Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 4

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, confusing and misleading. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope I think that this shows quite clearly that STS-133 is the final Shuttle mission. Hektor (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thus no articles after it should exist. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is not an article this is a redirect. It has been there playing a useful role without creating any problem until someone started editing it. Hektor (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been there unnoticed until someone started editing it. If I had noticed it sooner, I would have suggested deletion sooner. Your comment that it "shows quite clearly that STS-133 is the final Shuttle mission" seems to suggest that we should redirect any article with "STS-" and a number greater than 133 in the title, to STS-133. How about STS-999? should that be redirected as well? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously yes, why not ? Except STS-400 and the STS-3xx series of course. Other option is to redirect to Space Shuttle. Hektor (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You seriously think that every article from STS-134 to STS-999, except STS-400, should redirect to STS-133. I really don't understand your argument. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is plausible that someone will search for STS-134 to see where that goes, and that rather to have a red link offering to create the page, it makes more sense to redirect either to a) Space Shuttle of to b) STS-133. The more I think of it, the more I think that a redirect to Space Shuttle is the best. Hektor (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it is plausible that someone will search for STS-134, and, seeing as it does not exist, they should be met by a non-existant page. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing. Not having read the above discussion initially, I was left with the impression that STS-134 is somehow the same as STS-133 (i.e. that the two missions were merged into one another). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR and violation of WP:CRYSTAL. <eleland/talkedits> 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless, confusing, and misleading. zrulli 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why stop at STS-999? or STS-9999 or STS-99999 (ad infinitum)? They are quite clearly pointless, if the mission doesn't exist it is fair to tell it to the user, instead of trying to guess what was his intention. Fireice (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the link out of the STS-133 info box, as this is not what we are debating but a bi-product. zrulli 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - Obvious joke redirect. VegaDark (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke redirect, meaning it was probably intended to be humorous. IRL stands for "in real life" and ban refers to the forced exile of an internet user on a website. Hence, prison would be a funny redirect for this (I would have picked death over prison, but that is beside the point). Anyway, it is a non-encyclopedic redirect and should be deleted. daveh4h 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way it could be argued that and IRL permaban should direct to death, or rather execution. A website ban often refers to a temporary suspension, equivilant to removing an offender from society in many respects. Unencyclopedic redirects are not explicitly mentioned in reasons for deleting, FYI.
It isn't doing any harm there. Still, if spending time hunting down these things gives you a sense of self-importance and fulfillment that you would not otherwise get then far be it from me to stand in your way. It must be important for you to have spent so much time resolving. I hope we have both gained a sense of superiority and purpose from this exchange. Etaerc (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept (no consensus). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see many people mistyping "aardvark" as "aardvork". The two letters are on other sides of the keyboard, and it's not like they sound the same. Now, I suppose with an accent, it could be, but I have always wondered about this one, and I really don't think it is a plausible typo. Soxred93 | talk bot 05:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Say it with a scottish accent - ard-vork - sounds like a good reason to me. Fosnez (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It may not come up very often, but it's not doing any harm. MSGJ (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel it does harm to legitimize what is clearly a misspelling that has no wide usage. Google has 970 hits, of which WP is the first, followed by a "Did you mean aardvark?" It's really not in our best interest to encourage redirects from unlikely, uncommon misspellings. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense; leftover redirect from restoration of improper move of wikipedia namespace help page into article namespace titled after an Indonesian musician. Michael Devore (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plainly nonsensical. EALacey (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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