Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

Day 4 → 24 (season 4)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Day 5, Day 6. The 4th day of creation per Genesis 1 is as likely a reference. These could also potentially be turned into disambiguation pages, but with (I believe) fewer possibilities. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not quite the same reasoning as the seasons below, so I don't want to merge them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for pretty much the same reasoning as below. Lots of things have multiple days. Feeeshboy 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Ambiguous term used with much POV to refer to a single television series. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same reason as the "season" redirects. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this has been in there for months. It's the fastest and most convenient way to get to the 24 season articles (much less cumbersome than having to type parenthesis). A potential conflict (with Biblical days) argument is the best you can do, and it's very weak, considering those Biblical days have been around for thousands of years, and yet in the entire history of Wikipedia it has not ever occured to anyone (until Arthur today) to create articles for them. Too much. --Serge 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If typing parenthesis is too cumbersome, you can get there by 24 day 4 That's two extra characters and a space. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Per WP:R, shortcut redirects generally should only be used in the project namespace, but this one seems to apply more directly to 24 than the "season" redirects do. Unless someone can point out another subject that would be a viable target (I don't think the day of creation holds up), in which case it should probably be a disambiguation page. --Fru1tbat 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, confusing. Kusma (討論) 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or transform) per nom. Far too ambiguous. However, a disambig page could possibly be placed at this location, with beneficial results. MacGuy(contact me) 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. - grubber 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth → Miami, Florida[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Sworn testimony. -- JLaTondre 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of what this phrase has to do with Miami. (The target article doesn't contain the word truth anywhere.) Delete, retarget to sworn testimony or provide some explanation in the Miami article. NeonMerlin 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sworn testimony. Makes much more sense to redirect here. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sworn testimony, Oath or Evidence (law). Any of those seem suitable but the term has no particular association with Miami. WJBscribe 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who would search this? Feeeshboy 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. A comment to Feeeshboy: sometimes I'd type a whole sentence in the search box and see if it yields anything of my interest. It is valid to keep this redirect, but just point it to sth sensible and relevant. --Deryck C. 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "The whole truth and nothing but the truth" is a line from the song "Miami" by Taking Back Sunday. 1ne 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sworn testimony per Iced Kola. 1ne 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. MacGuy(contact me) 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Season 2 → 24 (season 2)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted most. Season One re-targeted to Season One (Suburban Legends) and Season 5 re-targeted to Season 5 (album). These were articles that were moved to make way for the 24 redirects. -- JLaTondre 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Season 1, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5, Season 6 and Season One, Season two, Season Two, Season three, Season four, Season five, Season six, all of which point to the respective season of the show 24 (I'd also suggest including any alternate capitializations that may exist). These redirects aren't useful since they could potentially point to the respective seasons of hundreds of possible television shows. Directing them to 24 is also POV, the editor who created these seems to think that most people entering one of these terms is most likely looking for 24, basically turning it into a popularity contest complete with comparing google hits. These could potentially be turned into dissambig pages, but each would be impractical and not particularly useful with hundreds of entries. They could all also be redirected to something like Television season, but I doubt people searching for the term would be looking for that. Looking at the "what links here" for each, there are a few pages that link to these from various shows seemingly by accident - one upside to deletion would be that editors creating an accidental link would see a redlink and fix it instead of one that doesn't go where they expect. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (updated with additional capitalization --Milo H Minderbinder 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep I created these redirects (note that except for a couple of obscure exceptions, they were unused when I created them) based on the recognition that 24 is a unique TV series in that each season is a separate distinct highly cohesive story with loose coupling between seasons. Because of this, each season is much more commonly referred to as a distinct entity than are the seasons of other TV series. In other words, if someone uses the term Season One (or Season Two, etc.) at the water cooler, they are very unlikely to be talking about a season of Seinfeld, Gunsmoke, Gilligan's Island, ER, Law & Order or Friends. And they're very likely to be talking about a season of 24. If that same person that goes back to his desk and searches for Season 3 (or whatever), then they are very likely looking for that season of 24. No other series has the cohesion of a 24 season (this is not a matter of opinion - it stems from the fact that each of the 24 episodes of any season of 24 comprise an hour of the same day). In no other TV series is an individual episode NOT an independent "stand alone" story