Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2011

Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune[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 move to subpage of target to Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)/Biggest wins and losses as needsd to be kept for GFDL attribution.

Target makes no mention whatsoever of "biggest wins and losses". Unused redirect, averages to <1 hit/day. Histmerge would be fine since this is a former article that was merged (and subsequently removed per WP:IINFO). Suggest that Biggest wins and losses on Wheel of Fortune be moved to a subpage of the talk page to preserve content and attribution, with a {{Copied}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse suggestion from nominator. Whilst we have to keep the page history, there is no point in maintaining a misleading redirect. The page can be moved to a subpage and a note can be put in the merge targets talk page showing where the old history is. (I assume this still meets GFDL requirements? Not an expert.) --Taelus (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the old content from the "biggest losses" article is stored somewhere, it meets GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am surprised that there isn't a relevant section in the target but there you go! Preserve attribution as above. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Apparently none of the content from "Biggest wins ..." remains at "Wheel of Fortune ...". Do we really need to keep credit to unused content? - Nabla (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - Hi, yes we do. Whilst at the moment there is no visible content remaining, the content is still in the history and could be reverted to at any time. At that stage we would be in breach of our GFDL licence if we had not retained attribution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2011 (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.

First sexual experience (human)[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 Virginity#Loss of virginity. 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The current redirect is completely inappropriate. It could be redirected to virginity, but who would really type that phrase into the search box? 'Graham87 15:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget-To Virginity#Loss of virginity. Odd as it may seem, the stats show that this is, indeed, getting hits.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Virginity#Loss of virginity. This is a used redirect. It started out as a short article mention the breaking of the hymen, hence the target. The key point is that the whole phrase need not be typed into the search box. Typing as little as 'First sexual' is enough to be offered this redirect. No reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, in my search box (Mozilla Firefox), "First sex" is enough to offer this suggestion and no others beyond "first sex" itself, which is a redirect to The First Sex, a book (and apparently an orphan). So I can see while the whole search term may not be used much, it is arrived at in this way The suggested retarget seems sensible enough. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2011 (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.

16th Infantry Division (United States)[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 16th Division (United States). Enough already; now that this new page has been created we can target this redirect at its natural home and put this curious RfD peacefully to sleep. RIP. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect creating a loop Night of the Big Wind talk 10:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment .. that's because the page has just been created :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already solved by Buckshot06 who deleted the wrong redirect and corrected the linking. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:36, 14 August 2011 (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.

Ken Kitamura[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. No reliable sources state that this is his legal name, thus it violates WP:BLP. Xfansd (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The best source I've found was IMDB and their biographies don't seem to be considered reliable. The Japanese version mentions his full name, according to what I could get from Babel Fish. TimBentley (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just like you said IMDB's bios are not reliable sources, and neither are other versions of Wikipedia. (Also, sorry but at first I forgot to put that I think the redirect should be deleted, so I added it now.) Xfansd (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2011 (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.

Hapontastic[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not incorrect (Hapontastic is/was a timeslot on the ABS-CBN Filipino TV channel). But there is no longer any mention of the subject in the target list, which is potentially confusing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if we have nothing to say on a subject we should front up and admit it! Passing mention at Banana Split (TV series) but not substantial enough for a worthwhile retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2011 (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/2011_August_1&oldid=1078353490"