Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2013

Jello[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it could be slightly controversial, so I'm raising this here. In the United States, gelatin dessert is referred to as jello, no matter what the brand is. The vast majority of people looking up "jello" are looking for the dessert, not for the specific brand. It is currently similar to redirecting Pudding to Hunt's Snack Pack; although the name isn't the same in this instance.  Ryan Vesey 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Ryan, as a genericized trademark. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is I find it unfathomable that Jello could redirect to anything but Jell-O. The only difference between the two is a dash in the middle. Jell-O has a corner on the American market, most American gelatin desserts are Jell-O. Maybe add a hatnote. pbp 01:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make a hatnote to gelatin dessert to address the OP's valid concern per pbp. --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note Talk:Jello (disambiguation)#Requested move. TimBentley (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the trademarked term is "Jell-O" not "jello". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. A hat note isn't necessary as gelatin dessert is mentioned and wikilinked in the first sentence; anyone looking for gelatin desserts in general will have no trouble finding this link. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A hatnote would do no harm, but is probably unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 27 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.

Andy Thompson (artist)[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, for now ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is confusing because subject is not an artist in the commonly accepted sense, he is a theatre performer and producer. The article was moved from AfC under the incorrect name. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sure, not strictly an artist, but I don't see much of a reason to delete here, especially since the first sentence calls him a "theater artist". If we get an article by an Andy Thompson that's an artist, we can replace the redirect with that article and maybe hatnote it, but for now it's fine. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:17, 26 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.

Century House (Norwalk, Ohio)[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this link redirects to a redirect. Century House originally was redirected by me to the church parish, only for me to discover that St. Mary has no notability outside of its diocese and was redirected there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I think the target just got tagged instead. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:08, 1 April 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.

Toilets in the Republic of China[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is not Taiwan. Revolution1221 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the arguments so far would apply equally to that one, I think it would not be out of process to delete that redirect as well if this RfD continues in its current direction. wctaiwan (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four previously-named redirects. The creation of those redirects is just beyond bold. --Cold Season (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The redirect causes information to be apparently attributed to toilets in China that is just factually incorrect. As a long-term resident in China, I can confirm that hardly any of the article the redirect points to is relevant to toilets in China. It is borderline offensive to try to assume that Japanese culture and Chinese culture are somehow so close as this redirect seems to assume, though I imagine inexperienced people might assume this from America or Europe (because both places are far away in the same direction so that they appear "close" to such people). Because of this, I request that it is closed with a delete decision as soon as possible.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:19, 30 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.

Italy Kids Choice Awards[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article this redirects to has no mention of the Italian version. It would be better off being deleted so people know this page doesn't exist and there's no information for it. An article about the Italian version could eventually be created. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 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.

Kids Choice Awards France[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article this redirects to has no mention of the French version. It would be better off being deleted so people know this page doesn't exist and there's no information for it. An article about the French version could eventually be created. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 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.

Schrödinger's pussy[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. "Pussy" may indeed be a synonym for "cat" but I find the argument that that implies Schrödinger's pussy is therefore reasonable to be unconvincing. Especially since this looks like it was made in poor faith. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is a plausible search term, seems like it was created solely for amusement. Lol, pussy!!  pablo 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I "perfectly agree with pablo"!
    That's definitely "NOT" a plausible term and Wikipedia is "NO place for amusement".
    But before thinking of deleting the redirect ... I would kindly consider checking if the lightbulb is out first.
      M aurice   Carbonaro  09:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at Google search results for the term, it seems like an unlikely legitimate search term. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether the redirect was intended as a joke is not relevant, however the redirect has no encyclopedic purpose and any humor in it is very tired and misplaced. The claimed Google hits concern entirely different topics (sexynerdgirl.com, lesbianspotting, glory-holing, and more, apparently—none related to the target of the redirect). The animated cartoon that was inserted twice (diff1, diff2) should not be re-added. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A joke redirect from implausible rephrasing. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Yes, chuckle chuckle, but "pussy" is a synonym for cat, if admittedly somewhat antiquated. No compelling reason to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Schrödinger's mouser? Schrödinger's moggy? Schrödinger's malkin? Just as likely (ie not at all) that people would search Wikipedia for these. pablo 09:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd dispute that any of those are as common a synonym as pussy, but that's immaterial. I don't feel the need to create those, but I wouldn't feel the need to delete them, either. Redirects are cheap.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that they any of those is "as common a synonym as pussy". The thought experiment in question is always referred to as 'Schrödinger's Cat'.
Similarly, I am not claiming (as serial self-amuser Maurice Carbonaro seems to assert above) that "Wikipedia is NO place for amusement". Just wanted to clear that up for you all. pablo 10:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an immature redirect. Ryan Vesey 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's put an end to this jolly jape while we have the chance. In fact, an online search for 'Schrödinger's pussy' leads to many different targets! Sionk (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems plausible enough. though Schrödinger's pussy cat should also exist. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep made my day :) But yeah, pussy is synonymous to cat.--Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But "Schrödinger's pussy" is not synonymous with the paradox "Schrödinger's cat". Sionk (talk) 13:11, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_25&oldid=1144418259"