Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2011

Thunderbirds[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 disambiguation page. Either way, the user can find their way to the article they wanted. Evidence of a primary topic seems to vary between countries. There is no point in creating a duplicate disambig page here either as was also suggested, thus closing as retarget to the main disambiguation page. --Taelus (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect to Thunderbird...almost half of the items on the singular disambig page have an 'S' on the end CTJF83 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom - I was just victim of this redirect, and fixing it would be a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well I am a victim of the proposer's ugly "Redirect for discussion" efforts. The TV show is far more significant that any of the other plural uses given on the disambig page, leaving it how it is will mean that most visitors to Thunderbirds don't need to search a disambig page and click again. Perhaps User:Ctjf83 would like to declare his interest, if any, in proposing this change, e.g. he/she wants more prominence for one of the minor usages? Mu2 22:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the USAF performance team is much more significant than the TV show. 65.94.45.185 (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes you say that? The statistics further down this page seem to suggest the TV show and film are the most significant topics by a substantial margin. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the TV show is the primary usage of the plural. I've expanded the hatnote there so it links to the dab page for other uses. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you basing that on? CTJF83 01:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A combination of google hits (everything relevant on the first page and a half is the TV series or the movie) and traffic stats. Of all the pages that could reasonably be at the Thunderbirds title, only the TV series (27,003) and film (21,744) have over 10,000 hits. The next largest is the dab page with 8680 and then "The Fabulous Thunderbirds" with 7438. The redirect gets 3475 (all figures for April). Even if we assume that every visitor who got to the redirect page actually wanted the film (obviously not the case), the TV series still had nearly 2,000 more views than the film. The present situation where the film gets an explicit hatnote seems to me to match what the data shows. Thryduulf (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The very first Google result and a large number towards the top are United States Air Force Thunderbirds, which is the very thing I was looking for when I searched this. So I disagree with your analysis that everything relevant on G hits is the movie or tv show. The air force thunderbirds has over 12,390 hits. Note also Wikipedia:Search engine test CTJF83 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting. The only mention of the airforce Thunderbirds on a Google UK search are in a Daily Mail news article (1st news result, 10th web result) dated yesterday (4th June) that definitely wasn't in the first three pages of results when I compiled the statistics above. Even when using the international Google, the air display team only get news hits (which are by definition transitory and so are not often a good indicator of long-term primary topic status). The stats show it only getting half the TV series and film hits though, so I still don't see the case for "Thunderbirds" primary topic being anything other than the TV series or film. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess the USAF Thunderbirds won't get many results outside the US CTJF83 21:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well there ya go! You use British Google, the TV show and movie are both British, that clearly sways the results. CTJF83 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Pointing out for closer that 2 out of the 3 "keeps" are British, therefore they would be more swayed to know about British TV show/movie, then people in general. CTJF83 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • And you're from America and were looking for the USAF Thunderbirds: i.e. not like most wikipedia users who, according to the stats from http://stats.grok.se/ and as detailed above by User:Thryduulf are looking for Thunderbirds the TV series and the film. I see that you're also an experienced wikipedia editor and know the processes and protocols to make things happen, which allows you to shape the agenda in a way that an inexperienced editor like me can't. Also the number of people expressing an opinion here is trivial compared to the number of users of these articles so a decision either way is hardly significant or representative, though the winner will no doubt trumpet it against all revert attempts. I would simply say that the wikipedia usage stats show that most people want Thunderbirds the TV/film, so that should be where they get to first, rather than the list of minor usages. Mu2 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • You know Thryduulf, I was thinking, since Thunderbirds redirects to the film, the views on here aren't 100% accurate, many of those, like me, could've been looking for something else Thunderbirds related. CTJF83 11:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This will not be resolved as a simple "keep", I'm afraid. If you want to argue that the TV series is the primary topic for the plural title "Thunderbirds", you need to propose a page move of that article to Thunderbirds. We don't use a disambiguator for primary topic article titles. Unless there's consensus for such a move, this will need to be retargeted to Thunderbird. Jafeluv (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is there not a dis-ambiguous page for the term thunderbird(s). I can think of at least one other usage of the term, that referring to the 45th ID. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct, per nom. There are many uses of the term Thunderbird(s), as indicated in the disambigous page, and therefore it makes sense to specify the title to the TV show. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Although I am not a fan of the TV show, I would suggest to have disambiguation page including the television series and film including the United States Air Force Thunderbirds. A retarget is not necessary. JJ98 (Talk) 07:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, neither the TV show nor the Aerobatic team have sufficient notability to be considered a primary use of the word. I suspect that on a worldwide basis, the TV show would be better known, and withing the USA the aerobatic team would be better known. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, per nomination; looks like the best approach to me, and no single usage is obviously head and shoulders above all the others. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, per nomination. I agree with all the retarget reasons above. § Music Sorter § (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lycee Napoleon[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagret artcile does not mention this as an alternative or historical name for the school or part thereof. Need an expert to clarify. TB (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: According to French Wikipedia (and my poor French), "The Abbey was replaced by an educational establishment which took the name École Centrale du Panthéon in 1796, then Lycée Napoléon, which makes Henry IV the second French lycée, historically speaking, after the Lycée Ampère founded in Lyon in 1519."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Republic of Taiwan (false)[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) 21:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redirect really necessary? I wonder if anyone would type such an entry. I've never seen any entries with (false) at the end. If the person knows it's false then probably would not look it up right? How about just deleting the redirect and allow anyone looking for "Republic of Taiwan" if they actually thought there's a country called that to get to the "Republic of Taiwan" page and the info there will tell you what the situation is and the correct country name. It's unlikely for people looking for countries to actually type in Republic of ___, since many countries are not republics, but are Kingdom of ___ or other forms of government. People will most likely type the common name, in this case just type Taiwan. I propose deletion, or otherwise rename it to Republic of Taiwan (proposed) and redirect it to the Republic of Taiwan article. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete highly improbable search term CTJF83 22:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; I would guess it was a political statement anyway.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless redirect, and probably created as a political statement Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jiangzhou (Xinjiang)[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) 21:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possible interpretation is that Jiangzhou is part of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, when "Jiangzhou" is truly referring to Xinjiang County, Shanxi; this is extremely confusing. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The redirect might cause confusion with the primary topic for Xinjiang. Quigley (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_27&oldid=1086346788"