Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 15, 2015.

Hypothesis of everything[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 deleted per WP:SNOW by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect was created when User:Are you freaking kidding me moved "theory of everything" to "hypothesis of everything" and I moved it back. Of course, "theory of everything" is the standard name, but the other name is worse than nonstandard, it's actively misleading, because there is no particular "hypothesis" involved — a theory of everything is something physicists look for, not any one specific theory that has been formulated. As for the redirect, a Google search for "hypothesis of everything" turns up nothing relevant in the first few hits, and as I explain above, there's no reason to think it would. I'm generally not too big on deleting useless redirects as long as they don't do any active harm, but this one is sort of aggressively useless. Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I just don't think that this redirect is helpful. Where do you hear the term "hypothesis of everything" used by any scientist, journalist, etc even jokingly? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be hypotheses mentioned, but that's not what the article is about (although "Hypothesis of a theory of everything" may be accurate as a descriptive title but not a common, or even uncommon, name) and there's no evidence of this phrase in widespread use or in reliable sources. The top search results are an Xkcd forum page, this article, and Uncyclopedia's "theory of everything" article. Peter James (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this redirect is unhelpful and potentially misleading. Theory in the scientific sense is the correct word; hypothesis is not. Tayste (edits) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirects from page move vandalism qualify under WP:G3, but it sounds like this is not that. Delete anyway if not useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2015 (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.

Urination in your clothing[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 deleted WP:CSD#R3. This was one of fifty-odd similar redirects created by User: Mr. Chakotay who I have blocked for disruptive editing and block evasion - User:Helmsman Tom Paris who did the same thing two days ago, JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term clpo13(talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (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.

Nintendo World Report[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) sst✈(discuss) 08:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Billy Berghammer was the creator of Nintendo World Report, he's not part of the website anymore. I don't think NWR should redirect to him if he's not part of it. GamerPro64 16:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine to Billy Berghammer#Early career, along with the application of {{R with possibilities}} and {{R to section}} rcats. The history of what is now "Nintendo World Report" is described at Billy Berghammer#Early career, making it the best target that currently exists for anyone seeking information on the topic.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and refine per Godsy. Since it does no harm, I've done what Godsy suggested, without prejudice to this discussion. But Nintendo World Report is not mentioned in the running text, only as a reference (which might be {{Primary source}}, I'm not sure). It's also mentioned at the DAB page PGC and the article Game Informer as the successor to PlanetGameCube.com (I've made it a link). Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2015 (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.

Tonight's the Night (1934 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. [with adjustments.] (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct year of the film is 1932. If there is a notable 1934 film called "Tonight's the Night", then an article can be formed on it. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article existed at that title for four years. Even if all the incoming links on Wikipedia are fixed, deleting this redirect will surely break incoming links from external sites and for what benefit? Jenks24 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jenks24. Truly a place where 'redirects are cheap' is apt. It wouldn't do any great damage if someone first dabbed all uses, but why waste even that time, better spent elsewhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a {{R from incorrect name}}. Stats show that it's still in use, although that's probably because there's still a few internal links. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. I couldn't see any internal links beyond discussions (perhaps they've all been done now), but even so, perhaps it is incorrectly attributed to 1934 in other sources, so this might be useful. I've recategorized the target from Category:1934 films to Category:1932 films. An article for any 1934 film can just overwrite the redirect, so that is no block to keeping it. Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2015 (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.

Hackworked[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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Hack-rag. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, although in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, could be the work of any kind of hack, or the person hacking(?) them. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense per nom. Another Neelix attempt to up his redirect count Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete writers are not the only kinds of hacks -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hack-work is a noun and has this definition, but there's no evidence that these are real words. Peter James (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (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/2015_November_15&oldid=1037882059"