Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3
May 5 >

May 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2013

Non-narrative 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. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-narrative has nothing to do with non-fiction Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, although reading our fictional film article (where narrative film redirects) I can see why someone might get that impression. With a re-title, perhaps to Narrative and non-narrative film and a very little rewording that article would make a good target for this redirect. Certainly we should point this title somewhere if there an appropriate target as it's a very likely search term. I'll leave notes at WT:WikiProject Film and Talk:Fictional film. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that non-narrative film should not redirect to non-fiction. Searching for the term in Google Books, it looks like we could have at least a brief article about the topic. Maybe someone could be bold and create it? I will not have a chance today but could do it in the next few days. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-narrative film should definitely not redirect to non-fiction. This is based on an unfortunate equation of narrative with fiction. To many that is the case, but narrative can include many kinds of journalism or biography that provide a causal or linked structure to its exposition. As most scholars of documentary can tell you, documentaries usually have some form of narrative. Non-narrative film, then, can often be experimental film: perhaps fictional in that it is made up, but without causal or linear forms of exposition like in conventional narrative film. There really should be a separate article non-narrative film that explains these complexities using existing scholarship like David Bordwell, etc. Michitaro (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Red link. It looks like a promising article can be made from it.--Lenticel (talk) 15:25, 5 May 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.

Superstar Rajinikanth[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) 17:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the appelation "superstar" has been (rightfully) used for this actor, who is one of the highest-paid actors in Asia ever, this redirect still seems to me to violate NPOV as well as common sense. People typing in "superstar" in the search box should not get Rajinikanth as a suggestion, it's not encyclopedically sound. bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. This seems a commonly used method of referring to him, so it is a very likely search term and per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects do not need to be at neutral titles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 4 May 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.

Christoper Dorner[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 speedy retarget to Christopher Dorner. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect blanked by another user, claiming the redirect constituted vandalism. I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to judge that claim and don't know whether the redirect is appropriate or not. The target page doesn't seem to contain a mention of the redirect name. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Christopher Dorner as a plausible typo (Google News search shows dozens of instances of this error in published news articles). The sense of this redirect is undoubtedly to comment on a vague physical resemblance between the two individuals, and of course that is not an appropriate use of a redirect, even apart from the fact that it obstructs a search for the probable intended target. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget per 168.xx. FWIW, I always thought he looked more like Chi McBride. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget Many thanks go to 168.xx. Until seeing that explanation, I had no idea what this redirect was about. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:On Divine Winds[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 speedy delete. Redirects created when moving a page created in or moved to the wrong namespace are eligible for criterion G6. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from project space to mainspace due to the move of a misplaced article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't redirect right. My bad, still learning. Please delete Wikipedia:On Divine Winds Wolfinruins (talk) 06:35, 4 May 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.

I Can't Believe It's Not Sandbox![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. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any reason why we need a redirect like this. (Note that until just now the page was a redirect to Minecraft, but that was only because of a bot making a fool of itself after this.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember why would I create such a page. (It's almost 2 years ago according to the editing history.)  [ Derek Leung | LM ] 05:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I can't see value in a redirect from article space to the sandbox, and there are no uses of this exact phrase that don't originate with this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR (alternately, move to WP:space and mark as humorous) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross namespace redirect. I weakly support the anon's WP space move too. A bit of humor won't hurt.-Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 6 May 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.

Wikipedia:INCLINATORISNOTAWORD[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. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects are a WP:POINTy hoax and seem to have been created solely to support a position advocated in a Talk page discussion. That Talk page discussion contains the only links to the redirects. These redirects are advocacy, not information or policy. 'Funicular' is an ordinary English word that appears in practically all dictionaries and is encountered in ordinary conversation. 'Inclinator' seems less common, but it has been used somewhere, and such a redirect is not appropriate. Wikipedia has not made a policy decision about whether these are legitimate words or not. BarrelProof (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete both per the nominator. I was considering nominating these myself, for the same reasons, but decided against it as I have taken a contrary position in the relevant talk page discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's rich, a POINTy hoax? Hoax? Hoax? Hoax? Hoax? Really? Really? REALLY? A hoax?? Is there even the slightest hint of an intent to deceive? I even explicitly explained that those were redlinks and mentioned that I needed to create them in order to make my point (that neither of them are common enough to serve as titles for the page. My "point", without caps, by the way. I did not in the sliiiiiiiiightest disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Not even slightly. I don't even oppose this nomination under the justification that it's an unnecessary redirect--whatever, this much is true. But come on. Someone needs to reread WP:POINT, and maybe even WP:AGF while they're at it. (Or maybe just wiktionary:hoax#Noun. Are you unfamiliar with what the word "hoax" means?) Red Slash 15:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, creating term-specific redirects in order to make it appear that Wikipedia has a policy against using these particular words is WP:POINTy, and the result of that action would be a hoax. Wikipedia has a 'funicular' article. Creating a WP-namespace all-capital-letters redirect that declares that there is no such word would be to create a hoax. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, nominating funicular for AFD would be a WP:POINT violation. Have you even looked at the title of WP:POINT? The title is not do not ever do anything to make a point. No, it says do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I did not disrupt Wikipedia, though I fully admit I made a point. A hoax is intended to deceive. I did not intend to deceive (easy to see because I explicitly said that the links in questions were redlinks and that I was going to make them momentarily at Talk:London Millennium Funicular). Therefore it's not a hoax. Red Slash 16:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "funicular" redirect as misleading, since it is a commonly found word , and probably "inclinator" as well, as discriminatory against disabled people who require a chair lift to use the stairs. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems "inclinator" has several meanings - stair lift (as the anon is using it), inclined elevator (the context of the talk page,dating from at least), inclinometer, a framework for a carboy, and a muscle that causes a fish's fin to bend - so it seems it is very much a word. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since both are indeed words. It's also confusing since the target page doesn't discuss both shortcuts--Lenticel (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Wikipedia is not a dictionary (this is no different from creating the antonym of the link "INCLINATORISAWORD"). Further User:Red Slash as creating these links has led to this discussion, (which I think is a wast of time for all involved which would not have been necessary if you had not created the links), if you create such links in future don't be surprised if it ends up at an ANI to decide if creating such links is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly. It's not an easy process but I think I'm learning. This wasn't the best way to make the point. It should be noted that not one person, not even myself, attempted to rally support to keep, so I mean, nobody else really needed to comment--I haven't wasted your time, or any of the other delete voters, but I still see your point... I never really thought through that someone would find the redirect frustrating and RFD it. Like, that never even entered my head. So I consider such actions unlikely from my part in the future. I appreciate the heads-up. Red Slash 22:51, 6 May 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_May_4&oldid=1090659127"