Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 11, 2015.

Francoise Gay[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) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the target article or a web search indicates that the author was known by this name. TB (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like someone created redirects for every permutation of "Marie Françoise Sophie Gay". See here. I'd be in favor of deleting all erroneous forms that she was never known as. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that unusual in Europe, Jean-Paul Sartre was not known as [Jean Sartre even though apparently we have the redirect for that (and Paul Sartre goes to the same target). But then I am not sure if you would call that a middle name, it is what used to be called a combined name or Christian name, birth name or Saint's name. It Would be weird in England to go around being called Johnny Paul, but then perhaps he was just a johnny-come-lately. Si Trew (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've not looked at other forms, but there is apparently nobody notable who is or was known by this name. The closed I could find is an author, Francoise Gray, who might be notable (needs more investigation than I gave it to determine). If we had an article about them, I'd consider the possibility of this being a useful {{R from typo}} but as there is no article that question doesn't arise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given how unusual it is for someone to be known by [Middle Name] [Last Name], I think this should be just deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Acccording to WP:FR she was the daughter of an Italian, and there is no mention of a Francoise there (there is a francetta), so I think this is a false friend. That beinfg said I am going to have a go at a bit of TR to improve what we have at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think I have made a bit of a start with it at EN:WP with the translation from FR:WP. It was incredibly "high" literary prose in the original so I am not sure the language is suitable for what we usually do at EN:WP i.e. write in the vernacular. But there ain't know Francoise, I think this is a false friend from here mother, an italian, being francetta. I've pretty much rewritten the article from the French but it is just a start. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shoujld make myself clear. I have esssentially translated teh full text from the French (and marked it as such with {{translated page}}) but no doubt have many mistakes. It is written in a very high, kinda past historic literary style in the French, which does not translate well into English. There were a couple of things I just really did not know how to translate: not cos I don't know the words but they are kinda untranslatable.
I still think Francoise Gay is a false friend (or faux ami] if you prefer) here, from her mother's name. Certainly that article needs a lot of tidying but is better than it was (it has an infobox for example). Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell when I have finished translating something or taking a break from it cos my spelling mistakes in English increase about seventeen thousand percent. As if they were not bad enough already. Fag break. 10:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
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.

Dagnabbit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#Dagnabbit

What the ****[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) 14:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even a minced oath; it's just a version of "what the fuck" that is censored. I was thinking of just boldly retargeting, but since I've also heard of the phrase "what the shit", it may just be best to delete it per WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:XY because it could equally target what the hell or what the shit or what the what or a number of other actual interjections. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note that (What the #$*!) the first character listed is "#" making it an impossible to use redirect (it has special meaning in HTTP URL syntax), which is why I state that the "What the bleep" location is most suitable, since the actual title is unusable due to technical restrictions. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I'm with Ivanvector here (and I thought it was "what the hell"). Note that the "substitution symbols" are far from self-evident and could be substituted with any of &*()$%&(&*()_$% these. Should we be consistent and make a bunch more redirects with various permutations? No--delete. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector & WP:XY, it can also mean 'what the heck', or stand on its own as an all-purpose, meaninglessly unfinished exclamation like 'What on earth ...'. The only readers I can imagine wanting this redirect, are non-native Eng speakers, who come across it in a text. Sending them to the wrong place might be worse than not supplying an answer.Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it cannot mean what the heck, unless we are going for euphemism. What do you think "What the heck" is a euphemism for? what the hell is red, but WP:NOTCENSORED. In real life I rarely swear, and actually I dislike swearing, but this is no place for minced oaths. Actually I would delete that target cos it doesn't say anything useful. Mince pies are far more useful. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 13 September 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.

Fugged[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7#Fugged

St. Mary's Y.M.A. F.C.[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 Southampton F.C.. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term.. no benefit being kept IMO JMHamo (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:09, 11 September 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.

