Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2016.

Cinderella (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. Some argued for keeping this redirect based on the number of hits, but the crystal ball error and the ambiguity with the other 2014 Cinderella film were more convincing arguments in this discussion. Deryck C. 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another faulty WP:CRYSTALBALL. There have been many adaptations of "Cinderella." Two of which were released in 2015, but none in 2014. Therefore, this is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are no movies named "Cinderella" that were ever released that year. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's gotten a steady stream of hits (1/day) even into 2015. Unlike other film redirects that have been at RFD recently, this film actually did get made, just released a couple months late. This is a likely search term for those memory-blurred folk like me who can't remember just when a particular film came out. — Gorthian (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorthian. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept for whatever reason, it needs to redirect to the disambiguation page. There are multiple films that came out around this time. -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, I don't find the above convincing. It's just not a 2014 film. Pointing it to the DAB page would be confusing, since there's no clear option for a 2014 film there. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorthian. This was released very early in March 2015 and was a prominent Branagh film heavily promoted in 2014; the Indian film was released in December 2015 and is nowhere near as prominent and probably wasn't promoted in 2014. A hatnote to the DAB page could still be helpful though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can buy the arguments that readers could be looking for the 2015 Disney film, but IMDB shows an actual 2014 Cinderella movie. It's an Indian TV movie that may well not actually meet WP:NFILM, but the thought that readers who do search for it are getting a Disney movie from another year makes me uncomfortable, especially in terms of WP:BIAS. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 15 August 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.

All cross-namespace redirects of the following type[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 all listed -- thanks to Scott and Pppery for making sure there were all tagged and listed. I find consensus leaning towards deletion overall, and such an outcome is also well-supported by previous discussions that established the community leans against such XNRs and supports mass deletion commonly (1, 2, 3.) Note: it will take me some time to implement this closure.) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of WikiProject XNRs
  • Delete all, as well as dozens of other cross-namespace redirects of the type WikiProject _____ in article namespace -> Wikipedia:WikiProject _____ in Wikipedia namespace. See this essay on Cross-namespace redirects, although for guidance only, it states: Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links. I clicked in a few of the revision history pages of these redirects and most are created after 2008, hence probably not considered as 'very old'. Such redirects would not be of much use anyways since most or all of these WikiProjects already have their own respective shortcuts. Even for people that don't know that such individual shortcuts exist, all they have to do is to type in WP:, instead of wasting time creating these cross-namespace redirects that might confuse readers. Wishva de Silva | Talk 11:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are Wikipedia articles about WikiProjects likely? Might any of them be sufficiently notable? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases I think WikiProjects could become notable - Miltiary history, Medicine and Women in red are the three most likely candidates I think. I wouldn't expect any of the ones explicitly listed above to be notable presently, but I haven't looked for sources. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep all not listed. Yes it's tedious having to explicitly tag and list all nominated redirects when there are many, but it is necessary for as reason as it alerts anybody using the redirects that they are being considered for deletion and allows people to look at the history, views and links of the redirects and to look for external sources, etc which are all important for correctly determining the fate of redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hairy Dude and Thryduulf: Hi, I think both of you didn't understand what I mean here. These redirects are not articles and never meant to be...If you type in one of those names of WikiProjects in the search bar, without the reserved word and colon (ie Wikipedia:), the page will be immediately redirected to that WikiProject in Wikipedia: namespace, instead of an article. As I said, these redirects have minimal use. They are likely to be created by inexperienced editors who have no knowledge of the uses of different namespaces. These redirects are relatively new hence the revision history pages have one (that is the current) version only, so they wouldn't be of much use either. Wishva de Silva | Talk 02:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand exactly what you mean, but I disagree that we can delete them without tagging them and looking at them individually. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also clear that you haven't investigated this much - WikiProject Albums has been around since 2009, has many incoming links and was previously kept at RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 3#Special:PrefixIndex/WikiProject). See also other previous discussions Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 2#WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject. Having read those discussions, I'm going to recommend keep all as the chance of confusion is very low and they take users where they want to go. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. Saves keystrokes and doesn't impact casual readers who wouldn't know about WikiProjects in the first place. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all listed here, and warn the user Jujutsuan who created them a month ago that they are not acceptable. It will impact casual readers when these potentially show up in the regular article namespace search results, and lead them to something they may not understand, or will come to believe is part of the encyclopedia proper. The benefit of saving three keystrokes (i.e. "WP:") for contributors seeking the Wikipedia namespace content doesn't even come close to outweighing the harm. Textbook cross namespace redirects that should be deleted.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only looked at the very first one listed, as only that single redirect was created by Jujutsuan. All the others were created between 2008 and 2013 by various users, so it seems unlikely you have actually given any thought to these redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D6 and the previous RFD regarding these redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. The odds of a non-wikipedian stumbling upon these redirects seems very low, and it saves keystrokes for the wikipedians. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Readers come first. Even if the chance of confusion for them is miniscule (which is debatable), the benefit clearly doesn't outweigh it (especially as editors can use the efficient three characters of "WP:" and commonly do), therefore we shouldn't retain these.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These pointless XNRs are not even the shortest way of typing the name of their targets (WP:SONG or other shortcuts of that type are). Pppery (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery and Godsy: The shortest way of typing the name of the target is not the only consideration - the evidence shows that these reirects have been around a long time and that people are using them to get to the current target. It doesn't matter why they use this and not a WP: shortcut, only that they do, and redirects that are used are by very definition not pointless. Readers do come first, but when there is no conflict between readers and editors (such as here) we should not be inconveniencing editors and breaking links when doing so will not benefit anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Wisha de Silva: You did not even tag all of these redirects, making Thryduulf's initial concern even more relevant. I have just tagged them. Pppery (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Recent precedent weighs more heavily in my book, especially since WikiProjects are occasionally notable in their own right. At a glance, though, there are still many other redirects of this type out there. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all listed and, should a list of all the ones matching the specified pattern be added here, delete those too. Per nominator, Tavix, Pppery, and particularly Godsy.  — Scott • talk 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a full list of redirects matching the title pattern below. Pppery (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scott: Pinging because I forgot to earlier. Pppery (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I've moved it to a subpage and transcluded it to save people having to load so much code when participating in this discussion.  — Scott • talk 16:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I only became aware of this discussion because I accidentally typed "WikiProject Biography" instead of something that would have taken me to the correct place. I would have still got to where I needed to go, and I suspect anyone else typing that would also know how to get to the right place. It might be an idea to fix incoming links. Is it possibly to vote delete but only after existing links have been fixed? How many are there? Or maybe delete the ones with no incoming links other than to RfD discussions but keep the rest until they fall out of use. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In Wikipedia time, I'm not so sure that 2008 is not "very old". People have gotten used to using these, and forgetting to add the "WP:" at the beginning of typing is probably common (it is for me). I don't see that these are doing any harm. (Wishva de Silva and Pppery, per Carcharoth's comment, these all need to be tagged for the RfD so anyone using them will be alerted. Maybe someone with AWB can help.) — Gorthian (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note None of the redirects in the extended list have been tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix and BDD. WJBscribe (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikiprojects are not for the readership. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - redirects are to aid navigation. These do that. Do they interfere with reading or editing articles? No. Are they confusing? They all clearly use the word Wikiproject, so no. Redirects are cheap and I see no policy reason to delete. - jc37 10:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the continuing precedent cited by Tavix and BDD.--Cúchullain t/c 16:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment will this discussion that has been initiated nearly three months ago and relisted twice ever be closed? Pppery 01:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect it may have to do with all the redirects on the expanded list that never got tagged... Every time I think about doing them, I get deflected by something else, like my own reluctance. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Upcoming films[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. wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rush was released in 2012, The Giver was released in 2014; no longer valid search terms. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 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.

