Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2013.

Gunslinger (2012 film)[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an upcoming film, we can definitively say it will not come out in 2012, and thus the redirect is misleading. BDD (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This film is way too early in production to even have redirects at this time. I've looked in vain for information on this film, and a film even remotely close to release starring the likes of Josh Hartnett would be heavily promoted and easy to find info and release dates on - I couldn't even find a single page announce the year it might be release, aside from outdated pages from when it was still scheduled for 2012. I kind of suspect this movie might be vaporware - no longer in production, but never officially cancelled. An alternative option is to rename without redirect to Gunslinger (upcoming film). Ego White Tray (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - old redirect that's liable to be externally linked. The assertion that the redirect is misleading is bizarre; there's no other Gunslinger film that was released in 2012 or scheduled to be released in 2012 that it might be confused with. WilyD 10:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is misleading about it - except the rather large indication this redirect gives that a Gunslinger movie came out in 2012. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our readers are not as stupid as you're asserting they are. The only people who're going to find the redirect are the ones who mistakenly believe the movie came out in 2012, and they'll only be misled if you prevent them from finding the article that can correct their misinformation. WilyD 10:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will still be misleading. You're grasping at straws here - just because somebody thinks the movie came out a year ago doesn't justify anything. If I thought that Titanic (1997 film) really came out in 2006, we wouldn't have a redirect just because I might be confused. SarahDanielleNix (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense; there is no Gunslinger film that was released in 2012. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No such film exists so this redirect can cause confusion and is unlikely to be useful. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no such film. The argument presented by Wily doesn't make any sense - he basically acknowledges the film doesn't exist but wants it kept for some reason. SarahDanielleNix (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not nonsense, and it's rarely a good idea to delete titles that are liable to be externally linked. However, the redirect's title really is confusing, and deleting it will serve to demonstrate that no such film came out in 2012. It will even be marginally helpful if the page is externally linked: would-be readers will learn that the page doesn't exist, thus making them suspect that there was some sort of mistake. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wikipedia:FOOTY[edit]

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 keep. While I've participated in this discussion, the outcome is quite clear, so I'm closing in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO and WP:SNOW. --BDD (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-standing redirect to the WikiProject on association football; an IP disagrees and believes it should be a redirect to the WikiProject on Australian rules football. I am bringing this here for wider discussion - and for what it's worth I believe the redirect should remain pointed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. The IP's claim that "soccer is not footy with 'y' but with footie with 'ie'" is simply not true. In fact I never see it spelled that way, and it is certainly not the way it is used on Wikipedia as shown here. GiantSnowman 10:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it should remain pointing at WP:Football, as footy with a 'y' has, in my experience, never meant soccer, it has always meant Australian rules football, since, at least, the early 20th century in Australia. But also in the last 30 years it has also meant rugby league in NSW (except the Riverina region) and Queensland. --101.160.13.231 (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you say it refers to ARL but is also refers to RL? Well it also refers to soccer and many other variances, see footy. GiantSnowman 11:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say it refers to the AFL – this is a competition not a sport! I said it pretty much refers, exclusively, to Australian rules football. Why soccer is included in the list, I'm not sure why, but it might be because footie with 'ie' is included, which, outside Australia, means, I think, soccer. It does also occasionally refer to RL though. --101.160.13.231 (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typo, apologies. Just an FYI, from a Pom to an Aussie - association football/soccer is almost never referred to as footie - but it is referred to as footy. Again, Australia/ARL does not have exclusivity over the term. GiantSnowman 12:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not these days, but soccer in Britain used to be referred to as footie with 'ie' until the influx of Aussies into Britain from the 1960s onwards; the reference of soccer as footy with a 'y' in Britain is only a recent occurrence. BTW soccer also doesn't have exclusive rights over the word, but Aussie rules has a longer association with the word then any other code of football. --101.160.13.231 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footy is the common name for the sport in Australia. Footy is not used in an Australian, New Zealand or USA context to refer to the game of soccer. I've never read British sources that refer to soccer as footy. I'd support changing the redirect to the Australian project given the commonname usage. --LauraHale (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But most of these G-hits are related to association football. Footy is the common name for the sport in Australia? That's great, but it doesn't mean it is the common name for the sport in the rest of the world / on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 10:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any change to the current redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. In Australia, footy almost exclusively means Australian rules football. In the rest of the world it is probably rarely used at all, but probably more for the dominant world sport compared to the foreign sport that wouldn't be referred to at all, especially not by a nickname. If we were discussing an article space redirect, or dab, then Australian rules would be the obvious choice, but for WP space, I think it's too entrenched in common usage to bother changing . For the past few months the football vs soccer on Australian articles naming issue has reignited, and this is probably a spot fire from that. I don't think it's worth worrying about. The-Pope (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - "footy" is a long-standing nickname for association football in many countries. In Australia, it refers to a different sport, fine; maybe it does in New Zealand and the USA. But those places would conflict with each other anyway; as a result, the association football WikiProject is the best target, and exact spelling arguments are lame in the extreme; regardless, I've always seen it as "footy", and very rarely "footie". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Seems pretty clear from google that there are more references to association football as "footy" than aussie rules, so it is reasonable to assume that a greater proportion of searches using that term would be for association football. "footie" is something I have never seen in terms of spelling and this argument is essentially moot as it would necessitate an additional redirect rather than changing the spelling both of which would need to point to the same sport to make any sense. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Footy" refers more to association football than any other sport. – PeeJay 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a bit absurd. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - More often means association football. There is even Footytube a website, with many monthly hits, dedicated to association football. FWIW, in New Zealand it is used for either rugby or football. --Egghead06 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-established usage. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've never seen Footie used to refer to association football; Footy is well established redirect and should stay as is. JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FOOTY. When I see the word "footy", neither football nor American football is the first thing that comes to my mind. I would have more expected this shortcut to go to something regarding either footwear or the biology of feet. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? So you're not going to do any research into the potential validity of the term, and you're simply basing your vote off your own thoughts? That's not how Wikipedia works... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it works by providing sources, which is precisely what you did not do in your strong oppose above. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. Instead of going with the more rational "Reinforce redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football since it has been the redirect's long-standing target" answer that I actually agree with, given the fact that I have a pretty good idea how Wikipedia works, I decided to answer with my gut, especially since I know my gut's opinion has a WP:SNOWBALL chance of being accepted by consensus, and I honestly would be sad/surprised if my gut's opinion DID get accepted by consensus. (However, my "gut" would have stood a better chance of being accepted by consensus if this discussion happened back in 2007 when this redirect was created; I missed my opportunity by about half a decade.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shortcut is linked on over 500 pages, and a lot of them are on talk pages. If the target of this redirect is changed, it would disrupt a lot of links. Best to just leave it where it is. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long accepted term for soccer and the project's short name; might be more appropriate to create the WP:AFOOTY or WP:A-FOOTY rd's for WP:AFL. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:space redirects to wikiprojects are pretty much never used except by project members and other editors; the WP:RFD#DELETE bit about "The redirect might cause confusion" isn't applicable because most people who see the link understand that it's the football wikiproject. Because it's been around for a long time and is extensively used, we'd have a lot more disruption by deleting, retargeting, or disambiguating it than we do by keeping it where it is. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep helpful redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_26&oldid=1138579170"