Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 11, 2012

Shitpit[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 as uncontested. Tikiwont (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Shitpit" is not mentioned in the target article. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 19:55, 11 September 2012 (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 Other Wiki[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 TV Tropes. Ruslik_Zero 18:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes injoke that is meaningless to non-tropers. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Most if not all redirects will be meaningless to someone, and only being useful for a small number of people isn't a reason to delete anything. In this case, unless there's another possible meaning, this should be kept for the benefit of TV Tropes readers who might come across the term there and be unsure of its meaning. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to TV Tropes which describes the in-joke.--Lenticel (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep According to InternetSlang.com, it's slang for Wikipedia. This keep is tentative because I just found this website a few minutes ago, (in a yahoo search for "The Other Wiki"), and I don't know how reliable it is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As opposed to many other redirects meaningful to some, this is without the context confusing, since from inside Wikipdia there are many other Wikis, but not really Wikipeedia itself. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2012 (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.

Jai (2012 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 all except A Yash Chopra Romance. Ruslik_Zero 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real film title Jab Tak Hai Jaan is finally announced. These were all speculative titles that have been proven wrong, and can be deleted now. BollyJeff | talk 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nominations with identical nomination statements merged. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5, delete the rest: As per WP:R#Keep, criteria 3, since the film has been known by all these titles for quite a long time, it is pertinent to say that many people would be aided by searching for the topic from the above titles. Not all the above titles are speculative, the 2nd and the 5th one were used as Working titles of the film for a significant period of production. Secret of success (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then when will they ever get removed? They may be forgotten if not dealt with now. BollyJeff | talk 17:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches will provide sufficient results on the terms even after a long time post the film's release. Not only that, the 5th title had an extensive role in the marketing, including the release of trailers. So, it should be definitely retained. But the rumors (the 1st, 3rd and 4th) can be deleted. I'm not entirely sure about the 2nd one. Secret of success (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Focus renaming the page with appropriate title. Let redirect exists if the name was prominent in media. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial delete: Delete "Yash Chopra's Untitled Project" for being redundant now that that film has title. Also delete "Ye Kahan Aa Gaye Hum" as the song from Silsila should be a better target for that. For other 3 noms; no comments. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 03:40, 20 September 2012 (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.

Temporary move[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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five months and nobody's fixed this? Really?  Mogism (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:0[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. Makes sense and useful, Tikiwont (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-related to target TheChampionMan1234 07:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The contents page is section 0 of an encyclopaedia or other reference work, and so it is related to the target. It has existed since 2007 without causing any harm, and it gets use. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful shortcut to Wikipedia's Table of Contents. Zero signifies central or beginning, and the contents page is the top-tier (and therefore the starting point) in Wikipedia's navigation system. It lists all the navigation subsystems. Unfortunately, WP:TOC was already taken by another topic. The main advantage of WP:0 is that it is as short a shortcut as you can possibly get. The Transhumanist 20:13, 18 September 2012 (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.

Characters of Season 6[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. Tikiwont (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, since the connection between "Season 6" and "Smallville" is arbitrary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as too vague. Although a strict interpretation of the licensing requirements would encourage the keeping of this, as content that was subsequently merged into the current target was created at this title, it existed there for only 3 mintues[1] before being moved by the original and sole author Bignole (talk · contribs) (whom I'll notify of this discussion). Before merging the page went through a series of other names, but all of those have "Smallville" in the title and so this rationale doesn't apply to them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I didn't create the page, it was created a long time ago. My first edit to it was to move it to "Characters of Smallville season 6". It needs to be deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2012 (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.

