Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2016.

‌‍[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 24

Incels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 24#Incels

List of Dragon Quest characters[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such list exists at target. The redirect was formerly an article, but would probably fail WP:NOTWIKIA as an article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list was created to mention all the characters from the franchise as well as the creatures that appear in that franchise. We should have that page remain to go with the other video game character list pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only issue I see with this is that the characters in this series do not seem to be as notable as characters in other video game series, such as Super Mario or Final Fantasy. For this series, character lists are probably more appropriate on their respective game articles. Also, in regards to salvaging the old article; the most recent version prior to redirection did not have any inline references at all, which is necessary to explain cited information for characters without individual standalone articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main characters on that list don't even recur. Dragonlord supposely is a franchise character, but he only appears in the first game [1] but Dragonlord's grandson appears in the second. It is not clear whether Dragonlord recurs after that. Dragonlord has a guest appearance in a different television show called Captain N: The Game Master. The rest are non-notable monsters with names like Toxic Zombie or Fat Rat. Saying someone is the descendant of a character in the previous game doesn't mean they are recurring in the franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC) updated 03:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the characters for this series are so non-notable in general that the series article doesn't even mention them besides the protagonist of the first three games, which is why the list doesn't exist anymore, but the "List of GAME characters" title formulation is so standard for series that it may be reasonable to expect a reader to search for it. The list itself should not be recreated, though- both the Square Enix project and the video games project have higher general inclusion standards than this would meet for a stand-alone character list. --PresN 14:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that the franchise doesn't have a list of recurring characters to make a section out of it, not even a short list. Yes, they may have standard-named character classes as with any role playing video games, but It's hardly anything compared to Character design of Final Fantasy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until such a character section gets implemented in the article, this would only lead to false expectation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is fairly common to redirect a non-notable child page to a more notable parent topic. It gently tells the author that we don't really want an article at that title and directs them to the page where there contributions would be most helpful. At the same time, it preserves the contribution history in case current or future editors want to merge some of the content from the child-page into the parent article. There is no potential for confusion, especially since we have many thousands of these "list of ..." articles scattered across the project. A redirect to match that naming convention is routine. Rossami (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite likely to mislead readers, since there is no such list. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only, first, is there no such list and misleading the readers is wrong, but also, second, there is likely never going to be a list (at least, one that's properly written and structured) because of the nature of the game (as pointed out above). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the fact there isn't a list of characters at the main Dragon Quest article, I find it hard to imagine that a reader would type in "List of Dragon Quest characters" in the search box to begin with. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:42, 18 April 2016 (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 ongoing political conflicts[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 no consensus, default to keep. Some editors in this discussion noted that this redirect now serves little purpose, but others disagreed citing its origin as a redirect left behind from a repurposed article and the fact that this redirect has been in this state for over 5 years. Deryck C. 17:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be seen as misleading since Political conflict and Political conflicts do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support the deletion of this redirect. This redirect was the original name of the List of ongoing armed conflicts page. It was moved, because while the scope of the page was intended to cover insurgencies, wars, ongoing skirmishes, ect; editors kept adding "political conflicts" like the war on drugs and war on poverty which were clearly outside of the scope of the page. As such, in an effort to narrow the focus of the page, the article name was changed. I see no continued use for the redirect.XavierGreen (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are some internal links we should clean up to point to the new title: [2] but there are also external web pages which would have broken links if we delete this redirect: [3] I think to avoid broken external links we should keep the redirect in place for longer before deleting. We can tag it with {{R from move}} to avoid future confusion. -- Beland (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since a political conflict and an armed conflict are not the same thing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clausewitz has a good point with the whole "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" observation, didn't he? The two kinds of conflicts are certainly not inherently the same thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the incorrect-name template. This title has already existed for 5½ years (if it really is the original name of the target, it's existed since 2005!), and deletion would create linkrot. Consensus can reasonably decide that a 5-year-old page needs to be renamed due to its scope, but if we've already had an article at a title for five years, we can reasonably assume that it's not a horribly bad title that needs to be deleted even though the target continues to exist. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's no link-rot left to happen; I've fixed the handful of article refs to bypass the redir, all of them in "see also" sections where I think the ref was dubious either way, but.... This needs to go due to the temptation to link to it improperly. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Fixing based on "what links here" does nothing to solve the problem of linkrot. That's good maintenance to do but the links still exist in various page histories and could be restored whenever some future user decides to revert the page (perhaps, to fix vandalism). That maintenance also does nothing for any links external to Wikipedia. So thank you for cleaning up those links but that is not by itself a sufficient justification to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XavierGreen. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It may be a good idea to re-re-list this, just in case for additional commentary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with 'incorrect name' template per Nyttend. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2016 (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/2016_April_16&oldid=1088110393"