Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 25

January 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2015.

~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~



 * 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 no consensus to delete. Mostly harmless. Hi DrNick ! 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~ → Star Trek Into Darkness (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs → Star Trek Into Darkness (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect is just silly. The only reason why I found it that I typed in a "~" in the search box and this redirect showed up. Very unlikely anybody else would find this redirect.  Aerospeed  (Talk) 15:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah, it's silly, but the article was referred to by this title, albeit satirically, in XKCD (link). It's largely unambiguous, unless a reader was expecting an article about the film article's naming dispute (which we wouldn't have). --BDD (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least having a redirect discourages people from adding something even sillier at this title. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect per WP:XKCD. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to xkcd. Someone who bothers to type this in is obviously here because of the comic, thus this gets them what they are looking for. This particular jumble of characters has no relevance to the Star Trek film and is not mentioned there, nor should it be. Ivanvector (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to xkcd. At least it's referenced there.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. "StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs" is not mentioned at the target. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is mentioned only as the title of one of the many primary-source references (#19). I don't see how it is helpful to anyone who did not already know not just that webcomic (I didn't) but that particular edition of that strip in that comic, in which case they didn't need WP to tell them that. But it's harmless (I've marked as, by the way). Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything, it should probably CNR to WP:TITLE or maybe WP:XKCD. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In particular, the specific comic is linked to as an example, together with 7 other comics, for the sentence: "References to Wikipedia articles or to Wikipedia as a whole have occurred several times in xkcd." - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment we also have:
 * StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs → Star Trek Into Darkness (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Should that be added to the nom? It could be argued it's just an (and I've marked as such) that has nothing to do with the strip. (Unlikely, but could be.) These Rs seem to stop there, there's no ~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~, * StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs * etc.  Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but retargeting to XKCD is a really poor choice. The film title is only mentioned in the title of a reference there, and that reference is just supporting a broader point that XKCD references Wikipedia; that's the sort of redirect that would get deleted at RFD. The WP:XKCD essay cautions against "Popular culture" sections in articles listing references in XKCD. Extending this to support deletion of a redirect seems quite a stretch. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More titles - since we're on the topic we might wish to also discuss these (such titles as science it works bitches and Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;--) but I have not added them to the nom because that would be very time consuming (sorry, I'm busy today). Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ican old bean, We're not on that topic but this one. With the previous edit quite rightly I think I said do your homework. And thanks also for the little thanks somewhere else for finding a better target for something, much appreciated to have a little thanks like that. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of your first reference I don't see the relevance. We are discussing this redirect, not all the others. But some are very odd, certainly. Portmanpropism I guess is itself a portmanteau word of "Portmanteau word" and malapropism. Malamanteau should be a bad mountain to climb but isn't, or if you split it the other way is a bad stomach-ache), if Portmanism meant anything it would mean the capitalism of Shirley Porter, but it doesn't; "Mal au estomache" would be correct, or "Mal a mon teu" would mean "It hurts in somewhere not fit for WP", Science it works bitches obvious D, Transconciceness Messaging Protocol I assume is a pun on TCP/IP, Interblag no idea, Little Bobby Tables Also I guess is a mnemonic (or retronymic) for LBTO, and the few left starting with X are up there own arse. Homework please.

Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No wonder I can't find them, because the first source is primary back to Wikipedia. Should I laugh or cry? Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Little Bobby Tables redirects to xcsd. Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a wall of text but I think you meant to say that I should "do my homework" regarding the suitability of the redirects. Of course they are related to stuff that happened in xkcd comics. My point is that this redirect is also obviously related to xkcd stuff. Thus, if we are going to discuss the suitability of one xkcd-related redirect, we might as well discuss them all. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. IvanVector, I must disagree (and please excuse me for mistyping you as Ican, simply missed the key there). If you want to list them all, then list them all: another editor does frequently with mojibake redirects. But you didn't, you only listed one, hence the discussion is only about that one. I am not standing on ceremony here at all, but I am not sure how other editors including me are expected to guess how all the other ones are if you don't list them. Si Trew (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the other related redirect that you found earlier as it's directly relevant to this discussion, but there doesn't seem to be any appetite for discussing those other pages that redirect to xkcd and it's not a malamanteau I particularly wish to die upon (I may be mixing my metaphors here). The only point I wish to reiterate is that we have several redirects for obscure references from that webcomic which the average reader is highly unlikely to come across unless they are coming here directly after seeing the reference in xkcd, and if they do then they should get to the webcomic article; this redirect is another of those and should be treated the same. As a secondary !vote I agree that they have no business pointing at the article on the film as they are otherwise patent nonsense - nobody is going to come here and type that exact string of characters unless they're coming from xkcd, and if consensus is against retargeting to xkcd then they should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also just pointing out that the stats link for StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs gives stats for Star Trek Into Darkness because the tool is not case sensitive. The redirect is not the 3001st most viewed page on Wikipedia, I am quite sure. Ivanvector (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever, but do *not* redirect to xkcd, as misleading and not useful. Someone searching for "~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~" most-most-quite likely comes from reading xkcd's cartoon. I do that once in a while. If I do that, I hope to either get information on "~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~" or whatever I searched, or nothing at all. If that information is at the xkcd article, fine, redirect me there. Otherwise I do not want to be redirected to the article about xkcd, I know it is an xkcd cartoon and I already have an idea of what xkcd is, and if I want to know more about xkcd I'll search for "xkcd" - Nabla (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and move on. Life's too short for this kind of silliness. Peter Isotalo 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is still open? If it helps break the stalemate, I am also fine with keeping this as-is, although I slightly prefer my earlier !vote. I don't think there is good enough reason to delete. Ivanvector (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2015 (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.

War on freedom



 * 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) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * War on freedom → War on Terror (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_freedom&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

POV, not a normally used term. User's only other contribution is redirecting Zionist Crusade to War on Terror. Have RFD'd that as well. N o f o rmation Talk  11:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * delete not useful. Looks like attempt at political point scoring.©Geni (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have a suspicion this is to do with journalists commenting on ISIS for example this ref:
 * 
 * Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The top google hits that I found is about a book with the same title. I'm not sure if said book is notable though. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - racist POV. Also just want to point out that Si's link is to a blog for an author who is obviously a huge fan of Ayn Rand, but far from journalism. Still, if this term makes it into Fox News (cf. War on Christmas) then I guess the redirect would be appropriate, but best deleted for now. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (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.

Zionist Crusade
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 2%23Zionist Crusade