Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 5

August 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2009

Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)
The result of the discussion was delete all as useless redirects from deeply unlikely search terms. ~ mazca  talk 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC) All of these are worthless as redirects. They don't serve any sort of purpose, and they are all very strange variations in most cases. Mushroom Kingdom is a redirect itself, so that makes these even more worthless. TTN (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (links to redirect)
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
 * Delete all as implausible search terms and are completely useless. Tavix | Talk  04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unlikely search terms. If you have to search for something with "(super mario rpg)" in the name, then you know to search for "Super Mario RPG" and don't need the redirect. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 05:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

David Filkin
The result of the discussion was Keep. The redirect may be useful because this variant is used in Hansard. Ruslik_ Zero 15:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Was a redirect to the British politician Geoffrey Filkin, which is an unlikely target for this search term DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Geoffrey Filkin, Baron Filkin (links to redirect)
 * Delete. We don't need a redirect for every possible combination of a person's given names, especially ones by which he is never referred.  young  american  (wtf?) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Listed as David Filkin on Hansard (the official record of the UK parliament) so it seems a reasonable redirect. Tassedethe (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - he is (or was, does a divorce end the avuncular relationship?) my uncle and I can honestly say that I've never heard him called David by anyone, or seen him called "David" by any source other than that Hansard one, which is inherently wrong as he has never been Mr anyone in parliament, only a lord. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a mistake but it's not an unreasonable one. As his full name is David Geoffrey Nigel Filkin people who did not know him may think he is called by his first name. Nigel Filkin would be clearly an unreasonable redirect; he's not known by that nor is it normal to refer to someone by a middle and surname only. I found some published references in the Daily Mail, The People and Sunday Express, referring to him as David Filkin. Tassedethe (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, good research. I spotted another error in the court document you linked, as Geoff was not my aunty Liz's first husband, but her second. There is another David Filkin, who is an author and television producer, who would be the natural subject of the page David Filkin. DuncanHill (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Prithee
The result of the discussion was Keep as new article. JHunterJ (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Please (links to redirect)


 * → Please JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Users entering "prithee" in the search box would be better served by reaching the search results than by reaching the "Please" disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Retarget - both to Plea. No entries on the Please disambiguation page could be referred to as "prithee" or "pray thee", however both terms are polite forms of pleas. Users would not be better served by reaching search results because the Plea article is the most likely intended target. Neelix (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, someone entering "prithee" is more likely looking for a half-remembered Monkees song title "I Prithee (Do Not Ask For Love)" than for the legal term "plea". Plea does not mention "prithee" nor "pray thee". They are polite pleas, but not polite legal pleas. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The song by The Monkees is not notable enough to have its own article and is not referred to simply as "Prithee". Plea is a much more appropriate target. Wikipedia guidelines do not require that the target article include the term in question; it suffices that the term is relevant to the subject of the article. Neelix (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "prithee" isn't relevant to the subject of the Wikipedia article on the legal term though. "Prithee" has nothing to do with the legal term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment, if it remains, a better option might be a soft redirect to Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prithee (not sure if that would make sense for "pray thee" as well). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Internal solutions are preferred to external ones. Considering the etymological importance of the term "prithee", it would be possible to create an article about the word using such sources as the following:, , . Neelix (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But correct solutions are preferred to incorrect ones. (I'm not aware of a preference for internal solutions, but don't doubt that it may exist.) If an article were written, then the situation would be different. I believe the non-article redirect should be deleted or pointed to Wiktionary. The future writer of the article would not be impeded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prithee is now an article and pray thee redirects to it. Neelix (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:TLDR
The result of the discussion was Keep. Some editors participating in this discussion seem to confuse redirects with templates. Both TLDR and Tldr are just redirects, and they can not be unencyclopedic. In addition only main space articles should be encyclopedic, not maintenance templates or redirects to them. One should also take into account that editors are unlikely to know what was used—Very long template itself or redirect to it (the template itself does not contain any messages like "Too long, didn't read"), therefore I find the argument that they will be offended unpersuasive. As to civility I do not think calling an article too long is uncivil, it is just statement of a fact. I want to remind that there is an essay called Too long, didn't read. Taking into account that XFD discussions are not votes and that no persuasive arguments based on policy were advance for their deletion, my decision is "keep". Ruslik_ Zero 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Also Tldr. Calling an article "Too long, didn't read", an internet slang term, is quite rude. Very long has enough aliases anyway. Apoc2400 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Template:Very long (links to redirect)


