Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2014.

Wikipedia:Christopher Lawrence (broadcaster)[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 per WP:CSD#G6. There is a discussion about explicitly noting that redirects created by fixing page move errors are eligible for speedy deletion in the RfD instructions, your comments are welcome at WT:RFD#Redirects cause by fixed page moves to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNR created by mistake. Pageviews are very minimal. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:30, 31 January 2014 (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.

Meri Maa[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) 00:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to redirect to an article which is complete different from this title. UBStalk 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no clear connection. I think it means "my mother" in Hindi. Siuenti (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2014 (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.

List of Pakistani films of 2015[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) 00:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No purpose of creating a redirect UBStalk 12:23, 31 January 2014 (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.

Devin Fox[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 After Romeo. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page, connection to target completely unknown. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to After Romeo. Obviously is the target is deleted the redirect will then be CSD'ed normally. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:44, 3 February 2014 (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.

Hum 2[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 Hum Network Limited, as the subject isn't explicitly mentioned at Hum TV. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linked redirect section do not exists. UBStalk 01:30, 31 January 2014 (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.

Wolverhampton air crash[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 moved to Pendeford air crash. Since the targeted section refers to a crash in Pendeford rather than Wolverhampton proper, I'll point Wolverhampton air crash to Wolverhampton Airport#Incidents and accidents pursuant to Si Trew's suggestion.

This wasn't the most straightforward discussion, so my apologies if my decision doesn't reflect consensus; I believe it does. Converting either of the resulting redirects into a disambiguation page may be acceptable, and converting them to articles would definitely be good. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable aviation incident turned into a redirect. Not a redirect to a airline or airport article as is normal but to a town article. Redirect doesn't serve any purpose. ...William 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Retarget to section to thea 1972 air crash near Wolverhampton Airport that killed the pilot Prince William of Gloucester, a cousin of Elizabeth II, and one other. Choose from

  1. Wolverhampton_Airport#Incidents and accidents (sourced to BBC News On This Day)
  2. List_of_fatalities_from_aviation_accidents ((BBC ibid, another from Flight International)
  3. Prince William of Gloucester#Death (BBC ibid, and Civil Aviation Authority accident report)
Si Trew (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect is already targetted at the section about the airfield, where the content of this former stand-alone article was merged. The redirect is needed to preserve the edit history, and the present target has more detail on the accident than the other suggested targets. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rename to Pendeford air crash. Thryduulf is correct in highlighting the edit history. None of Si Trew's suggestions are relevant to this edit history, the crash in question was in 1970 at a different airfield; but with the move we can then have Wolverhampton air crash as a redirect to his first or third suggestion (I personally favour the first). YSSYguy (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rename per YSSYguy. I was wondering if it was a different air crash, so I agree that it should be renamed since at least one reader found its current title unleast astonishing. (It didn't occur to me to check the target; when the nom said "directed to a town article" I wrongly assumed it wasn't mentioned there.) I don't know we need the other redirect at all, in that case. Si Trew (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Delete as a redirect, as it is clearly not the only accident in Wolverhampton and doubtful the only accident at Pendeford, a note that this accident was actually at Fordhouses! I do have an alternate suggestion and that is turn this article into an article on Pendeford Aerodrome which is clearly a notable wartime aircraft factory and airfield and it can include the accident (and retain the edit attribution). MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an article about the aerodrome is a very sensible suggestion IMO. I suggest creating Pendeford Aerodrome from the content at the Pendeford article; and a move to Pendeford air crash for this redirect, followed by changing the target to an Accidents and Incidents section in the aerodrome article. If someone can come up with a cleaner way of preserving the edit history I would be all for that instead. YSSYguy (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf. Cjc13 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with YSSguy that the best would be for Pendeford to have an article; seems notable, and even a stub to start with. I am quite happy to create one and do the best I can to get it started, but I don't like doing so while a discussion is open because that is not fair on other editors who are equally entitled to my own opinion. I bet with a little help from the nice folks at WP:MILHIST we could make a start. Si Trew (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (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.

Geobox[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) 00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR created in December 2008, by a now vanished user. google:Geobox is the name of many companies, products, etc. See also google book results. It is used frequently in computer programming to refer to a object that contains sufficient coordinate information to describe a segment of the world, and this usage is also appearing in literature[1][2]. It is also used (infrequently) in literature to refer to a box relating to geography.[3], and this meaning is also used in geocaching[4]. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete undesirable WP:XNR per nom to pipework. Cannot be used on its own without filling in content, therefore not usable as a navigation point either. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Infobox per Andy Mabbet's suggestion at #Taxobox above. Content about the computing use described above would make a good section to that article if there ins't enough for a standalone one. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but #Taxobox is not above. I remember the discussion but can you refer to it more explicitly please? Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
#Taxobox RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_19#Taxobox. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A geobox as described above is nothing like an infobox. Thus delete, and if someone wants to write an article, they can. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Geobox gets deleted presumably Navbox and Infobox and Warbox come under the same? I thought we discussed each of those, is this a stealthy delete of the lot of them? I don't mind an honest delete but it would be handy to refer to the previous discussion, please. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that stealthy? It's just that earlier RfDs asked for detailed discussions per entry. There might be different arguments for different redirects. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably sounded too cynical when I said "stealth", I didn't mean that as any offence to anyone. I know what I meant to say and what I mean to say, to try to keep the discussion together rather than spread over, but I put it badly. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No offense read, but "stealth" means "invisible" (to me, here), and I just wanted to note that the RfD's are plainly in sight. In the set you mention, there are some arguments that pertain to one single redirect only, so listing them separately makes it easy to specify such arguments. -DePiep (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. XNR without prefix. Confuses readers in mainspace, misleads them to the engine room. In adition, it shold not lead to infobox becaiuse "taxobox" is an internal WP name, while "infobox" is from the real word=content (as the article shows). -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It certainly confused me, as the record shows.... thanks to DePiep and JVB, I think it is best to delete. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (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.

Kick (2013 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. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created because the film was supposed to release in 2013, but now it's going to release in 2014, but because there are no longer links to this page, this can be safely deleted. Nadesai (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that consensus seems to be "keep", should we remove the notice? If not, what's the procedure? Nadesai (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links are user pages. The actual articles that link this is due to an error in template Template:Chetan_Bhagat, which mistakenly included this page, but now that template is fixed, links to those pages will go away as well. Nadesai (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content used to be a this title, and so not only does it need to be kept to maintain the attribution history, there will also be links from mirrors, other external sites, bookmarks, etc. and people who don't know about the reschedule will continue to look for it at this title. Also per DMacks. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article was page-moved, so the attribution history is retained in the new page (that's why articles can be renamed that way but simply cut'n'pasting the content to a new article-name is not allowed). DMacks (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DMacks and Thryduulf. Not broken. Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given the film was anticipated to be released in 2013, this is a plausible search term. WilyD 10:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been almost 48 hours since Nadesai's comment about the userpage links; the job queue doesn't take 48 hours to work, so "links to those pages will go away as well" isn't going to happen to any of the pages that still link it. However, many of the links are the talk pages of IPs that vandalised it, and a few are for logged-in vandals such as User talk:Taqdeer khan. Those links shouldn't be changed. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it'll go away, I meant for actual articles, not for user pages, I agree with your point about vandalising users/IPs. Nadesai (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2014 (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/2014_January_31&oldid=1138579664"