Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 29

May 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 29, 2008

Operating systems derived from MS-DOS → DOS
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This came from an against-consensus move; with such a long and wordy name, it doesn't seem useful as a search aid. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * From the pagehistory of the current redirect, from the deleted pagehistory of the page it was moved back to and from the Talk page discussion, it appears that this was a good-faith attempt to move the page. That attempt was ultimately overturned but the change to the name is part of the article's history.  Leaving the redirect as part of the documentation of that move (and as a way to catch any inbound links that were created during the months while it was at the other title) is generally accepted.  This redirect doesn't seem to be doing any harm.  Unless there's a better reason to delete it, keep because redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  Rossami (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was as at that title for only 7 hours and half --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this, the page was moved from DOS to MS-DOS Compatible Operating Systems at 10:01, 2 January 2008. According to here, it was moved back at 00:00, 25 March 2008.  Rossami (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check that title- it was moved and moved back twice. That's a different redirect. I moved it back in the next edit, see here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that Rossami linked to a talk page discussion, but this particular move was never discussed on Talk:DOS --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that it was moved twice - once in January and once in May, both quickly reverted. And those titles were close enough that I mistook them for the same move.  My apologies.  The Talk page discussion was about the Jan move.  Rossami (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because, erm, I actually like the title. I would probably use it to create links to the DOS page. It would make for a good article name, so I would just keep it there, so other people won't try to create it on the same place. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.D.: The RfD notice on the talk page will prevent good faith editors from re-creating the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages of deleted pages get deleted as G8, regardless of whether they have past XfD notices or not. That being said, when an editor goes to create the page, the deletion log would the page as having been deleted before, so that would probably do the trick. Wait a minute, I misread what you were saying somehow to refer to if it were deleted as opposed to staying as a redirect...strike that. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Lifespan → Template:Lifetime
The result of the debate was Turn in to soft redirect for now, due to lack of other suggestions/participation in general. If someone thinks the problem still exists after that, they are free to renominate. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unused old redirect. None uses it. May cause problems to have many redirects to Lifetime. Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This redirect was previously kept as a result of a TfD discussion from July 2005. Editors at the time pointed out that you would not know if the redirect was being used or not since it is always used via substitution.  What has changed since then?  Rossami (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am trying to simplify things around Lifetime. Moreover, for subst: we have Lived. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect to not break old discussion links, but to discourage as a true template redirect. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a problem with the redirect, Ned's proposal could be a reasonable solution. I'm not sure if I understand the problem, though? – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem either, but I'll go with that Ned says --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Alternate vs Alternative templates
The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just plain word ignorance or mental laziness... they redirect to the proper templates, but any editors herein should understand the distinction between alternate (cyclic) and alternative (other), or we'd be better off without them editing anything! //Fra nkB 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:R from alternate language
 * 2) Template:R from alternate name
 * 3) Template:R from alternate spelling
 * Keep as foreseeable search item, for "alternate" has multiple meanings, one of which is "alternative." B.Wind (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep &mdash; this appears to be a set of nominations in bad faith based on frustration of an editor with the perceived stupidity of other editors rather than a valid reason for deletion. The user has prominently stated on User:Fabartus that he has left Wikipedia out of frustration with deletionists.  Notice of departure-in-anger is dated 18 April; therefore, all subsequent edits should be considered suspect. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 09:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. BWind is correct that the word "alternate" has multiple acceptable meanings in English.  Rossami (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, people will keep making this mistake, the redirects just help them to label pages. yeah, people are lazy sometimes, that's why we have some silly redirects on templates, like the speedy templates having lots of different names for the same template, so people can use the one they remember better. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As Above Prom3th3an (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am sure I used at least one of them in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep The sense of alternate as meaning a second option is not a new invention. Among other things, in HTML, it's referred to as alternate text, not alternative text.  Also, anyone who tries to persuade me to their point of view by telling me that anyone who doesn't agree with them is either ignorant or lazy, well, that person won't get very far with me.  Insult is a poor substitute for argument.  I hold out hope that in my 4,000 edits is something worth keeping, despite Fra's opinion of me as an editor. --SSBohio 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Suicide mission → Suicide attack