How to Kill a Mockingbird[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 snow keep. Alakzi (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO Lakun.patra (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This re-direct is nonsense.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the deletion rationale is nonsense. The policy linked above is "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box." If this was an article about the best way to kill mockingbirds, then the deletion rationale might make sense at AfD. As a deletion rationale for a redirect, it does not. BencherliteTalk 10:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That the book (and even more so, the movie) is called "How to Kill a Mockingbird" is a surprisingly common misconception. ‑ iridescent 08:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. I had to study this book for my GCSE English, and it was frequently misquoted as "How to Kill a Mocking Bird" by my mother. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep no coherent reason given for deletion, and it's an entirely plausible redirect in any event. BencherliteTalk 10:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Common mistake. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have no idea how WP:NOTHOWTO is related to this redirect.--kelapstick(bainuu) 10:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a plausible (perhaps common) mistake. If this were targeting a form of bird hunting, WP:NOTHOWTO would apply. This is not a topic about how to literally "Kill a Mockingbird", it is literary work. Even if the book was about exterminating mockingbirds, as it is a plausible mis-rendering of the book title, the spirit of the aforementioned policy wouldn't apply.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. Rubbish computer 13:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick close, Alakzi. And just in case anyone was wondering why it was protected indefinitely: those with admin glasses can tell you there's a long history of vandalism hidden in 131 edits. I think I created the redirect because I ran into an article or blog post written by Thryduulf's mother. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 11 September 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.

Pinky Malinky[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) 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK. Not mentioned at the page, nor released yet or enough available information to identify the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 11 September 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.

Waar (film series)[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) 14:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDLINK and WP:CRYSTAL. The redirect targets a "sequels" section on a film (not a film series) article. The redirect misleads the reader into thinking there is a series article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 11 September 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.

Template:R from incorrect capitalisation[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. The categorisation of the type of misspelling is useful Nabla (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, if I were to tag a redirect with this template redirect, I would think it should actually represent Template:R from other capitalisation instead of Template:R from misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment but the capitalization is incorrect, so that makes it a misspelling... ; "other capitalization" does not capture that, as many things have multiple 'correct' capitalizations. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must take a completely different tack. What I assume is that, although these redirect to a more-specific template, one of these days they may be themselves a template (e.g. they might have -ize and -ise in their documentation). So I tend to mark Rs that we keep with the most-specific thing I can find, even if they are right now an R themselves, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Then another gnome or bot can come along later and mirabile dictu they will all be categorised into whatever caterory we feel like at that time. Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - three non-!votes to start an RfD is probably some kind of record. I would think that an incorrectly-capitalized redirect would qualify for tagging with both {{R from other capitalization}} and {{R from misspelling}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: Per the above comments, I'm starting to wonder ... First off, I don't see the value in creating a separate category for redirects tagged with this template. Per the above comments, I'm wondering if a solution may be to turn {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} into a template with the following content:

    {{R from other capitalisation}}{{R from misspelling}}

    ...And then retarget {{R from incorrect capitalization}} there. This would make it so redirects tagged with the nominated template redirects would be tagged with both of the above templates. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Incorrect capitalizations are typos, and {{R typo}} is a template shortcut to {{R from misspelling}}. Both of the nominated rcats may be used to indicate redirects that are typos (misspellings). Other capitalizations is a broader category that would include both incorrect capitalizations and those redirected capitalizations that are not "incorrect" per se, but are just another way to indicate the targets' titles or perhaps are unsuitable titles per naming conventions. There is no need to combine two rcats into one – just tag an appropriate redirect with {{Redr|caps|typo|up}}* and any other applicable rcats, then go on to the next. Painius  23:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*equivalent to {{This is a redirect|R from other capitalisation|R from misspelling|R unprintworthy}}
I forget which contributor said it, but we have a useful distinction between editor-facing space and reader-facing space. These are in editor-facing space and we should be careful about them cos they create hassle for editors, bots &c. tidying up after them. In user-facing space, of course, we should do everything we can to let people get to the articles they want to read about. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, Si – are you talking about the shortcuts? or is it some other location in Sweden (your "hassle" link above)? Painius  06:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the additional information these templates encode about the nature of the misspelling is useful. If they must be removed, retain the information please - perhaps by adding an optional 'misspelling type' parameter to {{R from misspelling}}. - TB (talk) 08:02, 14 September 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.

Shitface[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Shitface

Unique (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) 14:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to find any information on Wikipedia about a film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Unique Productions is an independent producer of television, sometimes films, in the United Kingdom. I am not sure if this is close enough, though, especially cos it is red (disclosure: I have no connection with this company, I think it was set up by Noel Edmonds when the BBC were forced by law to farm out a certain percentage of their output/input to independent firms, who tend then to sell them back to the BBC, who hold copyright over them). BBC tendering is also red. Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this redirect doesn't seem helpful CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a bit vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:53, 15 September 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.

The Jetsons (2015 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) 14:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 11 September 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.

WarGames (2014 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) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another example of why these redirects shouldn't be made. A remake of WarGames never happened in 2014, so this is nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 11 September 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.

