Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 4

September 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2010

Template:Uw-unsourced4



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Uw-generic4 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Inappropriate redirect to Template:Uw-generic4. Basically the same description as the RFD below, but a final warning and regarding disruption, instead. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment The "Redirects for discussion" tag has screwed up Twinkle's use of uw-unsourced4. Twinkle uses this template redirect, and as it's a level 4, a Twinkle user would only use it if they were sure it was genuine vandalism. If it is deleted, Twinkle will need to be changed to remove uw-unsourced4 from its menu. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all great. I don't rightly know what you all are talking about, but I just gave an editor one of these--and now they got some weird link to a Redirect for Discussion thing on their page instead of a big fat stop sign. Can someone please fix this? Drmies (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because Twinkle (and possibly other tools, and editors manually) uses the uw-unsourced4 template, which is no longer a proper redirect as it now has the RfD template on it. I've moved the RfD tag now so that it has gone back to being a proper redirect, and works again now. We still have this RfD discussion here to decide what to do in the longer term - the fact is that there isn't actually a "unsourced" level 4 warning at all, so we (and Twinkle) might as well just use uw-generic4 directly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-unsourced4im



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. I trust that the use of this template by automated tools have been removed. —  ξ xplicit  08:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Uw-vandalism4im (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Inappropriate redirect to Template:Uw-vandalism4im. Just because a user adds unsourced content, doesn't need to mean (s)he is vandalizing Wikipedia, (s)he may be trying to improve articles (see WP:AGF), but not necessarily harming them. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 19:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unlike uw-unsourced4, above, Twinkle doesn't use this one - but possibly check if other anti-vandal tools use it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly believe there are other anti-vandal, semi-automated tools which use the uw-unsourced4im redirect template. The only anti-vandal tools I can think of in my head are Twinkle (TW) and Huggle (HG), and neither use the uw-unsourced4im redirect template – Huggle uses their own templates (like Twinkle), but in the form "Template:Huggle/name-number". These are under-folders (or whatever we want to call them). / Hey Mid  (contributions) 17:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the check - I've done a Google search of the en.wikipedia.org domain, and I also found it at AutoWikiBrowser/User talk templates, so it looks like AWB uses it? (As a Mac user, I can't try Huggle or AWB myself, so I've no idea how they actually work). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it now from that page + two other's which are also unnecessary and inappropriate. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool - nice work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Katkat



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted. Mentions of "Katkat" are trivial and seem better suited for the search function than for disambiguation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Brian Clevinger (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Brian Clevinger (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete the redirect. Originally redirected to Nuklear Age after this AfD, but that was subsequently merged with Brian Clevinger and Katkat isn't mentioned any more. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also nominating Mighty Metallic Magno Man which has the same history and the same issues. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate Katkat, plenty of usages; delete Mighty Metallic Magno Man as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the search results, there do appear to be some other uses I wasn't aware of, so this makes some sense. But I just wonder if a disambig is necessary. None of the Katkats I've seen get much coverage in their respective articles, with the possible exception of the naming origins of CatCat. The current redirect's page views appear to be almost non-existent. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and references in GetBackers



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was old page history moved to subpage and redirect deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → GetBackers (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete the redirect. This redirect was left after a merge to GetBackers, but none of the merged content now remains, so I don't think the edit history is needed. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would type "Pseudoscience and references in GetBackers" into the search bar, so a redirect is unnecessary, and the title of this redirect seems to be unduly disparaging of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Move to a sub-page of Talk:GetBackers and delete the resulting redirect. It is not relevant that the merged content is not currently in the page. Deleted content that remains in the history can be restored at any time. Consequently it is necessary to safeguard the history for GFDL reasons, which this mechanism will achieve. Keeping is not a good idea since now that the merged content has been removed, the title is misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you know



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was disambiguated - an option the nominator has indicated would be acceptable. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Did you know (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Disambiguate. I don't think having an article-namespace term redirecting into WP namespace is a good idea. A disambig would be better, especially since there are quite a few non-WP things with the name Did You Know. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate - the WP article can be added as a hat hote. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguated - but please review first before closing this rfd. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PSP-4000



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete both. Arguments that the PSP-4000 is an upcoming model, not a PSP Go, have merit and a search reflects that this is likely to be true. Argument that it is a "plausible redirect" is too vague, especially as it does not refute the point that the PSP-4000 is not the PSP-N1000/PSP Go, and no alternative target was suggested. --- Taelus  ( Talk ) 11:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → PSP Go (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → PSP Go (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete the redirect. PSP Go is PSP-N1000. PSP-4000 shold be the next generation of PSP. It is a mistaken redirect.Rx5674 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment you could tag it with a R from incorrect name 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is not a incorrect name. PSP-4000 has not been released or sold. Rx5674 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -PSP 4000 added. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both - crystalballism. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both - plausible redirect. Tsutarja494, the Grass Snake Editor (talk &#124; contribs) 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - more importantly, since there is no PSP 4000 it is misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - PSP-4000 has not been released or sold. We should delete the redirect. Rx5674 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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