The result of the debate was turn in to article - Keep in mind I will be leaving the redirect in place until then, so the author can get proper attribution for the content by making the edit themselves. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion: a suicide mission is NOT synonymous with a suicide attack. A suicide mission refers to an operation which faces such long odds of success that it's likely the person(s) undertaking it will be killed. A suicide attack refers to an action in which the attacker's death is inseparable from the action itself (i.e., where the attacker's death is a natural result of the attack itself). Examples of the former would be the Battle of Thermopylae and the 54th Massachusetts' assault on Fort Wagner in the Civil War. Examples of the latter would be kamikaze. PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep foreseeable search item, but an article covering suicide missions would be better. In this case deletion is the worse option. B.Wind (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that we don't already have an article on this military term. I was even more surprised at the vandalism in the deleted versions of this page.  Keep as a redirect in order to preempt a recurrence of the vandalism but encourage someone to overwrite it either with a better target or with actual encyclopedic content.  Remember that anyone can overwrite the redirect - it does not have to be deleted first.  Rossami (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that the most popular usage nowadays is "suicide bombing", I searched google a bit, and I found it used in the context of Iraq War with the meaning of "suicide bombing" on the Telegraph, on The Guardian , and on salon.com , and on the context of trying to suicide bomb a restaurant on London . I think that the meaning proposed by the nominator should be introduced on the target article into its own section, with the redirect re-targeted there. If the section gets enough references and size, it should be split out into what is now just a redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect since the target is appropiate, see my comment above. A stub or a disambiguation page can be created with both meanings. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nom's reasoning. Common usage of "suicide mission" seems to point to any mission where the person or people involved not only have a low chance of success, but a high likelihood of not surviving it. The difference is intending to kill oneself versus putting oneself at great risk. I don't think putting this into "suicide attack" would be appropriate, as it's not necessarily related to attacks. A separate article would be better, but I'm not sure this would go beyond a dicdef. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the nom's rationale, but I'm sure we can retarget to something... -- Ned Scott 04:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete . I agree with the nomination here, the target article does not cover what the redirect title is saying it will cover, therefore the redirect is misleading, and can be confusing, which is a reason to delete a redirect according to point 2 in the WP:R section. Although Rossami is right in that redirects don't need to be deleted in order to create an article, I think a redlink will do more to encourage the creation of a something better. The present situation, with a redirect pointing to something else, is worse than useless. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted User:Sjakkalle/Suicide mission in my userspace as a start for something which could eventually replace the redirect. However, after Googling a bit on the term, I have realized that "suicide mission" is often used synonymously with "suicide attack", and as such, the redirect is not as unhelpful as I thought. Still, the difference does suggest that it should eventually be replaced with an article. Any help at developing the material I have now to a reasonable article would be greatly appreciated. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I !voted above to keep as a redirect, but a stub covering all meaning is also ok --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't even think of the fuel truck incident as an example, but it's a good one. Keep the stub proposed by Sjakkalle, it looks like a good one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stubify - retarget to Sjakkalle's stub above. While 'suicide mission' is sometimes used synonymously with 'suicide attack', it has a slightly different meaning as well; it would be best if this went to an article explaining that, with a prominent link to suicide attack for people who are looking for that subject. Terraxos (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AshlÅ“ Simpson → Ashlee Simpson
The result of the debate was delete. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also including Ashlœ Simpson and Ashlœ in this discussion.

Redirects from unlikely typos. No incoming links. Created in 2005, so they don't qualify for CSD R3. I just can't realistically imagine anyone actually typing any of these into a search. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as redirects from implausible typos. Terraxos (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - will an admin consider a 3-year-old redirect "recently" enough created to invoke CSD R3? B.Wind (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's up to the admin, of course, but "recently" is a relative term. Recorded human history spans some 5,000 years, so 2005 is pretty recent by that standard!  ;)  Russ (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete speedy or not, they are still implausible redirects.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Um, this is the English Wikipedia, I don't think anybody is going to seach for this many special characters when they can just type in her name. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unlikely typo, notice that the "languages" list at the left does not include any article with those spellings! --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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