Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 31

The result of the debate was speedy keep – nominator hasn't even provided a reason for deletion. Melsaran (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

This redirect was previously nominated for deletion and the result was keep. David Pro 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is getting disruptive. For this redirect, the nominator has:
  • threatened to prod it on 10 May 2007;
  • nominated for RfD on 2 July 2007 (result was keep, closed 9 July 2007);
  • prodded on 25 July 2007;
  • tagged for CSD R3 on 9 August 2007 with {{db-redirtypo}};
  • tagged for CSD R3 on 12 August 2007 with {{db-redirmisnomer}};
  • and nominated for RfD on 31 August 2007 (the current nomination).
• BigNate37_(T) 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Since this is a harmful redirect and created as a nonsense. David Pro 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that this is the original nominator. --70.48.108.196 00:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BigNate37. Disruptive indeed. --Aarktica 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep-Seems like a disruptive nom to me. At any rate, its a plausible misspelling, and I certainty can't see how its "harmful" as the nominator is claiming.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to ! (disambiguation). -- JLaTondre 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way someone would type this to go to Exclamation mark, since it is simpler just to type !. Also, this redirect has a grand total of 2 USERSPACE links, giving it no use what-so-ever. It is obselete, confusing and harmful. ChrisDHDR 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a likely search term, has no special meaning (unlike !!), etc. --- RockMFR 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unlikely search term. Cheers, Lights 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You guys are ignoring the fact that some people DO IN FACT end sentences with fourexclamation marks. TheBlazikenMaster 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you must of miscounted, there are 4 Exclamation marks, it is rare that someone ends a sentence with 4"!". ChrisDHDR 08:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might be right, but I still think some people do. TheBlazikenMaster 12:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's irrelevant whether people do it--even when they do, they don't link it! Xtifr _tälk 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there comes a limit. this becomes an unnecessary redirect. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Best to just redirect it to !!! (a band). -- John Reaves 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hate to say this but I was a jerk to add this. Sorry everyone. TheBlazikenMaster 01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for saying so, Blaziken!!!! You are a good guy!!!! Steve Dufour 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect !!!! to !!! as above!!!! Tyrenius 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "!!!!" has nothing to do with "!!!"; this is not another name of the band and has nothing to do with it. ChrisDHDR 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might, however, be a plausible typo for the band's name. It's a one-character difference and I had to read the line twice before I realized what was intended. Rossami (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion It could be redirected to ! (disambiguation) Steve Dufour 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that four (!!!!) marks do not relate to the band (!!!), and its hard to confuse the two with such simple characters. I couldn't get any ghits from four exclamation marks, so its best to just delete. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I doubt that anyone will type "!!!!" to get to the article Exclamation mark. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to !!!: it's a very plausible typo, and redirects are cheap. Tag as {{R from misspelling}}, of course. Xtifr _tälk 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ! (disambiguation) Then anyone who types !!!! for any reason can find his or her way. Steve Dufour 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ! (disambiguation) per Steve Dufour. I don't think people will type in four "!"s if they are looking for the exclamation mark article, so sending them to a navigation page looks like a better idea. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is from a typo someone made. While typos are common, they do not constitute a "common misspelling", which is the criterion for keeping a redirect. I know it's not harming anyone, but it seems a bit daft to keep a redirect from a typo. PeeJay 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this does not appear to be a useful typo redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - its definitely not a typo, nor is it plausible. It's just too long. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too long redirects aren't good. David Pro 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 10:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Completing nomination by User:Czarbender. It's unlikely that someone will type the ™ symbol when searching for this. --- RockMFR 03:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very rare that someone will type that. They would probably prefer tm, TM or (tm); all of which are rare aswell. ChrisDHDR 12:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It doesn't matter if it's a likely search term since it's the former name for the target and the term is listed in the first sentence of the introduction at the target. Copy/paste searches will find this, as will anyone linking the older competition. You wouldn't write that someone won the FIRST Tech Challenge competition if it wasn't named that when they won it, you'd write that they won the FIRST Vex™ Challenge. BigNate37_(T) 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, people would write the FIRST Vex Challenge. -- JLaTondre 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a redirect at FIRST Vex Challenge. The use of the TM in this redirect is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and not something that should be encouraged. -- JLaTondre 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got a point, and that's one part of the Manual of Style I've not read until now. On the basis that this redirect would encourage linking, or more correctly, fail to discourage linking by showing up as a redlink, it ought to be deleted. BigNate37_(T) 01:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - target article does not indicate that anyone named Ellen David had any association with the show. Neither the IMDB listing for the series nor the IMDB listing for the actress indicate any connection between the two. Otto4711 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per above ChrisDHDR 12:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was retarget to air hunger. WjBscribe 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Help with medical terms, getting winded and getting the wind knocked out of you are two different things. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. ChrisDHDR 08:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to exhaustion or something more appropriate. >Radiant< 08:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (undecided) - The common use of winded is "out of breath". I'd redirect to asphyxia air hunger, per Xtifr below, but that's not its only use. I wouldn't redirect to exhaustion, because that's also related to muscles. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to air hunger. It's not the same as asphyxia at all, and it's only tangentially related to exhaustion, but air hunger is pretty close. Xtifr _tälk 12:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Retarget to Air hunger. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Help with medical terms, getting winded and getting the wind knocked out of you are two different things. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be appropriate to retarget to air hunger as an {{R from related word}}. BigNate37_(T) 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (undecided) - The common use of winded is "out of breath". I'd redirect to asphyxia air hunger, per Xtifr below, but that's not its only use. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to air hunger. It's not the same as asphyxia at all, and it's only tangentially related to exhaustion, but air hunger is pretty close. Xtifr _tälk 12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Was nominated before, but forgot to list it here, so it didn't get deleted. Melsaran (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This template is used on 28 user pages. Those pages should be updated to bypass the redirect if it is deleted. Consistency in naming shouldn't trump breaking user's pages. -- JLaTondre 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'll replace those with my bot if the redirect is to be deleted. Melsaran (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and retarget existing links (can be done with AWB). ChrisDHDR 08:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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