Ancient names for DYK prep areas[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. Deryck C. 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These very old redirects to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 and Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 are not even correct due to the current method of cycling through prep areas rather than having preps 1 & 2 always promoted into queues first. All of them only appear to be linked from talk page posts dating back many years ago. Pppery (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, this takes me back. Delete. I remember setting up the whole "preparing the next DYK page in advance" thing a decade ago. Prior to that it was a matter of whatever admin was on duty at the time pulling items at random from the backlog in the minutes before (or up to half an hour after) the thing was to go live. Inevitably, this caused some fairly unbalanced sets, bugged images, and complaints from all and sundry. There wasn't even a way to check how the thing would look on the main page before it was actually put up. The "Next Update" page gave some breathing room, time for last minute adjustments or complaints, and overall proved very useful for a long time. But it seems the terminology has moved on and there's little use for hanging redirects. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GeeJo: Wow - did the "Show Preview" button not exist back then?! Pppery (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As they're now incorrect for the reasons highlighted above. Joseph2302 14:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, at least the ones with links, to Template:Did you know/Queue. This will solve the nominator's concern that a certain prep area isn't necessarily the next one by redirecting to a place that has all of the prep areas and queues. We don't want to break links if we don't have to, and this isn't a time where we have to. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and take it to WT:DYK - for the reason this whole discussion should have FIRST happened at WT:DYK. Sometimes there are backlinks or any little thing, where a deletion throws things out of whack. This really should be a discussion at WT:DYK among a community that has some historical knowledge about this issue. IF there are to be deletions, it should be discussed and decided at WT:DYK. — Maile (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WT:DYK has been notified. I disagree that there are any forum issues in this case.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as I understand it, Prep 1, when it was renamed from Next Update over seven years ago in 2009, was always the next update directly to the main page, and Prep 2 was the update after that (next next), which would be moved up to Prep 1 in due time, and then to the main page. I don't believe there were queues back in those days; these were a later development (with the DYKUpdateBot?), to allow non-admins to work in preps, with admins to promote preps to (admin-only) queues where they would be set up for the bot to promote the next queue to the main page. Preps 3 and 4 came separately in 2010, also before queues, while 5 and 6 are from 2014, in the queue era, and under two years old. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the nominator notes, these redirects only appear to be linked from talk page posts dating back many years ago. That is a sufficient reason to retain them IMO, because the DYK project frequently refers back to old talk page discussions when reviewing DYK policies, and removing these old redirects is only likely to make those old discussions harder to follow down the track. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the Dyknu redirect could probably go as it has no links to archived DYK discussions. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being old is a reason to keep redirects in the absence of them being harmful (of which no suggestion has been made), and no other reason to delete them has been presented. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did present a reason these are harmful - that they are wrong. The situation frequently arises that it will take five updates before this prep area becomes the next one to move onto the main page. Theoretically that number could become as high as eleven. Pppery (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: A retargeting proposal has been presented that resolves the nominator's concern. Could you please respond to that proposal? -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The redirects are not "wrong" - they point to the historically correct pages, which is where they should point. Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gatoclass: As I said in my previous reply, these redirects are wrong. The fact that something is old may be a reason to keep a redirect, but it does not change the fact that no one prep area or queue is always the next one to move onto the Main Page. Pppery (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, ppery, the redirects are not wrong. They point to the same pages they have always pointed to, which is where they should point. The pages have just been renamed, that's all. To maintain the integrity of the old discussions, the redirects should continue to point to the same pages. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: By the way, my username has three ps, not two. Pppery (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pppery, I noticed that after my last post but couldn't be bothered going back to fix it. Noted for future reference. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's "wrong" in the sense that Preparation 1 isn't necessarily the "next update" and Preparation 2 isn't necessarily the "next next update." Retargeting to the main queue page that lists all of the preparation areas would fix this problem while maintaining the historical context since it still points to the preparation area. -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessarily the next update now, but it was when these redirects were in use, and when the threads that reference these redirects were written. Retargeting the redirects will just damage the integrity of the old threads and make it much more difficult for people not familiar with the history to figure out which particular update page was being referenced. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pages don't look or function like what they did when these were created. "Preparation area 1" doesn't function in the same way that "next update" did when the page was titled that. Therefore, from a reference standpoint, it doesn't matter whether it's pointing at area 1, 2, etc.; none of these areas provide this reference. The history of the redirect is what has that reference, not the target. What matters now is that the redirects are pointing to a "correct" place—that they point to a target that does offer the "next update," which is what my proposal does. -- Tavix (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to repeat this? When these redirects were in use, there were only two update pages and the redirects pointed to one or the other of them. All the old discussions that reference these redirects similarly refer to either one of the original two update pages via the redirects. If you retarget the redirects to point to the generic "Queue" page, future users referencing those old discussions will have no clue which particular update page those discussions were referencing. Which will make it more difficult for those users to retrace the data referred to in those discussions. Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to repeat yourself. We just disagree. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 13 August 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.

