Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2013

Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region[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 wrong venue. Per the instructions at the top, if a redirect is in the way of a page move then you need to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion in preparation for move of article. See talk page: Talk:Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region for discussion. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 22:49, 13 January 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:Poster rationale[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 20#Template:Poster rationale. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web rationale[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. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect, no incoming transclusions at present. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirects are cheap. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usage stats show that this still gets use so deletion would offer no benefits and make it harder for people to correctly tag their uploads. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 13 January 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:Non-free cereal box cover[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. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over-specfic, previous TfD retained this to allow for migration, which seems to have been completed. Incoming links appear to be lists of templates as opposed to actual uses. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirects are cheap. Ryan Vesey 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usage stats show that this still gets use so deletion would offer no benefits and make it harder for people to correctly tag their uploads. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from causing potential trouble for people who might try to use the redirect in the future, it breaks historic versions of file information pages. It is always convenient to be able to look at previous versions of a page, and I don't think that we're breaking anything by keeping the redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 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:Non-free film poster[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. Non-admin closure Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly unused template redirect, only incoming links appear to be lists of templates... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Deletion would be pointless as redirects are cheap. Ryan Vesey 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usage stats show that this gets use so deletion would offer no benefits and make it harder for people to correctly tag their uploads. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see why you're going after this redirect again; you've already been told that it's a bad idea to delete it, all this is going to do is serve as a forum for people to tell you that it's a bad idea to delete it again. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to {{Film poster rationale}} -- we have a specific template for film posters. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both {{Non-free poster}} and {{Film poster rationale}} are specific templates for film posters. The name of this redirect sounds like a licence template, so it seems better to redirect to the licence and not to the fur. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, rename {{non-free poster}} to {{non-free film poster}} there are other types of posters (like concert posters) that will get used on Wikipedia, and "non-free poster" should not exist if it is not for general posters. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from causing potential trouble for people who might try to use the redirect in the future, it breaks historic versions of file information pages. It is always convenient to be able to look at previous versions of a page, and I don't think that we're breaking anything by keeping the redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 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.

Gaming Hitler[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. Created as an attack page and unanimity that it has no utility. TerriersFan (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a redirect to Robert Kotick. Nothing on the internet seems to connect the expression Gaming Hitler" with Robert Kotic. Maimai009 15:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete False redirect used to attack the subject. Possibly a speedy candidate. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A speedy deletion is the first thing I've thought about, but funnily there is no criterion really matching this situation. Maimai009 20:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel like {{Db-g10}} serves the purpose. Ryan Vesey 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:CSD#G10 does allow the speedy deletion of pages that serve no other purpose but to attack someone, however I don't think that's quite the case here (see below). Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Do not speedy delete. It seems that he is sometimes referred to by this name, although rarely is his first name used at the same time ("Kotick" is seemingly unambiguous within the gaming community) so it's understandable why the nominator might not have found anything. More frequently use though is the term "Hitler of the gaming industry" or sometimes "Hitler of the gaming world" ("Hitler of the gaming community" seemingly never refers to him though), the highest profile use of this phrase is this article from AskMen (potentially a reliable source, but I haven't investigated this) that has been very widely quoted.
    However the phrase "gaming Hitler" without any context seems to refer to several other things too.
    One possibility would be to mention in his article that he is frequently referred to as Hitler, citing the AskMen article or others, that would then make it as likely as we can make it that search results for 'gaming hitler' not as an exact phrase would lead to the article. Regulars at RfD will note that I am normally arguing against leaving people to find things via search results and that is for very good reasons - they're unreliable, less convenient and don't appear at all for some methods of browsing/searching Wikipedia. In this case however, it is an unlikely phrase to be linked to so that removes some (but not all) of the people who wouldn't be helped by a redlink. This does get uses though, and we can never know how they arrived at the title, but in this case it seems more likely to be by searching than by a link. If the word "Hitler" is not mentioned in the article, search results will be unlikely to find the article so this would not be a useful option in that scenario.
    All in all, I am really unsure about what the best course of action is here, other than speedy deletion would not be appropriate given all I've written. I'll drop notes at the target article's talk page and for the computer gaming wikiprojects as their perspective would be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Also, he's Jewish; Jews can't into Hitlers. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What has his being Jewish got to do with whether people compare him to Hitler or not? Whether correct or not the redirect is not endorsing the comments, just recognising that people do call him that. Equally showing that not all uses of the phrase relate to him (which is what your link does and I already note in my comment) does not alter the fact that he does get called this. I'm still undecided whether this is a useful search term or not though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Ryan Vesey, false redirect used to attack the subject of the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - May be sometimes referred to, but is still a redirect intended to attack Kotick. ZappaOMati 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some sources may refer to him as such but it's an attack redirect nonetheless. Satellizer talk contribs 23:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as people hate him, this just is too much! Zionnomonus (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh hai, I fixed the redirect in accordance with real usage. --Niemti (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted your change, because whatever the merits of its current target, this is not a useful redirect to Adolf Hitler - anybody using the term is obviously familiar with who Hitler is, and (correctly) that article doesn't mention anything about computer gaming. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since computer gaming didn't exist in the '40s. Fegelein should've done something about that-sort of. ZappaOMati 06:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as this made me smile a little, it's not exactly appropriate use of a redirect Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:54, 14 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_13&oldid=1142587446"