Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 10

June 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 10, 2008

F(x)=e^x → E (mathematical constant)
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A formula, representing the exponential function, so this should be the target. This is an unlikely search term, so delete, or retarget if you think it's worthy. Cena rium (talk)  23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete algebraic functions written in equation form are not acceptable titles of articles. Furthermore, F(x) is actually the natural exponential function, the inverse of the natural logarithmic function. Clearly this is not a worthwhile redirect to the article for the constant e. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

8tas → Beşiktaş J.K.
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 6saray → Galatasaray S.K.

This redirect appears to be pointless. "8tas" is not mentioned in the article, nor does it seem the kind of thing one would search for. Kivar2 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also 6saray → Galatasaray S.K.. I have added this redirect to the discussion.  If they are well known abbreviations they should be kept. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

3.1415926535897932384626433515 → Pi
The result of the debate was delete this one, since the deleters made more sense than the keepers. Other ones can be RfD'd elsewhere if desired. Wizardman 16:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely search term. Too long. We also have 3.1415926535897932384626433515, 3.14159265358979323846, 3.1415926535... and others listed here. Cena rium (talk)  23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The long one is deleted, but I also nominate the three cited (they are orphaned in mainspace, and one of them is cited at 1000 things not to write your article about). So no close yet. Cena rium  (talk)  23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The initial source page was this one, but it breaks the MfD page, so I modified in 3.1415926535897932384626433515. Sorry for the inconvenience, Cena rium  (talk)  23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - let's invoke the Reasonability Rule here. It is unreasonable to expect search strings longer than 8 digits (3.1415926); more likely, people would be looking for 3.14. 3.1416, and 3.14159 than these absurdly long strings. Frankly, it would be better to eliminate all the redirects from articles/redirect pages with numerical names, but the shorter numerical strings would be used far too often in a search to justify removal. B.Wind (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the redirects listed here. Keep 3.14159265 and anything shorter, anything with more digits is an unlikely search term. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 09:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As with the "millionth decimal" discussion above, new editors seem to have a nasty tendency to keep creating these pages. Redirects may be a better way to prevent their recreation than salting all those pages.  Weak keep, protect and clearly link on the Talk pages that we've already considered this content and found it inapprorpiate for the encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Every combination would have to be redirected and/or protected, and the redirects are not particularly useful. Maybe if they are being recreated an entry could be added to the title blacklist for 3.1415926535 (which has already been deleted) or anything longer. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You could blacklist it but protected redirects tend to be easier to explain and to maintain than protected redlinks. Rossami (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all Redirects are cheap, and the target article makes sense. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep up to 16 digits long, as that's about as long as calculators generally accept. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, most calculators display only 8, 10, or 12 digits; computers doing the majority of calculation processes tend to limit their output to 14. In the latter case, the longer strings are created by specialized algorithms that don't actually report a number, but a string of numerals (as characters) instead. B.Wind (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Redirects are cheap, and they discourage articles by the same name.  Protect the redirects only if they are repeatedly abused.  Don't needlessly limit "wikipedia is the encylcolpedia that anyone can edit".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment Have you noticed the ... in 3.1415926535... ? We should agree on a limit, redirects like this one should be frowned upon as it breaks the pages. Cena rium  (talk)  20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Luc d'Achéry → Luc d'Achery
The result of the debate was Kept. The nominators real concern was with Acheri as seen in their June 11 nomination. As for the acute accent issue, if a source uses it, then it's a reasonable search term even if wrong. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC) This page needlessly redirects. I believe a simple notice at the top of the page for Acheri (legendary creature), which I want to move here, would be sufficient. Kivar2 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - source cited in the target article shows actual name of subject article as Lucas d'Achéry thus establishing the diacritical as part of his actual name. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest to remove the redirect as the acute accent is simply wrong in this case. His family name is derived from the village Achery where the e is not pronounced, i.e. you pronounce the village name more close to "Ash-ry". The most detailed biography so far about Luc d'Achery was published by Jeannine Fohlen in a series of scientific papers: Dom Luc d'Achery (1609-1685) et les débuts de l'érudition Mauriste, published in Revue Mabillon, first part in volume 55 (1965), pp. 149-175. On p. 152 you will find the relationship explained to the equally named village: La famille de dom Luc d'Achery, tout en prétendant « tirer son origine de la terre d'Achery-le-Mayot, au diocèse de Laon, près de Vandeuil et descendre des anciens seigneurs qui l'ont possédée avant que les surnoms fussent en usage », n'était cependant pas noble et son nom s'écrivait indifféremment avec ou sans apostrophe. Unfortunately, the acute accent in his name is to be found occasionally as non-French people are at times somewhat ignorant regarding the correct pronounciation of this name. And besides, I wouldn't consider the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1913 as a reliable source. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (author of the corresponding German article)
 * Under WP:RS, it is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and such a personal opinion to the contrary as mentioned above cannot have weight without the presentation of other reliable sources to provide a refutation. Since the Catholic Encyclopedia has been oft-cited for the past 95 years, "d'Achéry" would be a useful search term regardless of whether his family used the accent aigu or not. That, per WP:KEEP, is sufficient enough for keeping the redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above cited biography by Jeannine Fohlen is a reliable source. You want to have more reliable sources? No problem, all the following scientific publications spell the name of Luc d’Achery correctly:
 * James Westfall Thompson: The Age of Mabillon and Montfaucon. Published in The American historical review, volume 47 (1942), pp. 225-244. Quote from p. 233: Thefirst scholar-mon who attained eminence was Dom Luc d'Achery (1609-85), "the father of the Maurist erudition", who immortalized himself by the Spicilegium (Paris, 1655-67), a collection of thirteen quarto volumes of original and unpublished medieval documents, which he meticulously edited, although his health was so frail that for forty-five years he was unable to leave the infirmary of the abbey.
 * M. D. Knowles: Presidential Address: Great Historical Enterprises II. The Maurists. Published in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 9 (1959), pp. 169-187. Quote from p. 174: For almost a century, from the rise of Luc d'Achery to the death of Bernard de Montfaucon, the abbey was the scene of regular weekly gatherings of all scholarship and much of the connoisseurship of Paris and France.
 * Helen Clover translated and edited The Letters of Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1979. As the very first printed edition of Lanfranc's letters was published by Luc d'Achery, he is mentioned several times in this books. See for example p. 25, section iii. The early editions: But the effective transition from manuscript to print was the Maurist editio princeps of 1648. D'Achery based his edition on P.
 * Hubert Mordek: Kirchenrecht und Reform im Frankenreich. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1975. In his summary of the Dacheriana, a collection named after Luc d'Achery because he edited them first on p. 259, section "C. Die Dacheriana": Die Entstehung der nach ihrem ersten Herausgeber Luc d'Achery († 1685; über ihn jetzt: J. Fohlen, in: Revue Mabillon 55, 1965, S. 149-175) benannten Dacheriana fällt mit Sicherheit in die Zeit um 800.
 * Entry for d'Achery, Jean Luc (1609-85) on p. 446 of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press 1998
 * --AFBorchert (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep because it documents the pagemove of a page which has already been moved several times. The fact that others have already used the other spelling is clear evidence that its plausible.  The redirect will point those readers to the right page.  Rossami (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

