Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 22

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2015.

The Fall Guy (2013 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. --BDD (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another faulty WP:CRYSTALBALL. A film version of The Fall Guy was not released in 2013 or 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2015 (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.

The Little Mermaid (2014 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. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mentions of a 2014 or 2015 film titled "The Little Mermaid" at Joe Wright or at The Little Mermaid (disambiguation) -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2015 (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.

12345678

[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 no consensus on best target, default to delete. Various targets have been discussed below with none getting majority consensus. On the other hand, most participants agree that these two numerical sequences can mean a number of things, so I think the default outcome is to delete because they may be confusing. Deryck C. 09:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a couple of large numbers. They aren't specifically related to counting, although I can see where the creator is coming from. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers aren't specifically mentioned there, so I don't see how that would help. It's the same situation, but that target is a little narrower. -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I'll change it to weak. "1, 2, 3" and "1, 2, 3, 4" are mentioned specifically, so if "123" and "1234" respectively were the redirects in question, I'd feel more strongly about it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the target but happy with the retarget idea generally.Delete per WP:RFD#D2Tavix twisted my arm Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Since there is no universal agreement on whether natural numbers include zero – as that article says in its lede third para – it would be a little odd (or even) to retarget something starting with "1" to something that includes "0". Often these are written longhand just as N0 and N1 although in formal logic they are often written as U+2115 ℕ DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL N as described in Natural numbers#Notation. We don't have 01234567 nor 012345678. So perhaps these are WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think they're confusing. There's no way we can guess what someone is looking for here. It could be a lot of things, just ask Google. -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Changed mine above to Delete. We are not Sesame Street. (WP:NOTSESAMESTREET is red.) Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2015 (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.

Pijiu

[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 to Beer in China. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; Mandarian Chinese word that does not seem to be used in English as a loanword. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Doing a bit of searching, it looks like the term is used as a part of general English language titles for restaurant names and combo meal names. While I guess it's not technically a 'loanword', it seems to be in an ambiguous gray space where someone that doesn't speak Chinese would come across it in regular life. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't the resources to look this up, but is this a back formation from pidgin (or, less likely, pi-jaw)?Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Pijiu" is not mentioned at Beer in China, so to retarget there would just be just as WP:RFD#D2 confusing were we to do so. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (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.

List of Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes

[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. There's really no consensus here, but I believe making these links red will facilitate an actual list being written—and no one seems to dispute that the first item here will eventually be an actual article. Contrary to claims made in this discussion, there is no episode list at the target article currently, so as redirects, these titles were doing readers no favors. Please note that the third item was already speedily deleted for other reasons. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D5 since there aren't any The Late Show with Stephen Colbert episodes (yet). This can be recreated when/if there's an episode list, but this is premature. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - let's just wait. The show is less the a month away, and we'll probably get the listings for the first few weeks before that. It'll be a useful page in no time, there's no harm in it being a redirect for the time being. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...but it's not useful yet. It's confusing for the time being because this list doesn't exist. When it becomes necessary, it'll be just as easy to create it from a redlink as it is to convert it from a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion, but I think this is the wrong forum. This was a list, which was nominated for CSD (which I declined), and then redirected out of process. This should be on AfD, not here. -- Y not? 15:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Y: No, because it's currently a redirect. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It was made a redirect out of process. If y'all conclude that should not be a redirect, you should revert, not delete. -- Y not? 16:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the !vote "options" at RFD is "restore." If consensus wants that list restored, then it shall be restored. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Or "restore then userfy of draftify (if that is even a word)" in order to get it out of the article space without deleting the work done thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore 'which of the three redirects? Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2015 (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.

Deeez Nuts

[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 to Deez Nuts (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget The edit filter wouldn't let me fix this redirect. This redirect should not be carrying any categories, since the song already has an article, Deeez Nuuuts. I tried repointing it there with fixed categorization, but it wouldn't let me save. However, we also have several other typo targets, besides the song, being Deez Nuts, Deez Nuts (candidate), and Stone Cold World which also has a song called "Deez Nutz"; all being viable typos for this form. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (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.

Kobato

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 29#Kobato

Other recent deaths

[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. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Recent deaths targets the same article as the nominated redirect. Due to this, the nominated redirect creates a confusing circular reference to itself in the event that a reader looks up "recent deaths", then looks up "other recent deaths" hoping to find different information ... but then gets redirected back to the article they were already viewing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (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/2015_August_22&oldid=1050183113"