Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 10

July 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2009

Civilizations and the Future
The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete articles originally created by known vandal, attributing the concepts to the wrong person. Unlikely that any correct information was copied from any version of the article to the target, but I'll check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Kardashev scale
 * → Kardashev scale

Type 4 Civilization
The result of the discussion was delete,--Aervanath (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Recently created, not in target article, although Type I, Type II, and Type III (note roman numerals, rather than arabic numerals) are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Kardashev scale
 * Comment, in all fairness, there were references to a type IV civilization or type 4 civilization in the fiction section. I still think it should be deleted, as there are multiple meanings, but it's not as clear as I thought.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ziarul de iasi
The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I believe this should be deleted. The redirect refers to Ziarul de Iaşi, a newspaper from Iaşi. It's highly unlikely someone looking for the newspaper would be well-served by being pointed to the country in which it's published. That's like redirecting The New York Times to United States. Biruitorul Talk 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Romania
 * Change redirect to go to Ziarul de Iaşi - In fact when I saw this it already pointed to Ziarul de Iaşi. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but we don't actually have an article on the newspaper. (Ziarul means "the newspaper".) If one is created, this discussion becomes a moot point, but once again, pointing a redirect about a newspaper to the article on the city where it's printed seems a little odd. - Biruitorul Talk 02:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete to encourage creation of article. Good redlinks are much better than bad redirects. Kusma (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob marley
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Unnecessary redirect for capatalisation - would link to that article anyway. YeshuaD avid  •  Talk  • 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Bob Marley

Delete Capatalisation redirects are unnecessary. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Capitalization redirects are useful. Although our search function fixes case for page titles like this, it's erroneous to think that everyone uses our search function to find things; many people arrive at our articles in different ways. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do anything but fast. I just entered "bob marley" in the search box like I usually do and stumbled upon this unnecessary template. People who are looking for "bob marley" want to see the article about the musician and not some WP formal discussion. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the above reasoning is probably the best reason to keep, people do not always push shift when searching for something (I know I don't at all) and 98% of the time get redirected to the correct article instead of a search page adding an extra click to get someplace a redirect would have made seamless. To me, deleting this or any other redirect because of "unnecessary capitalisation" is working against the casual reader. treelo radda 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Well I just searched for Bob marley and got to this annoying crap, why do you guys always have to be annoying like this and have these annoying pages here~? 213.246.70.250 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the fact that templating this for deletion has caused disruption should show that it is useful. Project guidelines state that we should not worry about consuming memory and such, I see no reason to delete this harmless redirect. --Taelus (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is only disruptive while templated. Once the redirect is removed, the wikipedia search will take you directly to the article from either "Bob marley" or the more likely "bob marley".  Delete (Does this redirect help anyone besides those who miscapitalize while trying to enter the URL directly?) -- Thinking of England (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible that the page is linked to in such a way on external websites, thus the redirect is beneficial by not breaking those links. Whilst we can argue that such usage may be done by a minority of users, if there is no real cost of having the page, then why do we need to worry about it? It is harmless to keep it, yet deleting it could cause minor harm to external links. --Taelus (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that most people will come to Bob Marley via the search box tapping in 'bob marley' and hitting enter. To me, typing a query into a search box without considering captialisation is acceptable given that most search boxes on websites are capitalisation agnostic. Only thing in this case is that there is no 'bob marley', MW doesn't work that way and will capitalise the first letter of any article. treelo  radda  14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting from WP:MIXEDCAPS: "No redirect to Francis Ford Coppola is needed because the "Go" command is case-insensitive for an article whose title is all initial caps. Any capitalisation (e.g. "francis fOrD CoPPola") entered as a "Go" will find the article." So once this redirect is deleated, "bob marley"  will take you where you want to go. -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that an external link from some other site to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_marley will not work without this redirect. WP:MIXEDCAPS is wrong about that. It does, therefore, benefit the encyclopedia to have it, since we want people who follow external links to see them "just work", and search spiders that follow such external links to count them toward a proper target on the wiki. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Capitalization redirects are plausible typos. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But you would get to the Bob Marley article if the redirect was not in place! doncram (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete: Unhelpful. doncram (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless, has potential use. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hanson (September 11 attack victim)
The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 talk 10:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Although he is mentioned in the target article, it is an implausible redirect because of the disambiguation. In case someone needs to find him, they can use the disambiguation page at Peter Hansen, which links to the doomed flight. Tavix | Talk  16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → United Airlines Flight 175
 * Delete. The title might make sense as a disambiguated article title (although it would be far from the best possible disambiguator), but as a redirect it's pretty unlikely to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Runescape:Ranged
The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete as an implausible search term. Tavix | Talk  16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → RuneScape

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, and struck previous comments. Having looked through a long list of Runescape skill and game related redirects and AfDs, concensus seems to be to keep them as they do no harm. --Taelus (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Paper Mario series characters
The result of the discussion was to heck with it. Since the root of this issue seems to be that this information can't be found anywhere else now, I'm reverting the title back to when it was an article. Anybody who has a problem with that can take it to WP:AFD.--Aervanath (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC) This previously went through and RfD and emerged with "No concensus", and the redirect target was changed. However, the new target of the redirect does not contain relevant information either, and is one part of the series rather than a view of the series as a whole. As the only reason to keep was because "A history merge would be messy", I want to raise this again. Surely this could be moved to the Nintendo wikiproject to conserve history whilst they decide what to do with it if nothing else, in order that we can avoid what is now a very confusing redirect. It is quite plausible that a user would follow many many redirects attempting to track this list down after being redirected and never be able to find anything, and thus is in my eyes harmful. Taelus (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Paper Mario


 * Note: Old RfD can be found here: [] --Taelus (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Move I said it in the last RfD, and I'll say it again, just move it to the Nintendo WikiProject. This page has been through two deletion attempts and now a third one. Hand it over to the wikiproject, and they will redirect it to the right article, if one exists, or to whatever article they feel it should go to, or delete, but whatever they do, is up to them, let's just move it, and let them decide. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Wikipedia is not censored
The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Cross namespace obfuscating the difference between encyclopedia content and the policies used in the creation of the encyclopedia. --Allen3 talk 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Delete Redirects from mainspace to project space are unpleasant. WP:NSR states this. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete GrooveDog said exactly what I came here to say.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per GrooveDog. Retargeting to Wikipedia could be considered, but I don't think it's a likely enough search term to warrant a redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RAWR! Feed the source monster
The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 talk 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Unnecessary, long redirect that doesn't seem to be used at all and is unlikely to turn out useful —  Σ xplicit  05:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:Verifiability

Delete, nothing links to it, and it is a highly unlikely search term. --Taelus (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as an unlikely/obscure redirect. However I also suggest that somebody make this a LOLZ page like Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them and Edits Per Day.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 13:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick Jr. (September 30, 2009)
The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 talk 10:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Redirect created out of an upcoming event though not a very feasible search term, the disambig article does a decent job of pointing people the right way anyway so redundant as well. treelo radda  02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Nick Jr. (TV channel)

Delete Yeah, chances are good no one will ever search for the name of the channel and the date it's released.. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'