Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 23

June 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 23, 2008

Temple of the Crystal Skull → Indiana Jones franchise
The result of the debate was Retarget to Indiana Jones Adventure. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Redirected to Indiana Jones franchise page for the time being, but probably not notable so could be deleted until sources confirmed to back it up. [Jam] [talk] 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Implausible redirect.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep It most certainly does not fail WP:CRYSTAL, 1) That film has a definite release date and 2) That doesn't apply to redirects anyway. People searching for this iwll want to be redirected to the film itself, rather than this, so retarget to that.-- Serviam  (talk)  19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me - could you perhaps provide some sources here for this film? There was absolutely nothing provided on the page when it was created, hence its nomination for deletion or retargeting.  [Jam] [talk] 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Tokyo DisneySea. — xDanielx  T/C\R 02:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Indiana Jones Adventure, same reason as below (it is a theme park ride by this name). Terraxos (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull → Indiana Jones franchise
The result of the debate was Retarget to Indiana Jones Adventure. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Redirected to Indiana Jones franchise page for the time being, but probably not notable so could be deleted until sources confirmed to back it up. [Jam] [talk] 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It just feels like someone could type it in by mistake to me.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Indiana Jones Adventure. There's a theme park attraction called "Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Crystal Skull" at Tokyo DisneySea which is covered in that article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Indiana Jones Adventure per ColdFusion650; that's presumably what this redirect refers to. Terraxos (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shutnt generator → Shunt generator
The result of the debate was no consensus. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Exists only because the original article was saved under an implausible typo Bongomatic (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Plausibel typo, many people look at the keyboard rather than the screen when typing, that's why it exists.-- Serviam  (talk)  19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly find it hard to see how this is a plausible typo. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't the fact that the article was originally saved under that name prove that it's a plausible typo? -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every typo that occurs is a "plausible typo." For example, if you shift your right hand on the home row, "typo" becomes "tu[p". Should there be redirects for all such typos? Bongomatic (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes of course there should. We don't pre-emptivly create them but once they're created why on earth would we delete them? How does wikipedia gain from deleting them? We don't. How do we gain from keeping them? If somebody accidentaly hits the wrong key, they get taken straight to the article rather than to having to type out again.-- Serviam  (talk)  15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not plausible typo. Re "how does Wikipedia gain from deletion?": My answer is that a certain amount of common sense should be applied to decide each case on its merits. If this is kept, why don't I increase my edit count by creating other silly redirects? It would be hard for you to know if I was making serious suggestions, or making a "joke", or just being troublesome. Therefore, IMHO we need to judge each case on its merits and delete undeserving cases. --Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a plausible typo...if you hit the wrong key accidentaly you'll be taken stright to the article you want. Obviously the creator did hit the wrong key accidentaly-- Serviam  (talk)  13:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that it was originally created at the misspelling demonstrates that it's a plausible typo.  As Serviam said, we don't preemptively create such redirects but once they are created in good faith, the costs of deleting them are greater than the costs of ignoring them.  Yes, that puts the burden on us to determine which are good faith and which are not.  That's our job here.  I see no evidence that this one was created in anything other than good faith.  Rossami (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)