Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 6

June 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2008

Goodbrush → Craig Mullins
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This redirect is based on the fact that goodbrush.com is Craig Mullins' website (which has apparently been up and down - the redir is from '06 but there's no material on the site dating from before last week. However, I do not believe that anyone is going to search for this in reference to Mullins, and should therefore be deleted.  I only found this (and two other redirects the user created to the same page) by looking at "what links here." MSJapan (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've made a stats comparison with another low-search article that I believe must stay -- which recieved 5 searches in April 08 -- and they both come up with similar search results -- since this one got 8 for that month.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Tomy Tutor → Texas Instruments TI-99/4A
The result of the debate was Kept. Term is discussed at target. If notable enough for its own article, the redirect can be converted to an article, but until then we should send people to where it's currently discussed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirect makes no sense. TT is not a TI-99/4A or even a clone of it. They are two very unique systems. Lyverbe (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Tomy Tutor - agree that there is no relation other than similar product theme.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep
 * first hit on google for Tomy Tutor "The Tutor is not a clone of the Texas Instruments TI-99/4A computer from 1981, but they have much in common - perhaps a cooperative effort?" followed by a list of similarities
 * second hit "Part kid's toy, part graphics superstar, part unknown TI-99 clone"
 * third hit on google: "In US it falls, like its cousins TI 99/8 and TI 99/4" (translated from spanish)
 * magazine from 1983: "Along with the TI 99/4A the Grandstand (US version of Tommy Tutor) uses a 16 bit processor; a Texas 99/95 chip running at 3 MHz."
 * extensive comparison of Tomy with 99/2, 99/4, 99/4A and 99/8 "The similarities of the 99/8 with the Tutor, however, are much more than one would suspect. Indeed, based on the system architecture at large, the Tutor seems to be an evolved, independent system based on the 99/8's hardware, just without Texas Instruments"
 * The products are clearly related on all the retro hardware sites I saw. Either make it into an article about the product, or add a section on the target article talking about the computer. Optional, redirect to 99/8 article --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You won't get a encyclopedic definition of the "Tomy Tutor" by being redirected to TI-99. They might somewhat be similar internally, but that is it.  I mean, my father and I are internally the same, but you cannot learn about me by reading HIS biography.  I believe someone should make separate article or at least a section in TI-99 (like Atari 8-bit family), but not a mere redirect.  -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as the Tomy Tutor is addressed in the target article. A standalone article on the TT is much more preferable, but until someone writes it, the redirect will do as a valid one. B.Wind (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

DOI → User:DOI bot/use
The result of the debate was speedy keep. { { Nihiltres | talk|log } } 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect, pretty much un-necessary ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * You haven't made clear what harm this redirect is doing. Smith609  Talk  16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross-namespace redirects are generally not allowed. It hasn't been made clear why this redirect is so valuable that it should be an exception. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As with all redirects, it makes it easier for editors to remember the link for the page, which is very difficult to remember otherwise.  It also means that links made in edit summaries will remain permanently useful, because if the target page moves, the WP:DOI redirect can be updated - avoiding creating double redirects.   My general rule for Wikipedia is "if the benefits outweigh the costs, keep it" - the costs are going to be a significant load on the server as someone goes through all the edits of User:DOI bot and replaces the links, aside from wasting my - and your - time. Smith609  Talk  16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean *Keep? ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes please! Smith609  Talk  16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, cross-namespace redirects are discouraged, but this seems usefull. Benefit outweighs cost, and don't forget WP:IAR. Talk Islander 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition against cross-namespace redirects between the Wikipedia and User spaces. In fact, due to the frequency with which essays and such are moved back and forth, many such redirects are encouraged.  Unlike redirects out of the article-space, there is no possibility of confusion on the part of our readers.  Keep because no valid reason has yet been given for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid reason to delete. There are lots of useful redirects from wikipedia space into essays and other stuff on user space, and there is consensus to keep them that way (wikipedia space actually serves as the dumping space for this sort of meta pages, and they are kept as long as they are marginally useful) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons cited by Smith609 (16:42, 6 June 2008). I also checked to see what the "Help" facility in the main menu could give me about DOI: checking only the "Help" box on the "Help" page's search form produced no hits; checking the "Template" box in addition produced lots about individual templates that have a "doi" parameter, but that's all. Digital object identifier ofered no help, but that's not the function of a main article. Editors get so little help with bots, templates, etc. that it's wrong to remove any of what little they get. Philcha (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Cross namespace redirects are only a concern for article space -> project space. Other types of cross namespace redirects are not inherently problematic. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per light-year long precedent. EJF (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just found the correct page by typing in WP:DOI. I'd imagine other folks would find this redirect useful as well. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)