2648927 → O. J. Simpson
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 01:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently OJ's prison number. This is very unlikely search term. Its not mentioned in the target article. I just cant see someone going "I found theses ramdom numbers, let me type them into Wikipedia.." If you know theses numbers wouldn't you already know it was OJ's? Redirect is not very useful.--Coasttocoast (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete pointless, not-needed. Kivar2 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were mentioned in the target, I'd remove it from the article as being too trivial. Delete pointless, out-of-context redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Irina Nikolaeva → Simon Ambrose
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article, the only connection I can find is in an article on the News of the World website:. Not useful as a redirect --Snigbrook ( talk ) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is already being discussed from June 4 as part of a large number of other redirects from the same editor here and will likely be deleted when that discussion is completed. ww2censor (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Determination of whether the redirect in question (Irina Nikolaeva) will be made pursuant to discussion being done here. The purpose of the other discussion is to determine which of a massive block of redirects should be brought for deletion discussion and how to organize it (hopefully with the blessing of Rossami, a couple of blocks will be presented here very soon). B.Wind (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - if a second citation from a reliable source reflects the potentially-growing controversy involving the two individuals, then it should be kept, but one source with nothing else to support it is insufficient to justify the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is another source: but unlikely to be more coverage, it looks like both were published on the same day (15 July 2007). --Snigbrook ( talk ) 09:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete this has now been remove from the previous discussion due to this RfD. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - at this time, Irina Nikolaeva is a non-notable ex-girlfriend (not notable because of WP:BLP1E and her one accusation of her then-boyfriend). The tempest in a teacup, if there turned out to be one, has long subsided as the incident in question was almost a year ago. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the connection between these two people is not sufficiently notable for a redirect to exist. Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Magic Boy → Magical boy
The result of the debate was Retarget I just created Shonen Sarutobi Sasuke, which appears to be the work refereed by the linked articles. Retargeted and speedy close by non-admin. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense redirect created by a banned user. PROD and speedy deletion were removed because other articles link to it, but it is not the same thing as what it redirects to --Snigbrook ( talk ) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