 * Delete. Unneeded and unnecessarily rude. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I have never seen a use of this acronym that wasn't a serious breach of the wikipedia's civility policies. Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- WP users are less likely to read long, disorganized content. The abbreviation is apt, and the curtness of the expression will motivate editors swiftly to enhance the readability of sprawling articles.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful for identifying articles people DR because they are TL. Mike R (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Use of either or  is extremely unencyclopedic - using such terminology for an article would be defining it to be something we shouldn't read, so why include it?  I respectfully disagree with the two above opposes that it will encourage editors to "fix" an article; I think it will likely just piss people off.  We might as well have speedy templates called . ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Agree with Amory above. Use very long when needed. Jafeluv (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Badenburg
The result of the discussion was no longer applicable. Original target deleted and it's been re-targeted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Another title inappropriately hijacked by a bit of fiction. See, for example: Commons:Category:Badenburg: a real place, a real castle. This needs to be a reality-oriented title. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → 1632 places (links to redirect)

I've cut some of the fictional usages:, ,. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Moot — target deleted and redirect now a disambig; I'll untag it and consider this closed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Elton Hercules
The result of the discussion was Deleted by Redvers as CSD R3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I would like for this redirect to be maintained and protected. Someone else previously marked this for speedy deletion. I believe it was not nominated in good faith, because the one (User:Ryulong) marking dozens/hundreds of my good faith redirects has told me he is simply marking any redirect I've made, which says to me he is assuming bad faith by me, not even reviewing the quality of what he is tagging. Also: the #3 it was nominated for does not fit the description, so this tag (and many others) are in contravention with RfD policy. This does not fit ANY of the 9 reasons. In this case, User:Black Kite deleted it the first time. I recreated it and spoke to him that I would like to 'hold on' and discuss it first. It was immediately deleted again and I was threatened that creating this is disruptive and that I would be blocked if I did it again.
 * → Elton John (links to redirect)

I am recreating it, but not being subversive: I have tagged it with the same tag I think it had previously (I can't tell for sure since there's no history, a mod may be able to verify) and tagging the 'holdon' I never got to add because of the rapid deletion, a RfD tag as per policy here, creating a talk page explanation for 'holdon'. In case both are censored for a third time and I am blocked from editing, I will leave the evidence in question abbreviated here: 'Elton Hercules' are 'forenames'. Forenames should be able to be redirected to people's names. I do not think this is disruptive. It is listed in notable places such as Debrett's right here. I have confidence this reference proves my point for Elton Hercules in the very least, and furthermore, for pretty much any collection of forenames in particular. I will not be misled by a misuse of google search parameters to attempt to prove a negative. For an example of a similar redirect, see Barack Hussein. How often does one see that without Obama showing up on the same page? If one didn't find a page with 'Barack Hussein' that did not also have 'Obama' it would not prove nobody ever omitted Obama in reference. Tyciol (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt any English speaker would search for Elton Hercules when looking for Elton John. His middle name is only used rarely - when getting knighted, married etc.  None of his publicity features a middle name.  It is not true (counter to what you said to me previously)  that there is an English knight called Hercules - we don't use middle names in that way.  If someone is not known by their middle name (some English speaking people prefer to use the middle name rather than the first name, as for example S. Epatha Merkerson), then we would not say that they could be Sir Hercules instead of Sir Elton.  The Barrack Hussain example you give above is misleading - there was a great deal of controversy about Obama's middle name and what it might signify, which brought it to the public's attention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Plausible and redirects are cheap. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just to be clear that was the thrust of above discussionElen of the Roads (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Implausible Jeni  ( talk ) 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Name fragments aren't a good idea. To take an extreme example, if I type in Martin Luther I do not want to be redirected to Martin Luther King. Random redirects hide the search page and are worse than nothing. All this has been explained to the proposer ten times already... Xanthoxyl (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Able Juice (Lists of Mario characters, enemys and items)
The result of the discussion was delete, a highly unlikely search term that has graced us with its presence for far too long. ~ mazca  talk 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC) This is a useless redirect that doesn't even make sense. TTN (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Nuke this with a vengeance. If this were only a few weeks old, this would be a no-doubt CSD R3 (implausible typo/misnomer) speedy deletion candidate, but this was created in 2005! Here's hoping a bold admin will put this one out of its misery very soon. B.Wind (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy it anyway. Sheesh. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a one-off item which fails notability, and is unlikely to ever be covered in depth in the target article due to these notability issues. --Taelus (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)