Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 23

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

Keiko armor → Bōgu
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - requested by creator (WP:CSD).  So Why  21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This must be a mistake. There's no such Kendo armor. See User talk:LordAmeth. Oda Mari (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. As per nom. There is no such thing as "keiko armor" as a distinct type of armor, nor as a synonym for bôgu. Assuming that the reference to "keiko armor" refers to 稽古, meaning practice or training, it is still an incorrect description, as the same armor used for practice is used for competition as well. Also, I created the redirect originally, though under what logic I cannot remember; does it count more strongly if the article's creator calls for its deletion? LordAmeth (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Since you're the only major contributor (the other one corrected a double-redirect), it can be speedily deleted under G7 criteria. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Harmful Rdr. I know nothing abt the subject matter, but i can vividly foresee some ignoramus working on the Keiko Dab, finding the Rdr, adding it to the text of Bōgu, and making an entry for it on the Dab. Because i'm the ignoramus who misled our readers by doing all those things. --Jerzy•t 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per above. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged with db-author. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry i failed to suggest G7; i remembered "only" rather than "only major". --Jerzy•t 02:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Layer (electronics) → Polymer
 The result of the debate was Close, no longer a redirect. Glass  Cobra  11:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) A layer and a polymer aren't the same thing. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there is not a stub about what is a layer in electronics. I try to create it. You can also improve and expand it. The idea was to call attention about the need of the article. --Mac (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't how wikipedia works. If you want to create a stub, create a stub.  Alternatively, you could request the article.  I'm not sure that the idea of using layers in electronics needs its own article - would it be better to expand the relevant section of Printed circuit board?  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Project namespace → Project namespace
The result of the debate was Delete. Glass  Cobra  11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Awkward CNR that does not link to content, no historical links to preserve.  MBisanz  talk 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Anyone who knows that there's a project namespace can find it, and anyone who doesn't shouldn't be getting this result back in a search of the article space.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 20:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem users → Requests for comment
The result of the debate was Delete. Glass  Cobra  11:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Rather pointy CNR that does not link to content and is not needed for historical purposes.  MBisanz  talk 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Inappropriate.  Not even the best potential target.   --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has a long history from 2003. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's inappropriate, and it has a tiny number of incoming links.  I don't see the relevance of its history - we're here to help decide how wikipedia should be now.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of view forking → Content forking
The result of the debate was No consensus. Cenarium Talk  15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

CNR to the projectspace, does not link to content, not needed for historical purposes.  MBisanz  talk 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the redirect because I attempted to search for content forking with "point of view forking". I simply thought it would be helpful to people who had difficulty finding that page. I understand that cross-namespace linking is discouraged, but since wikipedia's searching facilities are piss-poor, I figure any redirect helps. I'm not emotionally attached to the redirect. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I might also add that since content forking redirects to the same place, maybe if this one goes, that one should go with it...? Fresheneesz (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * POV fork too. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say all should be deleted personally. Yes, I'm conflicted as to how to handle these things with our poor search engine.  MBisanz  talk 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was clearly created in good faith and is not in the way of any actual article content.  I don't see potential for confusion here.  The demonstrated benefit to editors outweighs the theoretical costs of being a CNR.  Make sure the redirect is tagged appropriately, though.  Rossami (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Readers searching the article space should get this in the results.  Anyone who knows what a POV fork is knows how to find the WP: namespace.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You have way too much confidence in the functioning of our search engine.  Granted, it's better than it used to be but that's not saying much.  Rossami (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The quality of the search engine isn't relevant. Whatever pros and cons the search system has, it's helpful to let people choose whether or not they want results from the WP: namespace.  CNRs stop that.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Anyone who knows what a POV fork is knows how to find the WP: namespace" - the whole point of the redirect is so that people that *don't* know what a POV fork is can find it. Your argument is not in your favor. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as acceptable cross-namespace redirect: the vast majority of uses will be Wikipedia-related, so it's unlikely to cause confusion with article content. Terraxos (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture tutorial → Picture tutorial
The result of the debate was Delete. Glass  Cobra  11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Unlikely CNR, could better be directed to an article on tutorials and there is no history to preserve  MBisanz  talk 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - cross namespace, and not helpful. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - improper redirect: mainspace is for mainspace content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Diabeetus → Diabetes mellitus
The result of the discussion was Keep I have a hard time buying that this meme is a useful redirect, but meh. I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC) At first, I was willing to let this one slide since it's been deleted so many times and it was finally recreated by an admin. However, I should note that there are no reliable sources that use this spelling; it's nowhere near as famous as, say, nucular, so it's not a likely search term. Furthermore, the first hit on Google for "Diabeetus" is Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I doubt the usefulness of this redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Reliable sources aren't needed for a redirect. It's a roughly phonetic spelling of the way Wilford Brimley pronounced "diabetes" in a commercial. It has become an internet meme, as evidenced by the ED page. The redirect used to point to Brimley's page, but this redirect is less likely to have BLP implications, and is more appropriate. I've added the template to the page, since it's protected. seresin ( ¡? )  02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like keeping the redirect is a good idea as it will deter creation of the meme. XF Lawtalk at me 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an Internet meme; see for example http://images.google.com/images?q=Diabeetus. It should stay as a redirect to the actual disease as there really isn't a more appropriate place to point it to. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even without the meme implications, it's a plausible misspelling.  And the comparison to nucular doesn't quite hold up to me...Nucular is an article.  Redirects have different standards. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, redirects are cheap, and this one could help if someone genuinely doesn't know what it means (having discovered it due to the internet meme) and doesn't know the correct spelling. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)