Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 28

March 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2008

Wild Horses (American band) → Wild Horses (American rock band)
The result of the debate was redirect to dab page at Wild Horses as described by B.Wind. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned redirect; will also cause confusion since there is more than one American band with this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Convert to a disambiguation article. Orphan is not the problem, Since we have at least two US bands we need a disamb article. I would prefer if we rename file to Wild Horses (band) and we include the UK band as well. I think the best is to create the disamb Wild Horses (band) and redirect Wild Horses (American band) there. Then we can add a for template to each one of the bands. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC) see below -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There's already a dab page at Wild Horses which lists the two American bands and the British band with this name. I don't think we need two dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, it seems we may need. At least one person searched for Wild Horses (American band) and if I was aware of a band called Wild Horses, I would type Wild Horses (band) as a first option. I have in mind an example that shows that sometimes we create two disamb pages. Check Papandreou and George Papandreou. Another option is to retarget the article to Wild Horses. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean re-target Wild Horses (American band) to Wild Horses? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be an option.. yes. Even if i prefer the creation of a supporting Wild Horses (band) as i described above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC) see below -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there are two American bands by that name, retarget redirect in question to Wild Horses dab page and create Wild Horses (band) redirect with the same target as a likely search term. It is bad form to have two dab pages with essentially the same purpose. B.Wind (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Change redirect per B.Wind; that would make things easy to find through search. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I created Wild Horses (band) per WP:BOLD -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Protection Technology → StarForce
The result of the debate was no consensus/keep for now. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) The reason it is currently redirecting is because Protection Technology is the name of the company that makes StarForce. This, however, needlessly blurs the scope of the article, and makes it impossible to use redlinks for a company article on the StarForce page, as it is now a circular redirect. Furthermore, "protection technology" is also a generic phrase and, in lieu of an actual article by that name, a redirect to a specific product does not seem appropriate. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom to restore redlink. I'd also make sure Protection Technology is on the list of requested articles. B.Wind (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and remove the blue link from StarForce. If PT had more products than this I'd say give it an article, but StarForce appears to be the only article mentioning this company- in fact, PT's website is star-force.com. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and since StarForce is practically the only public-facing part of the company, nearly all relevant searches will be for "starforce" and not for "protection technology" which is why the redirect isn't particularly useful. If the redirect remains, the question then becomes whether the article should include a company bio and other details not specific to StarForce, which I personally think is off-topic. I think search results for "protection technology" that would be more in line with a generreadership are, well, see for yourself: There are several good candidates that could serve as the target for this redirect, but none of them, including StarForce, are really definitive. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on this, dab to those candidates.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stick with keeping the redirect; it seems like the targets of a dab would be fire protection or copy protection, and I expect "protection technology" wouldn't be that common of a search term. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep if it's the name of the company. As soon as there is something else legitimate to disambig to, do that. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

"Retribution" by Jillian Hoffman → Retribution (novel)
The result of the debate was delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely search item. It has the author in the title Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Let's see here: improperly named (with quotation marks), longer name than necessary, presentation similar to that of a promotion, misspelled first name of the author... Jilliane Hoffman has an article with an active Wikilink to the target article; Retribution is a dab page with an active Wikilink to the target. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per B.Wind; I'd say maybe keep if the author's name wasn't misspelled and the title quoted, but as it is, I don't think any search is going to find this. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

'Greater Germany' → Großdeutschland
The result of the debate was delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This one has quotes. Normal redirect without quotes exists. I couldn't speedy deleted because I was created 2 years ago. Case similar to many other that has been nominated for deletion and finally done. Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Improper title; "Greater Germany" would be more likely title to be inserted in search rectangle (but is equally malformed as an article/redirect name). This one should go quickly. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; I'll also point out that Greater Germany (minus quotes) is already a redirect to the target. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nobody puts single quotes around search terms, do they? Stifle (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)