Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 5, 2014.

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918[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 nothing. The nominator is authorized to proceed as desired. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is desired to add a navigation link from {{Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920}} to {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1920}}. Due to the way the base template {{Aviation accidents and incidents}} is coded, when {{Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920}} is updated to add the link to {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1920}}, the fact that {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918}} exists means that an undesirable link to {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918}} will also be added (however, if {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918}} did not exist, the undesirable link would not be added). {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918}} was "merged" into {{Aviation accidents and incidents before 1920}} as a result of this TfD. Note that {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918}} never contained any real content, so I don't believe it's necessary to preserve the edit history. DH85868993 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed at CSD. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page was originally its own template, and was then merged into what is now its redirect target. It can't be deleted altogether, or the attribution will be lost. It could be moved to a subpage of its target, though, if it's necessary for it to not exist where it does now. (I've declined the speedy deletion for this reason.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking closer, I see that "merge" was a bit of a misnomer, since no content was actually merged, meaning this could simply be deleted. I still think we're better waiting out the RfD in this case, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, you turned down my CSD. Fine to do so. Your reason was it had history that needs preserving. I was not trying to push a point, but thank you to say why. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? I can't follow the logic, but nom seems to know what they're doing, so support. My only concern would be if there was significant content to be linked from the 1918 template since this was the last year of World War I, but it seems you've thought of that. Ivanvector (talk) 20:43, 7 November 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.

One-Above-All[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) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "One-above-all" is an alledged Marvel Comics character, but the discussions here and here agreed that it is not. It is just a number of metafictional references to God (the real God) in random comics, and considering them to be references to a fictional character with godlike powers is original research. Still, the page "Gods (Marvel Comics)" had a section on the same thing, and a redirect to that section was added later. However, if it's original research it's not acceptable anywhere, not as a standalone article, but neither as a section in another article. In fact, I had already removed that section some time ago, and the removal was not contested. As there is no place that this redirect should redirect to, it should be deleted. Cambalachero (talk) 12:40, 5 November 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.

Two Steps From Hell[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 not proper place for this discussion. This is not actually about the redirect, but about a request to move the article "Two Steps from Hell" to "Two Steps From Hell", and as such should be re-submitted to Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here. —Lowellian (reply) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has put forward the idea that the target article should be moved here, as the "From" is capitalized in their website and documents. I am willing to support this move, so am taking to RfD. Safiel (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, for now. The article itself uses "from Hell", not "From Hell", except in the (unreliable) sources. However I've no major objection except that the title should match how it's used in the running text. WP:TITLEFORMAT doesn't help (or hinder) here, but if that's usually how the company represents itself, then go for it. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 5 November 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.

Simpsanity[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) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and probably shouldn't be, and doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly towards The Simpsons, can we find the specific episode? Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hisashiyarouin: it a specific TV channel in your part of the world, named "Simpsanity"? If it is that would seem the sensible target. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector below phrased it better than I have. Those YouTube videos are actually not available here. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 10:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be FXX's name for a marathon they aired of every extant Simpsons episode upon acquiring the rights some time last year. They also use it to refer to their blocks of Simpsons programming on Sunday afternoons ("Simpsanity Sunday on FXX"), although they're spamming Youtube with clips so Google results are kind of useless. But redirects are cheap. Ivanvector (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target. 84.236.81.209 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My IP moved it seems that was me above. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 9 November 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservation worldwide[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. I'd rather leave it to members of WikiProject Protected areas to redirect these titles to their project if they believe it is a good synonym. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a helpful redirect. There doesn't appear to be any such Wikiproject, so I see no good reason to have such a redirect Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Si Tre.w (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:CNR. Likewise Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservation Worldwide. These two were created as redirects in 2002! Wow. Maybe 12 years ago it was meant to be the start of a WikiProject but it never got off the ground. Ivanvector (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:CNR has nothing to say about redirects from the Wikipedia: namespace, so it cannot be used to support any action regarding this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Delete just per nom then. Ivanvector (talk) 20:08, 8 November 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_November_5&oldid=1039435440"