Maobama[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. With actual navigational benefits doubtful, there is clear agreement not to cement these controversial epithets redirects unless they become a notable part of the public discussion.Tikiwont (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this redirect is needed. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Chairman Maobama to this discussion as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, it seems to be a notable epithet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, I notice that other redirects by this user (such as Mitt the Twit) have been (speedily) deleted. I'm not sure this term is popular enough to warrant what is essentially an attack redirect. Is there any discussion of the terms "Chairman Maobama" or "Maobama" on this site currently? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest redirecting to Public image of Barack Obama, but the term isn't mentioned there, either. The only place "Maobama" is used is on Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, where it occurs only in the title of an external link, not the article text itself. I suspect that someone looking up the epithet would know who it refers to (so a redirect to Barack Obama would not be helpful), and be interested in learning who coined it and perhaps what it means-- but we don't have an article explaining the term (is it even notable enough for that?). So I'm leaning toward delete69.111.189.155 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't looked in detail, but my gut reaction would be that it isn't notable enough for its own article but it probably is notable enough for a mention on a relevant article (one that deals with nicknames given to him, or the China thing that seems to have sparked it whatever that is/was, but I've not looked to see if we have one). The key thing though is that this is getting traffic (870 views in August is huge for a redirect) so people are searching for it, and what we really don't want is a negative bio piece being created at the title which the redirect quietly discourages (the corollary to WP:REDLINK), so as long as the target is relevant (and it is, even if it isn't perfect) then it's better to keep it than delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found List of nicknames of United States presidents, which would be an appropriate place for this epithet (and therefore an appropriate target for the redirect) assuming it was considered notable enough. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I certainly wouldn't object to retargetting there, although I think I prefer the existing target that's an extremely weak preference. 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:AREYOUFUCKINGKIDDINGME?. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per a category of pages kept because they are humorous? I'm sorry, I don't understand your rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify. The link was meant to indicate a jokey rationale link. The substance of my comment was "are you fucking kidding me?" - I am shocked that a malicious redirect of this nature has not been speedily deleted as an obvious attack on the subject in a clear violation of WP:BLP (which covers all Wikipedia content about living people). It's a disgrace that it exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The odds that someone would use this non-notable term to search for the article are slim to none. szyslak (t) 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in just under a month between creation on 4 August and the end of the stats period on 31 August this got 41 hits proves your estimation of the odds to be significantly incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gee, a whole 41? Most if not all of that comes from people either reading the Obama-related talk pages where this was posted or taking part in this MfD or both and clicking the lick to see where it goes. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it vague? It's a redirect from a specific nickname to the specific person who has been given this nickname. That doesn't strike me as anything approaching vague. Thryduulf (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You've got to be kidding me. Not even a remotely notable redirect. Dave Dial (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only a political slur but a completely non-notable one as well. Just because some right-wing blogs make up a clever nickname and bounce it around in the echo chamber of their own minds doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. If it were a nickname that had actually been noteworthy, i.e. "Bubba" for Bill Clinton, then it'd be suitable. For related discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamaism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamaism (2nd nomination). I had no idea that idiotic tripe has been recreated and only re-debated a month ago. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and not a likely search term. As someone else already pointed out, anyone looking up this term most likely already knows who it is intended to refer to. I'll add that ghits do not make something notable, and if the redirect page itself has seen >40 page hits, I'd wager many of those are people who, like me, clicked the link because they saw mention of this MfD discussion, not because they searched it. Is there a way to see how many times the term has been typed into the search bar? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stats I quote above are for August, and so predate this RfD - the stats link is deliberately to the month preceding the nomination to explicitly avoid the surge in numbers caused by the discussion. For comparison in September, there were 6 hits between the 1st to 10th September inclusive (i.e. before the redirect was nominated here) and 48 11-15 September inclusive (i.e. during the nomination, stats for today are not yet available). It should be noted that 41 is a significant number of hits for a redirect, the background noise of bots, etc. being 2-3 hits/month. The only statistics we have available are total page views per day, so it is not possible to know how many people arrived at the page by clicking an internal link (and if so, which), from a link on another website (and if so, which), via the internal search engine (and if so what the search term was), via an external search engine or other external search tool (and if so which one and what the search term was), by entering the URL directly, or by any other way (and there are several). Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification, Thryduulf. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (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 Escapist (2001 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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirected should be deleted. This redirect is an an orphan, and all information on Wikipedia relating to the year being 2001 instead of 2002 has now been edited and formatted properly. Sources cite this movie's film date as 2002. This redirect was created in result of a page move. Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but tag as {{R from incorrect title}}. The article was at the (2001 film) title from creation in 2006 until a few minutes before this nomination. This means that the old title will continue to be the target of incoming external links, bookmarks and searches, etc. for a long time to come. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2012 (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/2012_September_11&oldid=1142587503"