Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2013.

Han Wenwen[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No info (other than 1 not-so-obvious mention) on the target page. Also a professional actress shouldn't be defined by 1 movie. Timmyshin (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Contrary to my position on Tony Acworth, IMDB suggests this person has only been involved in one notable project, that being the Karate Kid remake. Iff she shows up in another one, we should probably delete this; otherwise, the redirect is more helpful than a redlink would be. It's entirely possible she's not even acting anymore. Given the information we have available now, this is the best solution. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we verify that? She's not mentioned in the article's reference or in the IMDB pages for the actress or film. --BDD (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2] The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 28 October 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.

Vern[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 disambiguate. WJBscribe (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. Many people on Wikipedia have the name Vern, so why should we give priority to this? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of the people with the name Vern are not mentioned as Vernon, and Vern is sometimes an abbreviation of Verner or Lavern. It could probably also refer to Vern-sur-Seiche or the Vern River. Peter James (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the list is incomplete shouldn't influence our decision here, because it can be remedied fairly easily. Creating a disambiguation page is also an option. It could link to Vernon and Verner (name), though I suspect that Vern is much more frequently a diminutive form of Vernon. Lavern is a redlink. - Eureka Lott 14:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe move Vernon (surname) to Vernon (name) and add the given name. A disambiguation page is probably needed, whether Vernon (name) is the primary topic or not. In addition to the place and river I'd mentioned, there's also Vern-d'Anjou. As Vern isn't always Vernon, people whose name isn't confirmed to be Vernon shouldn't be listed at Vernon (name); a search for "Vern" in articles returns approximately 60 people called Vernon, 4 Lavern, 3 Verner and 1 Verdi, but there are around 41 just Vern. Peter James (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a disambiguation page (although lists are incomplete) at Vern (disambiguation). Peter James (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the dabpage suggestion. While I remember Vern from the Ernest films I doubt that he is so associated with Earnest that people would regularly be looking for him when typing Vern.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 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.

Brazil women's national under-20 football team[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, aside from the sentence "In 2002 and in 2004, Brazil women's U-20 national football team was the fourth placed team in the FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship.", which should probably be removed. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is merit for Brazil women's national under-20 football team to become a seperate article. GiantSnowman 14:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with GS, as a team that has competed at a world championship for their age group, there is almost certainly sufficient reliable source information for a separate article. Fenix down (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi footy colleagues. Practice at RfD is to close a discussion if the redirect is overwritten with an article, so feel free to do that BOLDly. This discussion may also end up being closed as delete per WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing relevant in the target and per WP:RFD#DELETE point 10 The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:23, 29 October 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.

Sprinfield Elementary[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. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating on behalf of Koro Neil (talk · contribs), who blanked the redirect with summary "Spelling error - unnecessary redirect page". — This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 19 October 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.

Breaking changes[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 retarget. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this be retargeted to backward compatibility. Fundamentally, I think an internal redirect is usually preferable to an external one, and since there's a link to the Wiktionary entry in the first paragraph of that article, it's one click away in either case. Breaking changes are a concept definitionally related to backward compatibility, and I think there's much more valuable and relevant content at that article than in the Wiktionary entry. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:54, 19 October 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.

Henry Maidment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 29#Henry Maidment

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_19&oldid=1086346565"