USB 4.0 → Universal Serial Bus
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of redirect appears nowhere in target article... and with good reason: USB 3.0 (which is mentioned in the target) is still under development. B.Wind (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete what USB 4.0 already, I don't think so. Antonio Lopez  (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable search term.  WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to redirects.  In fact, redirects are a proper solution where WP:CRYSTAL does apply.  If you are searching for something that might not exist, it is appropriate to be directed to the next best place.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Queen of Bollywood → Aishwarya Rai
The result of the debate was Re-targeted. If Queen of Bollywood survives AFD, then that's where is should go. If not, then it will be deleted as R1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Not only does this phrase appear nowhere in the target article, the nickname can apply to several Indian actresses, according to Yahoo search results. No objection if someone abitious wishes to create a dab page listing all (or many) of the "candidates," including Rai herself B.Wind (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that Queen of Bollywood doesn't exist here in Wikipedia. Time magazine calls her the Queen of Bollywood, but NPR had an article on Lata Mangeshkar as "The Queen of Bollywood Music", the Los Angeles Times dubbed Asha Bhosle as "Queen of Bollywood", and other "Queens of Bollywood" seem to include Madhuri Dixit and Kareena Kapoor... and that's just on the first page of Google results. Create Queen of Bollywood dab page and redirect The Queen of Bollywood to it. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination as I have just retargeted the redirect to new Queen of Bollywood dab page. B.Wind (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update new dab page was improperly speedily deleted less than four hours after creation. Taking Queen of Bollywood to deletion review. B.Wind (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another update - new Queen of Bollywood dab page was undeleted and has since been taken to AfD. B.Wind (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet another update - the AfD has been heatedly pursued by another editor (who seems to insist on debating every point presented). In the creation of the dab page (which has metomorphosed into a cited list article), the phrase was turned up as part of a title of a greatest hits CD by Asha Bhosle, The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, The Queen of Bollywood, which is commonly listed as "Queen of Bollywood" or "Asha Bhosle, (the) Queen of Bollywood" on commercial sites. Thus if the list article is deleted, The Queen of Bollywood should be retargeted to the name of the CD. B.Wind (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Create dab page. Why not?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay Kay Rowling → J. K. Rowling
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Phonetic spelling of initials of psudonym (her real first name is Joanne) makes as much sense as "Eff Dee Roosevelt" or "Ell Bee Johnson". Most highly unlikely as a search term. B.Wind (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC) *Delete both per nom - not useful redirects. Terraxos (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, keep per SmokeyJoe below. It's just about plausible that someone could hear Ms. Rowling's name spoken, assume it was spelled like this, and enter it as a search term. Terraxos (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * For the same reason, I'm adding Dee Bee Cooper → D. B. Cooper. B.Wind (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - makes as much sense as "George Double You Bush". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that, however, that phonetic pronunciation lead to the nickname "dubbya", so it may in fact be useful, albeit unlikely. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per those above me. We needn't phonetic spellings for every name on Earth. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A phonetic spelling of even a well known author's name is still a very unlikely search term.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 19:04, June 12, 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable search term for the young and new.  Probability of usefulness far exceeds the probability of confusion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the "official" reasons indicates this should be deleted, and number 5 on the "don't delete" list applies as well. - brenneman  06:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Aar Aar Chur Chur → Tamil language
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 10:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

redirect makes no sense - not only does the phrase appear nowhere in the target article, a Yahoo search turns up this phrase only in Wikipedia and its mirrors. B.Wind (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete unless some reasonable explanation for this redirect is provided. Terraxos (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Restricted use → Template:Non-free restricted use
The result of the debate was delete. I went and fixed the redirects of a decent number of them, so that shouldn't be an issue. Wizardman 16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-compliant image redirect. Uses improper naming format  MBisanz  talk 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Soft redirect which will not break past discussion links, but will prevent a redirected transclusion. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Erica Connery → Jennifer Douillard
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 10:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the name Erica Connery is related to the voice actress Jennifer Douillard. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The creator of this redirect alleges here that Douillard is a stage name. I can find no reliable sources substantiating that claim.  Other edits made by the same author have been mostly reverted.  Rossami (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence is provided that this is a sensible redirect. Terraxos (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - a Google search of "Erica Connery"+Jennifer yields a whopping 16 hits (four of them dealing with this RfD, eight links with YouTube with both women's names as tags for user-provided animation), none of them actually connecting the two names. It is very safe to conclude that these are two names of two unrelated women. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absolutely no proof that they're the same person. Fair field fencer  F F F  17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)