Bastards (2013 TV series)[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) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mention of a TV series of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 11 September 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.

Double Cross (2015 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) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another failed WP:CRYSTAL. The target says "(a)s of May 2015, no more plans of a (film) have been announced." -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 11 September 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.

Bill Foster (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) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there aren't any mentions of a film at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 11 September 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.

The Eighth Wonder (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#The Eighth Wonder (film)

Beneath the Deep (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Beneath the Deep (film)

Tranzloco[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) 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK. This should stay red until there's enough information about an article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 11 September 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.

Rosa (2014 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) 14:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No 2014 film of this name mentioned anywhere. -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to IMDB there is a 2014 film called Rosa, but it's a Portuguese short film (14 minutes) with no connection to 20th Century Fox I can find. We do not have articles on it, it's director or it's principle star. The closest thing I can find on the Portuguese Wikipedia is that The Rose (film) was released in Poruguese as A Rosa - but this film dates from 1979 not 2014 (although it was a 20th Century Fox production). Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 13:24, 11 September 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.

Bentian[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 Languages of Kalimantan. At some point, this should probably be retargeted again, to Lawangan language, since Bentian is listed as a Lawangan dialect. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Chinese transliteration, unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 00:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Honda Automobile (China) Company (which is itself awkwardly named, so maybe that needs work) as there is a specific corporate connection between the Honda company and the Chinese auto market CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. According to my search, the Bentian seems to be a tribe that hails from Indonesia. An Indonesian editor might be able to make a decent article out of it. This term may also pertain to different things per this dab at the id.wiki --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. Retarget with 70.51. Although mentioned in the same table at the target, Bantian does not go there (or anywhere), and of course Bantu is a different language, so we'd have to be a bit careful. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 11 September 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.

Toyloa[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) 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling - TheChampionMan1234 00:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO because redirects with multiple typoes are unlikely search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Tavix. WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Ironically, we don't have typoes nor typo's. I never make one myself, of course, I am perfect. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suppose I can find it plausible that some people would sometime make this mistake, but it's going to be comparatively pretty rare. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible typo. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too many typos --Lenticel (talk) 09:29, 12 September 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.

Jan spears[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) 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Jan Spears link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 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.

Hattie adams[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) 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Hattie Adams link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It don!t, it's an R to section to Days_of_Our_Lives_characters_(2000s)#Hattie_Adams, which Hattie Adams is not, being just an R to Days_of_Our_Lives_characters_(2000s). Certainly they should go to the same place, as {{R from other capitalisation}}, but specifically I should have thought that they could both {{R to section}}, but am unwilling to do so while this is udner discussion. User:Cebr1979 made a couple of bold fixes, a bot stood in and cocked it up, between 9 and 11 september this year. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: Actually, both Hattie adams and Hattie Adams re-direct to Days of Our Lives characters (2000s)#Hattie Adams. Neither one of them is just a re-direct to Days of Our Lives characters (2000s).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it don't, at least as far as I can see, User:Cebr1979. The R you proposed is an R to section, but the target, is just to the article in general. Or perhaps WP is just cacheing the pages for me? I don't think there is any doubt these should be both to the section, shouldn't they? Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: Yes, they do. Click them both: Hattie adams goes to Days of Our Lives characters (2000s)#Hattie Adams and Hattie Adams goes to the very same place.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cebr1979:} not for me it don't, at least, I don't think so. I clicked through both before I even commented. I'll try again but I checked the history and a bot got in the way of your WP:BOLD (and in my view correct) changes, something is a bit weird here. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm that's very odd. I tested it again and indeed it does go to that section in the article. I can assure you it didn't before. We might as well close this then, nothing to do here, nothing to see. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 11 September 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.

Gabby (Daysof Our Lives)[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) 13:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Gabby (Days of Our Lives) link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 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.

Barbara Anderson (The Young And The Restless[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) 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Barbara Anderson (The Young And The Restless) link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 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.

Rosie barber forrester[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 List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters#F. This is a supervote if you'll ever see one, but this seems so obvious I doubt the keep voters will object: this character isn't listed at the target article at all! Participants focused on the (absolutely correct) idea that the miscapitalization was no reason to delete, but this very important consideration was overlooked. This and the properly capitalized variant will be retargeted to the list that includes this character. If I've overlooked something myself, please let me know. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is useless as we also have the (properly written) Rosie Barber Forrester link.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 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_September_11&oldid=1108511140"