the way a 24 episode is. In most if not all other TV series, each episode is an independent story and "stands alone". Not in 24. In 24, the "story" is the season: and the mostly commonly used name for each story is Season One, Season Two, etc. No other series can make this claim. In no other series is the term Season One used to name a complete story the way it is in 24. --Serge 17:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If this were a convention throughout the Web, I'd be willing to consider it, but it isn't. If you Google season 3, only two of the first page of results are about 24. NeonMerlin 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the issue here shouldn't be whether 24 is the show for which entire seasons are referred to more often than individual episodes, but rather whether 24 seasons are commonly referred to without the show title, i.e. the point of a redirect. If I asked someone "Did you see Season 3?" out of nowhere, with no context, I wouldn't expect them to have any idea which show I was talking about. Nor would I expect a random user to try to search for "Season 3" without a show name and expect to arrive at the 24 page. I'm with Milo. Dab pages wouldn't serve any useful purpose. A user would be better off (and far more likely, in my opinion) searching for just the show name and finding the appropriate season that way. --Fru1tbat 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all per nom. Suggest that Serge "speedily" remove any links that he created to the redirects, as the closing admin may not take care of all those issues. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I've had enough of this user saying that 24 has sole goverment over the word "season" or "day" in combination wity any of the 6 season numbers that have been created within this series. Fully supporting Fru1tbat and Milo H Minderbinder -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The use of such a broad term specifically to redirect to one TV series is so ludicrously POV as to be laughable. Delete it and protect it to prevent this from happening again. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad a term to refer to one particular TV show. With TV-on-DVD becoming so popular, more and more shows are referred to by season. --Brian Olsen 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Serge: Actually, Star Trek: Enterprise#Season 3 was a single story, with little in common with the rest of the series; and we shouldn't forget the 1985-86 "it was all a dream" season of Dallas. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Arthur: Actually, there is no comparison. A lot of TV series have their episodes follow an arc through a season. The seasons of Star Trek and Dallas that you mention are just two examples of that. A 24 season, however, is in a completely different league. This is best illustrated by the fact that individual mid-season episodes of 24 have relatively little entertainment value when watched out of sequence from the rest of the season. This is not the case for episodes from the other examples cited. Again, a 24 season is much more like an integrated tightly coupled and highly cohesive single movie than any other season of any other TV series (except a mini-series). --Serge 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 24 does not have a monopoly on the term Season X. I am unpersuaded that anyone would use the season number as a search term without reference to which show they want. WJBscribe 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlueSquadronRaven. JuJube 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question I call "Uncle". Any objection to turning them into dab pages? If not, I'll go ahead and do it later today. --Serge 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dab to what? Do you plan on including the hundreds of shows that have a Season Two? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only those articles about seasons that are commonly referred to as Season 2 would need to be on such a dab (off the top of my head, only one comes to mind, but that's my entire point here, but apparently each of you could think of appropriate other links to put there). And, of course, links to albums or bands with such names would be listed there. --Serge 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would we determine which are "commonly referred to"? Sounds like OR to me. Do we really want to create a situation that requires haggling over whether a term is commonly used or not for individual shows? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone dispute someone's claim? Let anyone put a link to anything with season 2 in its name. Who would care to limit that, and why? If it's notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, and it has season 2 in its name, then why not have it on the Season 2 dab page? But that doesn't mean that anyone has to go and harvest all names that fall into that category and make sure their on the dab page. Let it evolve naturally. It's the wiki way. --Serge 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case do we really want something that would be either be woefully incomplete or enormous and a huge amount of work to create (and virtually useless in either state)? Wouldn't a reader be better off just getting the WP search page instead? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would only be "woefully incomplete" if it didn't include links to articles that users would likely be searching for by entering "season 2". As long as we have the link to 24's season's 2 on the list, that will not be the case. So, I disagree with your premise that if it's not enormous that it's "woefully incomplete". Whatever is referenced on the first page or two of google search results for "season 2" is all that is required for it to be more than adequately complete. --Serge 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not turn into useless disambiguation pages. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WJBscribe and Kusma. 1ne 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serge, you are taking too narrow a view of the world. In the context of 24 fans, you are right. In the context of all human knowledge, "Season 2" does not make people think of 24. — Randall Bart 00:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are already 24 season 1, etc redirects. - grubber 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_31&oldid=1138574637"