11 January 2008 (GMT).

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. I'm against every typo redirect, unless the typo has become internet slang or the like. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree that this is a plausible typo. Probably a rare typo, but seems harmless. Chaz Beckett 08:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a sound-like mistake. This can happen only by wrong typing. We shouldn't be keeping these redirects. -- Nips (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your all gay → B3ta
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft — Gavia immer (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious vandal redirect. Delete immediately Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete Why you didn't nominate it for speedy immediately? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's gay. → Gay
The result of the debate was retarget to Gay. WjBscribe 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Unnecessary redirect Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete It has a point at the end :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Gay. The edit history shows that a relatively new editor attempted to create an article on this topic and inadvertantly duplicated content.  Redirects like this are helpful at consolidating such efforts and keeping other editors from repeating the mistake.  Rossami (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

HaxEd by Public Transport → LOL
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Vandal redirect. Delete this Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * What evidence do you have that this was a "vandal redirect"? I reviewed the contributor's edit history and found no evidence of overt vandalism.  Rossami (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Artists named lol → LOL
The result of the debate was retarget to Lol (disambiguation). WjBscribe 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Created as a redirect to the former disambiguation article LOL. Should be deleted Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Keep. The edit history shows that at least one entry on the original disambiguation page came from this page before it was merged and redirected to the final disambiguation page.  However, revert to the version which pointed to Lol (disambiguation) which includes all the "people named Lol".  The current target page does not discuss any of the people mentioned in history.  Rossami (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ial internet acronym → LOL
The result of the debate was retarget to IAL. WjBscribe 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Unnecessary redirect, unlikely to be typed Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Retarget to IAL, the disambiguation page where this TLA is actually explained. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawl (sp) → LOL
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Unnecessary redirect, unlikely to be typed Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Delete. There is already a Lawl. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to Jimmy Wales
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Whale → Jimmy Wales
 * Jimmy of Wales → Jimmy Wales

These are both joke redirects (in my opinion at least). Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is it so unthinkable that someone will type in "Whale" instead of "Wale" after hearing his name in conversation? They sound they same!
 * Delete Jimmy of Wales as improbably search term, Keep Jimmy Whale as reasonable search term. - Koweja (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot understand how anyone can make such "errors", it seems more like incredibly bad puns to me (whoever made them). Said: Rursus ☻ 09:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like Jimmy of Wales is your invention >_> --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, was it? I've must have been drunk or sleepwalking. That's a bad-quality certification for those stupid redirects. Remove them! Said: Rursus ☻ 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that make it a db-author candidate? --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Neutral this may be presumed to come from here - oh sorry Rursus... Rich Farmbrough, 11:02 11 January 2008 (GMT).
 * Delete both. Unlikely search terms, possible attack in the former case.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jimmy Whales is a logical search term, but I don't think "Whale" is close enough to be legitimately searched for.  The second one, though, not even close.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I have no problem with typos in names usually, but this is outside the limits of a normal mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both highly unlikely anyone will search for either of these. Jimmy Whales maybe, but not Jimmy Whale. Hut 8.5 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sad Ham → Saddam Hussein
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Joke redirect Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete as confirmed vandalism. (See the original contributor's username and edit history.)  Rossami (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as vandalism -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it would be different if it was Sad Hus, but his last name doesn't even begin with Ham. So yeah, delete away.

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

Redirects to Wikipedia
The result of the debate was no consensus on The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and Why Wikipedia is so great, these default to keep. Delete the rest. WjBscribe 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC) All of these are either incomprehensible, unbelievably self-referential, or meaningless.


 * Wikipedia fan page → Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia is the Best → Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia → Wikipedia
 * Search From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia → Wikipedia
 * A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! → Wikipedia
 * This website → Wikipedia
 * Why Wikipedia is so great → Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia redirect → Wikipedia
 * The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit → Wikipedia

Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs)


 * Delete all per nom -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Why Wikipedia is so great because it documents the pagemove of one of our earliest meta-pages about the project. The page creation predated the creation of the separate namespaces. The move predated the function that now moves the history when moving the title. Given the nature of this particular page, there are likely to be external links to it (and there are definitely many internal links throughout the project history). Abstain on the rest though I'll disagree with the nomination - they are perfectly comprehensible and the history shows that they were created in good faith. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Some people are doing mistakes unintentionally every day :). -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Why Wikipedia is so great. I think this may need to be kept for the edit history (for GFDL complicance). Perhaps an admin could merge the old edit history into Why Wikipedia is so great. --Zundark (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all mostly harmless. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03 11 January 2008 (GMT).
 * Delete "this website" because it wouldn't be compatible on websites like answers.com reusing Wikipedia's material, no opinion on the rest.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all except This website as a mostly harmless in-joke. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - meaningless joke redirects. Nobody searching for encyclopedic content will type any of these into the search box-- Cailil   talk 12:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as one of Wikipedia's more prominent slogans. Weak Keep Search From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, since it's plausable someone may see that after a search and copy-paste it into the search bar itself. Delete A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! because it's not the Wikipedia slogan.  Delete This website as a self-reference.  Delete the rest as nonsensical redirects.  And have I mentioned I hate these mass nominations?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. For the previous discussion about Why Wikipedia is so great, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 12. As a result of that discussion, it was changed to point to Wikipedia rather than Why Wikipedia is so great. --Zundark (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Why Wikipedia is so great for history reasons, and The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit because that is Wikipedia's slogan, delete the rest as useless. Hut 8.5 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't the history of Why Wikipedia is so great be merged into Why Wikipedia is so great?--UsaSatsui (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * History-merge doesn't solve all the problem on a page this old. History merge satisfies GFDL and internal links can be updated but deleting the redirect will also break all the external links.  That page used to be a fairly heavily referenced page describing both the strengths and weaknesses of the wiki concept.  A number of early researchers investigating the concept of social software linked to this page.  (I know because I first found Wikipedia by following one of those links.)  Rossami (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This website as it can be likely search term, and A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! as it's a phrase used by Wikipedia; Delete the rest as they are point of view, or something unlikely. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to Uncyclopedia
The result of the debate was keep Kitten huffing, delete the rest. WjBscribe 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Monster → Uncyclopedia
 * Kitten huffing → Uncyclopedia
 * Kitten Huffing → Uncyclopedia
 * AAAAA → Uncyclopedia

Joke redirects. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Inappropriate redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all redirects based on Uncyclopedia article topics. Salt if necessary.  Rossami (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the kitten huffing ones as that is well and truly an Uncyclopedia invention and some people will be looking it up on Wikipedia so they should at least be directed to Uncyclopia rather than directed nowhere at all. However AAAAA is a little too generic and to be honest I have never heard of the Wikipedia Monster so I cannot vouch for keeping those two. JayKeaton (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all except kitten huffing, which should go to a section. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04 11 January 2008 (GMT).
 * Delete all except possibly kitten huffing (I have no opinion on that one), per precedents with 4chan memes not redirecting to that article. Definitely delete AAAAA, could mean other things.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all as important un-articles with no other real meaning, except Wikipedia Monster which I never heard of. They are probably searching for them in the wrong place, so we can harmlessly redirect them out of here. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Kitten huffing. Keep or make into a disambig "AAAAA".  Both are pretty significant uncyclopedia memes.  Delete the last one unless it can be shown that someone would conceivably search for it here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I believe they're harmless, and if they weren't there we'd probably get someone trying to make a kitten huffing article here. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless there is independent mention of "kitten huffing" or any other one of Uncyclopedia's articles in one of the sources. Reginmund (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)