Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 14

September 14
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 14, 2013.

A Brand New Car!



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

WP:RFD #2, #8. Dozens of game shows offer cars as prizes, and this phrase is not specific to The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). AldezD (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. There's a particular delivery of the line "A brand new car!" that really is unique to this game show, but the redirect does not and cannot convey it accurately. Without that context, it is somewhat ambiguous. In any case, it's not likely to be a common search term. But I don't think it's harming anything by existing, so this is only a weak delete. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this redirect YEARS ago when I was really inexperienced. It embarrasses me now that this exists by my hand. But I also agree with the IP, so I will vote weak keep.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 23:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per IP and nom.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the first thing I thought of was Oprah -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not mentioned in the target so would be confusing to readers being taken to a page where the term is not explained. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasoning of 168 IP and only 50 views in the last 90 days (versus 65 000 for the show ) &mdash;  rybec   04:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Term used is "A new car!"; brand has never come into this exhalation at all, and all game shows with cars say this same line in the near same way. We're not TPiR-pedia and I'm glad to see that the extreme cruft prevalent with this show is finally being undone.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Oscillating motion



 * 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 retarget to Oscillation. --BDD (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Multiple oscillation mechanism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

A redirect should not lead from a plausible, commonplace and _general_ term to a very narrow WP:OR article Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to oscillation Siuenti (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to oscillation for a more general approach to the subject. There are links to dab pages at the hatnote too. --- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to oscillation as a helpful search term. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unix file system



 * 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 procedural close. The IP is right; use WP:RM for this. Let me know if you need any help. --BDD (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Unix File System (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I would like to move Unix filesystem to this location; I just expanded that article to give a broad overview of Unix file system concepts. It currently redirects to Unix File System, which discusses a family of implementations of those concepts.

(I still have to add hatnotes to both articles.) Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural close you should propose a WP:Requested move to move the other article atop this location -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mike McLachlin



 * 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Mike McLachlan (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect should be deleted because it is a typo that is not valid in any other language and is not a common misspelling of his name. The redirect is unnecessary and will cause confusion. LiberatorLX (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the nominator's comments, this is a perfectly plausible misspelling, and redirects from common misspellings are a good thing. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a reasonable redirect. Names can be spoken so it's probably not reasonable to assume people know how to spell a last name like this one. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the fact that the article was created with this spelling demonstrates that it is a plausible typo.The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Graubaer’s Boker



 * 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Graubaer& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unnecessary redirect from page name using the Acute accent to an apostrophe. The acute accent is not used anywhere except for a single wikilink, which was changed. Gmt2001 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic of the article is American, and American keyboard layouts don't include this diacritical mark. &mdash; rybec   07:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible typo as explained by Rybec. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make a case for its implausibility:
 * 1) (fact) topic is American
 * 2) (assumption) most people looking for this will be in America
 * 3) (fact) with popular US keyboard layouts, e.g. File:KB United States-NoAltGr.svg, the apostrophe is available without a modifier key, but the acute accent isn't
 * 4) (conclusion) few readers will type the acute accent when searching for this

If this redirect didn't exist, people could easily find the TV show, which they are likely to be interested in and which mentions the dog prominently, by searching for the term with the acute accent. The search results for Graubaer@s Boker should simulate what they would find. I didn't "vote" because the standard "not harmful" and "redirects are cheap" considerations may be enough for this to be kept. &mdash; rybec   21:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly reasonable R from modification doing no harm and with the potential to be helpful. You've never copied and pasted a search term? --BDD (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portal 3



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 16:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Portal (series) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Redirects are cheap, but enough is enough with the constant re-creation of this page (either as an article or redirect) for something that clearly does not exist. There is not one single reliable source that this exists or is going to exist. Let's just SALT this and be done with it. Singularity42 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as you said, redirects are cheap. Also protect it as a redirect.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But that makes no sense. It doesn't exist.  If we have a protected redirect, then this will be the practical result:  a person types in "Portal 3", and is redirected to an article that does not comment one way or the other on the existence of Portal 3!  Many readers will assume it does exist by virtue of being redirected to an article about the franchise that supposedly containes this ficticious title.  Will we have to put in the franchise article that there are no reliable sources to say that Portal 3 exists?  It makes much, much more sense to delete and SALT.  Singularity42 (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Constant recreation? It was deleted once as A1 and once as G3, both over two years ago. It's not exactly a lightning rod for mischief. That said, delete since the subject isn't mentioned on the target page. Compare to Jade Empire, which has sourced coverage of its nonexistent sequel—and for what it's worth, Jade Empire 2 is red. Compare also to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic III, which is perhaps a better example since it's redirecting to a series page. I don't see a pressing need for salting at this point, but neither would I protest an administrator who does so. --BDD (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.