Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2009

Head Over Heels (1979 film) → Chilly Scenes of Winter (film)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an improbable search term because of the parenthesis. Thinboy00 @952, i.e. 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, because it is in standard film disambiguation form, it is not improbable. As the original film title it also may be more likely to be sought under that title. If I were coming from imdb and chose not to access the disambiguation page "Head Over Heels", this is exactly what I would enter. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Keep - It is a 1979 film with the original title Head Over Heels (stated in the first sentence of article); disambiguation is needed as there are several films of that title listed in IMDB. B.Wind (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the original title of the film's first release thus imperative. see IMDB, also disambig page be created at Head Over Heals, as there are seven movies with this name see here --Ekabhishek (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Note that the Head Over Heels disambiguation page already exists. Also note that the article on this film was originally at Head Over Heels (1979 film), but was moved to its current title on 17 October 2007 by Ekabhishek for the stated reason: The movie was [re-]released in 1982, with a new title and ending, and is the popular version. Incidentally, the move was not discussed on the talk page either before or after the move, so it seems to have been acceptable. --06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking at the disambiguation page, there are at least four movies named "Head Over Heels". IMDB apparently lists seven. People looking for this particular film would be likely to know that, especially if they came from a site like IMDB. With even a passing familiarity with how pages are disambiguated, they would know to include the year and "film" in the search. Baradys (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is an alternative title for the target film in standard disambiguation format. PaulJones (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

First Baptist Church (Austin, MN) → Austin, Minnesota[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete both.Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1) The article on Austin, Minnesota no longer has a section about churches. 2) It is an implausible search term. No one would search for "First Baptist Church (Austin, MN), and by the extremely small probability that they would, they would get a search page that would take them to a better place than the city article. 3) It should function as a redlink so people will see the article on the church doesn't exist rather than take them somewhere where they would get zero information about the topic. Tavix (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. It is pointless and potentially confusing to a person who clicks on a link, to be sent to a page that has no mention of the subject of the redirect. Much better to leave a subject as a red link so that the user can see immediately that the article does not exist in Wikipedia. The second redirect (spelling out Minnesota) was originally a one-sentence article stating that "First Baptist Church is a church in Austin, Minnesota" and providing an external link to the church's website (see [1]). The first redirect above (with "MN") was created as a redirect to the article. •••Life of Riley (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deleting both does seem to be the best course. There is no point in leading searchers (if any) down a path only to have them face oblivion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

BJ NOVAC → B. J. Novak[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled wrong and in all caps Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP- searching for "WILL FARELL" redirects to "Will Ferrell". Typos are commonly redirected and the fact that it's in caps is meaningless- "wIlL FARelL" redirects to "Will Ferrell" too. Idiotic nomination. --TheTruthiness (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per truthy, it's not hard to accidenily hit caps lock.--Pattont/c 14:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it isn't just the CAPS, the guy's name is spelled wrong too. Tavix (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The caps are acceptable. The spelling might arise from hearing the name spoken without actually reading it... but it isn't a really bizarre name so maybe not. --Thinboy00 @955, i.e. 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the caps are not the problem (CAPS LOCK is an often-hit key, being next to both the shift key and the "a"); neither is the (common) misspelling of the last name Novak. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a plausible spelling error for the target. PaulJones (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

NHL photos → Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/PhotoCreditsForNHLsByState[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all.Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this a cross-namespace redirect, it is a confusing one as "NHL" is commonly known as the National Hockey League. With the same (or similar) justifications, I also nominate:

B.Wind (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unuseful as a cross-namespace redirect, and when I first glanced at it, I thought it was about the National Hockey League as well. Tavix (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all --Thinboy00 @959, i.e. 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as affirmatively interfering with other searches. In a proper situation I might suggest a redirect to a disambiguation page instead, but that doesn't seem to fit here. --Bejnar (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Improper cross-namespace redirect and misleading abbreviation. I am not in the least a hockey fan, but I do associate NHL with the National Hockey League. In fact NHL in the English Wikipedia redirects to the hockey league page. Also, why is NHL an abbreviation for the National Register of Historic Places? It should be NRHP if you need an acronym. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it stands for National Historic Landmark. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:ITN/C → Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently (September 2008) created cross namespace redirect that is duplicated by the properly formed short cut WP:ITN/C. B.Wind (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. Parallels T:ITN nicely though... --Thinboy00 @957, i.e. 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

C:U → Category:Uncategorized pages[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect with minimal history. Not indicated as a short cut on the target page (unlike CAT:U). B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hauturu/Little Barrier Island → Little Barrier Island[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely subpage redirect. MBisanz talk 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Hauturu already exists as a disambiguation page. The name of this redirect violates WP:NAME as misleading as it implies being a subpage of Hauturu. B.Wind (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for the above reasons and because in the Wikipedia search one is likely to search for one or the other, but not for both together. On the other hand it is one of those harmless redirects. On Google, which apparently doesn't display Wikipedia redirects except as they show up on article pages, one might put in both because one was looking for the "Hauturu" which was "Little Barrier Island". --Bejnar (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dollhouse_(TV_series → Dollhouse_(TV_series)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete assuming that the thus deleted duplicate stub is not of interest anymore.Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete article is missing closing bracket which correct one has. MatthiasG (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_8&oldid=1046442282"