< June 3
June 5 >

June 4

Redirects created by a blocked user → various

The result of the debate was delete all that are in B.Wind's recreated list. Wizardman 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects in the blue box below were created by the now-blocked user:Hashmi, Usman. A number of redirects created by this user have already been nominated for deletion below and in previous pages. The connection between the redirect and the target has often appeared tenuous or speculative. In each case, the redirect was initially created as a redirect, not as the result of a pagemove or a merger.

Had these been created independently, I would be inclined to grant them the benefit of doubt since some could be considered plausible capitalization variants, etc. Given the pattern of this user's edits, my ability to assume good faith became sufficiently strained to request a comprehensive review by the community.

Before we begin a discussion on the specific merits of the redirects, I would like to see if we can get consensus on a few procedural questions.

  1. Should we do anything about these redirects? Is the pattern of editing alone justification to merit investigation?
  2. If we should do something, can and should these redirect be considered en masse? Are the fact-patterns sufficiently similar that we can reach a single conclusion?
  3. If a single decision is not appropriate, is there some other clustering that would be more efficient? Or must these be considered individually?

By the way, none of these redirects have been tagged. I'd like to answer the procedural questions before we start on that step. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been moving the more egregious ones to RfD to "reduce the pressure". These have been noted and struck off the list. Right now, it appears that most of the non-crossed ones are judgment calls, rather than clearly one way or the other. I've been bundling those with a common theme (such as "List of..." television episodes redirecting to the series) to help the process. I'll shave some more off the list and onto the RfD from time to time over the next couple of days. B.Wind (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the initiative of reorganizing the above list (using a second template so as to not risk messing up the original), removing the scratched-out entries and putting the rest in thematic blocks of 15-20 possibilities. Most of the remainders might still have some validity, or at least something worth discussing, but I get the impression that we have a few people who would like to have this wrapped up as soon as possible. Should anybody take any individual entries to RfD before someone "pulls the trigger," I'd strongly recommend striking out those entries in the top template and then removing them from the one below. I hope this helps: if it doesn't, I'll gladly remove the "updated" template. B.Wind (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Real Name → Genie (feral child)

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as BLP again. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent Rfd here and discussions at Talk:Genie (feral child), Genie's real name should be removed from Wikipedia. And if possible, please find a way to prevent this redirect from being recreated again. For An Angel (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
OUT OF PROCESS. Under no circumstance was this a valid Del.Wjhonson (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three times in two months is two times too many. Perhaps a little salt is needed here. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booker T. & The M.G.'s → Booker T. & the M.G.s

The result of the debate was Move Request. Use WP:RM instead. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official album covers, as well compilations and at least one reference book I have consulted, spell the band's name as Booker T. & The M.G.'s, not as Booker T. & the M.G.s, capitalising the "t" in "The" and adding an apostrophe after the "g". Style guides I have consulted suggest that this is an incorrect use of the apostrophe, but we do not print the Beatles' name as "The Beetles" on the grounds that the band couldn't spell. I wish to delete the redirect and rename the article to reflect the way that the band's name was spelled on the majority of its own releases. Lexo (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firecrotch → Red hair

The result of the debate was retarget. Wizardman 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected, therefore I am nominating the reidrect in behalf of Terraxos. His arguments are as follows: "It's an offensive or insulting redirect, in that it seems to be intended as a derogatory term for red-headed people. The word isn't actually mentioned on the target page, so the redirect doesn't have much explanatory value. Having searched elsewhere, it is mainly used to refer to Lindsay Lohan - so if this should redirect anywhere, it should redirect to her page. However, as that would raise WP:BLP issues, it would probably be best if it were deleted altogether. Especially since our article on the man who apparently coined the term, Brandon Davis, has been deleted." -- Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have found only one reliable source using the term in any way (via Yahoo search - I stopped after page 15 of the results). According to the entertainment news source TMZ.com, it seems to be a term that is being used in a feud between the "camps" of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan (needless to say, TMZ.com cannot use this term in their syndicated "Entertainment Tonight"-style program. Because the only definition of the term I could find online was on Urban Dictionary, delete - do not retarget - the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I think you're not a very good searcher. Or you're a carrot top who wants evidence of the term erased. New York Times, 1994. This would predate the stupid Paris/Lindsay feud, considering Lindsay was what, 6 years old at the time? [2] 70.51.9.3 (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you think of my ability to use Yahoo search or Google search is irrelevant to this discussion, but if you can find another independent, reliable source, you'll demonstrate that your assertion meets WP:V. So... what is your recommendation regarding the disposition of the redirect in question? B.Wind (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gauss's Law for Gravitational Fields → Gauss' law for gravity

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unnecessary as it is case-sensitive while another redirect Gauss's law for gravitational fields is not. The redirect is the result of a move of the original article to the case-insensitive spelling, which was then merged with the current target article. The redirect is not currently harmful. – Ikara talk → 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • notice that the redirect we are discussing has no actual history except for making a redirect. I don't think that GFDL requires us to keep that sort of stuff. Deleting this redirect will not delete any useful contributions, since they are all at the properly capitalized redirect --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same could be said for any redirect that is created by moving a page, yet we don't delete them either. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
More