Numbers 15:32[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) 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. History is simply three different versions of the bible verse itself. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No Wikipedia article that specifically treats this verse with notability as with John 3:16. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either we should have redirect for all Bible verses that don't have their own article, or none. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more likely, only have redirects for Bible verses when the target discusses that specific verse. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 7 August 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.

Avenger of blood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Avenger of blood

Indian Magna Carta[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 Royal Proclamation of 1763. I'll hatnote the previous target. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this Neelix redirect should be retargeted to Royal Proclamation of 1763 or not. Google tells me that the proclamation is Canada's Indian Magna Carta, but I do see a few mentions of the reorganization act. I'm from Canada, and that might be changing my search results. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig I'm in the UK and I'm seeing more hits for the Royal Proclamation of 1763 than the Indian Reorganization Act but not enough to declare it the primary topic. If one is chosen as the target though there definitely should be a hatnote to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I think it's enough to declare a primary topic, especially since there's no content on the nickname at the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and hatnote per norm. The 1763 document seems to be the primary topic here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only mention at the article on the 1763 proclamation is in the title of a reference. Does this have enough popular and scholarly purchase to warrant a redirect? If so, should the term be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article? --BDD (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to your first question is clearly yes, it warrants either a redirect or a dab page entry. As for the second, ideally yes but it's not essential. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 15 August 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.

Fionn Whitehead[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. Whitehead seems to have the lead role in the film, so viewers searching for this are better served if an article is created. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search should quickly show that Fionn Whitehead is definitely a different person than Christopher Nolan. The fact that Whitehead is starring in Nolan's upcoming film (Dunkirk) doesn't seem reason enough for this redirect. Michael Reed (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the result of a bot fixing the double redirect after Dunkirk (2017 film) was redirected to Nolan at some point. Either way the reader is better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xezbeth. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Christopher Nolan#Large-scale epics: 2014–present with an anchor at the last paragraph in that section. This is getting 60 hits a day since March, and some information can be found there. It can be turned into an article at any time. — Gorthian (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it's useful since the redirect just leads readers to an entry that just states what they already know: that a certain Fionn Whitehead is connected to the movie --Lenticel (talk) 12:03, 11 August 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_August_6&oldid=1138580871"