Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2013

Wikipedia:@[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

This should be deleted because I can't imagine anybody trying to use this as a search term, and neither of the links to the redirect are relevant to it.  — TORTOISEWRATH 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep email symbol, and meaning "at", both of which would be plausible to use to find contact information / address. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Plausible, and redirects are cheap Tazerdadog (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a plausible redirect. However, not everyone on the net is familiar with the uses of the @ sign.--Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2013 (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.

Template:vlist[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. Wizardman 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per the withdrawn move discussion, this name is misleading, since the main feature of this list is not that it is vertical, but that it is without bullets. Frietjes (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing in that discussion suggests this is anything other than a likely search term. The existence of {{hlist}} means that people will expect {{vlist}} to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    so change it to a redirect to {{Ulist}} and create a redirect for {{bulleted list}}, because if unbulleted list exists, then bulleted list should exist too? Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As there's more than one kind of vertical list, that won't work. It'd need to be selectable between unbulleted lists, numbered lists, bulleted lists, definition lists, etc. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are multiple types of vertical lists, the unbulleted list is only one of them, therefore this is incorrect. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can someone undo CsDix (talk · contribs)'s wholesale renaming the template link to use this improper link? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frietjes, the IP, and the previous discussion. The name "vlist" suggests a vertical list, which could be a bulleted list, and unbulleted list, an enumerated list, or pretty much any kind of list that is vertical. I would support moving {{hlist}} to a more descriptive name if there is a problem with "hlist" existing. The existence of another poorly named template or redirect is no reason to keep this one. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2013 (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.

Category:Shintoho[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. The consensus is that although this unnecessary it is also harmless, with no other reasons advocated for deletion the discussion does not support deleting the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Armbrust, the creator of this redirect is playing at, but they seem to have some beef about a recent CfD. This is pointy, disruptive and borderline ANI material. Look at the page histories and [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominator didn't given any valid reason, why this redirect is inappropriate. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Seems a pretty logical use of a redirect to me, can't see a reason to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a redirect, it's a category redirect. What are we planning to add to it, i.e. from the narrow scope of potential articles that could ever benefit from such a redirect? It's not as if (like a mainspace redirect) we might be linking to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I happened upon this discussion while looking at the RFD log page, and since it seemed Andy Dingley was upset about something, I decided to look further to see what was going on. As far as I can tell, according to WP:CATRED, categories are only redirected (using the category soft redirect template) when it is likely someone will add new articles to the category using the wrong name. Since the company this category is for appears to be out of business, I wouldn't expect many new articles to be created that need to be added to the category. Since not much will need to be added to the category, I don't think it is likely people will often use the wrong category name. Therefore the redirect probably isn't needed, and per WP:CATRED should probably be deleted. At the same time, the soft redirect isn't harmful, so I could see the argument to keep it (but again, I don't think it is necessary). However, that being said, I think Andy Dingley's behavior was inappropriate. As far as I can tell, Armburst's edits were all made in good faith while not really understanding the situation with the CFD or the policy on redirecting categories. Rather than simply explain things, Andy Dingley posted angry replies, called a good-faith edit vandalism, and didn't even try to refer Armbrust to a page explaining why a redirect shouldn't be used on a category. Andy, if you had just posted calm explanations, I would think the situation could have been resolved easier. Calathan (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2013 (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.

Two Japanese voice actresses[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 withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These two Japanese voice actresses do not officially reveal that they are the same one as Naomi Wakabayashi. So these redirect pages are against WP:BLPNAME. Facial expression (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I forgot to check the edit history of the article, Naomi Wakabayashi. But you proposed the deletion of the article like this. If the article is deleted, can we delete the two previous redirects, too? If we cannot, please tell me where to discuss the deletion of these articles.--Facial expression (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think the content of the article supports having an article. But, if the article continues to exist, then it already documents the two previous names, so would require either separating the edit history to the two other persons as being different persons, or revision suppression (oversighting), since deletion of the redirects will not remove the move history. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then if the article is deleted, I don't have to pass through troublesome procedures such as separating its edit history or oversight, right?--Facial expression (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the deletion was disputed. So if the article were to be deleted, it needs a full blown WP:AFD. And reviewing the article, I noticed some problems that will not be solved by oversighting/separation, since "Miyako Suzuta" is still listed in the current article as the metadata form to use, so you can't separate out Miyako Suzuta... it exists in all edits for Naomi. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think WP:BLPNAME is relevant to this situation. It is about not mentioning the names of private individuals whose names haven't been widely disseminated. In this case, I think all the names in question have been used in the credits of works, and thus are widely available. It definitely seems wrong to link the names if no reliable source does so (per WP:V or the BLP policy more generally), but I don't think WP:BLPNAME is the right policy to refer to in this case. Calathan (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment each time the article was renamed, the references to the previous name were deleted. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks, Calathan. I may have misunderstood the policy, WP:BLPNAME. Well, I know that the information which include the different names of the same person is removed by editing, not deleted on the Japanese Wikipedia, where I'm usually active. So, I found that I don't have to delete these edit histories and that I should revise the content ot three articles. I think this is the best way to solve this problem. In this way, can I close the discussion here?--Facial expression (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2013 (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.

Flynn Rider[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. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Flynn Rider is a major character from Tangled because he was the second protagonist of the film and Rapunzel's spouse at the end of film, thus it may be a notable character and not apporite to be a redirect to the cast section of the film's article nor its article on Wikia. Even if this character isn't notable, it should be rather deleted than a redirect to the character list of the film. Tóth Péter Bence (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This can have the templae {{R with possibilities}} (which I have done) that in the short-term satisfies PetikeWP's concerns that it should have its own page. There is a page called Rapunzel (Disney) so there may be scope for it to be notable on its own accord. iComputerSaysNo 20:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the first part of the nom up to the words "notable character", and per SaysNo. Maybe there should be a separate article about Flynn Rider and maybe not. But until one exists, Wikipedia users who want to read about him are better off getting redirected to our article about Tangled, the film in which he is a major character, rather than getting nothing at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_18&oldid=1090409402"