Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 13

July 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 13, 2008

Wwwww → Q.E.D.
The result of the debate was Keep, but retarget to wiktionary unless Q.E.D. is actually updateded in that sense, or in case the change doesn't stick there.Tikiwont (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) This doesn't make sense to me. What does Wwwww have to do with Q.E.D.? Tavix (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See wwwww which explains the connection through the notation sometimes used at the end of a mathematical proof. Given that it's not described in the QED article, retarget to a soft-redirect to the Wiktionary page.  Rossami (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think we should send people outside of wikipedia when we have a good enough article on Q.E.D. Rather, update Q.E.D. to include 'which was what we wanted'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Meet da Robinsons → Meet the Robinsons
The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Probable vandalism via redirect; unlikely search term UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep not vandalism, if somone types that in they obviously want to be taken to Meet the robinsons.-- Serviam  (talk)  13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So when User:Dacheatcode creates redirects for every Disney movie with the word "da" intead of "the", we should keep them all? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no harm done. Tavix (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "No harm done" is no reason to keep a redirect. It must be useful, not just harmless, or it's just a waste of space. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Waste of space? How can a redirect be a waste of space? Its only like 15 bytes and if one person thinks the movie is Meet da Robinsons, then it would be useful. Tavix (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to defend this redirect, I have to disagree strongly with Mizu's assertion above. Redirects generally do have to be harmful or confusing before we delete them.  If the redirect was created in good faith, then it was presumably useful to someone even if that utility is not obvious to you or I.  As for being a waste of space, that's a null argument.  Once the redirect has been created, the space is consumed.  Deletion does not get you any space back - it's in the database forever.  In fact, deletion actually consumes slightly more space since now you've got a few more records in the database.  Rossami (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have agreed with the "no harm done" before, but now that the type-ahead feature has been implmented in the WP search box, certain redirects are harmful because they interfere with legitimate searches (in this case, for Meet Danny Wilson) - there are multiple "spaces" that can be wasted, not just databse space. I also think that allowing borderline disruptive adds like this one could encourage other disruptive behavior by the creating users.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the first comment, above, I would like to mention Jimbo's commant on a similar issue that the fact that someone could create hundreds of "low value" pages is not a reason to delete one low value page that they actually created, and it isn't even low value really, somebody might type it in.-- Serviam  (talk)   —Preceding comment was added at 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to that comment (just for my own edification). Thanks! (also, I continue to beleive this particular RdR is of negative (not low) value.UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in an email to wikiEN-I, I found it linked from the bottom of an essay, I'll see if I can find it again.-- Serviam  (talk)  17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if it were "Meet Teh Robinsons" I might agree, but "da" is not a mispelling nor is it an accepted alternate spelling of "the" anywhere but in the hip-hop community (which is clearly irrelevant to this movie). JuJube (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. However, should a notable song or book or whatever be released with the title Meet da Robinsons, do not preserve the redirect in that case.

Jeff magnum → The Dead Boys
The result of the debate was

Retarget to Jeff Mangum. Non-admin closure--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most people wanting to look for "Jeff Magnum" are really looking for Jeff Mangum. When the term "Jeff Magnum" is Googled, the first article that comes up is the Wikipedia article for Jeff Mangum. When going down that list, one can find that the entries that most often turn up are for Jeff Mangum, whose name is misspelled often as Jeff Magnum. The person whose article the current redirect links to doesn't have his own article, only a mention and a red link. Slightly Mad wanna si-ign? 02:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget per nom. -Icĕwedg Ё  (ťalķ) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)