Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 1, 2016.

Nippon Ishin no Kai[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 wrong forum; this is a move request. @Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat:, to move Initiatives from Osaka, please start the discussion at Talk:Initiatives from Osaka using the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making way for pagemove from Initiatives from Osaka Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 09:29, 1 October 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.

The Home of Fandom[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 did come close to weighting Tavix's argument greater, since this certainly was a redirect from a slogan. But that template says it's for "a slogan (or motto) to an article or section of an article about the slogan", which was not the case. Not for now, at least. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is most likely a very implausible redirect. This redirect's meaning is not explained in the article either. About.com has one brief mention in an article, no other sources.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Wikia's Fandom Is the Largest Entertainment Fan Website". Web Trends. About.com. Archived from the original on 2016-10-01. Retrieved 2016-10-01. ... Wikia, formerly known as Wikicities and now known as the home of Fandom ...
80.221.159.67 (talk) 05:30, 1 October 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.

Pg up[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 (non-admin closure) Pppery 16:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect as implausible typo? PgUp exists. Note that the redirect creator has a history of creating malicious redirects. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These redirects aren't malicious, and they are vaguely plausible as misspellings. Uanfala (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keyboards can have similar text, ( or perhaps PgUp and PgDn) so the redirects are useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. Sony Vaio laptops actually have "Pg Up" and "Pg Dn" (with a space, rather than PgUp/PgDn) on the key label, so this doesn't strike me as especially implausible. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible synonyms/ abbreviations --Lenticel (talk) 02:52, 2 October 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.

Penny (Inspector Gadget)[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 Inspector Gadget (franchise)#Penny. Though the redirect was not tagged with the discussion notification until a couple days after the nomination, the consensus is unanimous and seems uncontroversial, so I feel comfortable closing the discussion at this time. See also: User talk:Airplaneman#Penny (Inspector Gadget) and Ranze. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting this name to a single TV series is appropriate. In addition to being the heroine of both Gadget & the Gadgetinis and Inspector Gadget (2015 TV series) which followed it, she also appears in Inspector Gadget (film). If this has to be redirected anywhere it should probably be to Inspector Gadget (franchise)#Penny which is an overview of all of these things. What I think would be useful though is restoring the 7 August 2010 version. On 9 August 2010 it was redirected but I can't find evidence this action was discussed beforehand with the community. It had been tagged with requests for cleanup and source citation. Alternatively, I could create a new article from scratch at Penny Ruth and only add what reliable sources say. As the heroine of 3 TV series she seems like a notable character deserving of an article about her. Ranze (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Target contains information regarding the character. The redirect can be overwritten by an article if there is enough information present to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to clarify, I'm all for keeping the article, I'm not nominating to delete it, just wondering if this is still the best place to point it. While the 1983 series (86 episodes) is longer than the 2001 one (52 episodes) 2015 one (26 eps) combined (78 episodes) her entry on the "franchise" page would seem the most appropriate since Penny (Inspector Gadget) could at least refer to the 2015 one. I suppose Penny (Gadget and the Gadgetinis) could direct to the 2001 series' character section. Something like Penny (Inspector Gadget (2015 TV series)) would not be desirable but if we have a redirect serving as an anchor toward her younger 1983 version then there should also be an anchor for categories which pertain to her 2015 version. Notable differences exist between them. The older version is explicitly an agent with HQ for example (level 4 or 5 clearance if I recall) while her younger version wasn't actually an agent, she just tagged along and solved mysteries without Gadget/Quimby noticing. The older version's considered part of Gadget's "team" in spite of him still getting undue credit. Anyway I'm in the process of trying to find some sources to build an article. I'll propose them on Talk:Penny (Inspector Gadget) in case anyone feels they are adequate to restore the article. I'd have done that now but I'm worried that restoring an article that was changed into a redirect could violate a topic ban I'm under which prevents me from editing redirects. Ranze (talk) 17:36, 1 October 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.

First child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge[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 find the delete votes, which do have a slight numerical majority, to be stronger for a few reasons. First, the nominator's initial argument is quite strong, demonstrating that the redirects were recentist and ambiguous. Second, that a strong consensus at AfD deleted such a term, and did not redirect it. Third is Godsy's argument, that there isn't a clear place to point such terms (AfD having already rejected a similar one as disambiguation).
StAnselm is correct that redirects need not be entirely unambiguous, but there was no discussion of whether the current royal babies would qualify as primary topic. If they did, would we make pages like First child of the Duke of Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation)? Even if that title doesn't immediately strike you as absurd, it's contrary to the aforementioned AfD. Finally, I do note that the nominator received a {{checkuserblock-account}}. Had this been noticed quickly, before discussion had began, it would not have been amiss to close the discussion. As such, throwing out the completed discussion on those grounds seems to me deeply unfair to the good-faith editors who participated in it. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't these terms apply to other people?

Example: Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge and Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel were once the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They had three kids: Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, Princess Augusta of Cambridge, and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. BigGuy88 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. There is no inherent requirements for redirects to be unambiguous. 99.99% of searches for this term now would be the present-day royals, not the historical personages. StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of them still useful for those that can't remember the name. When there is a new Duke of Cambridge, then the redirects can be updated. Graeme Bartlett (talk)
  • Delete. These redirects are leftover from before the children were named and there was no other convenient way to name the articles on the children. If readers can't remember the name, they only have to do a google search for 'son of the duke of cambridge' to be instantly informed. DrKay (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DrKay. These ambiguous redirects have outlived their usefulness. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you check the page views? Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is still getting one hit a day. StAnselm (talk) 18:43, 1 October 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.

Reconstitution[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the correct target is for this search, but it's definitely not where it's pointed now. When I hear reconstitution, I think fruit juice, not civil war Tazerdadog (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure either, but I'm wondering if it isn't best to delete: there's nothing relevant at the current target; redirecting to wiktionary would normally work in such cases, but there are plenty of places on wikipedia that have content relevant to various technical meanings of the word and these are better reached using the search results. Putting them on a disambiguation page probably wouldn't work as the ones I've seen so far (Reconstituted leather, Family reconstitution etc.) have apparently been partial title matches. Uanfala (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of these redirects may be {{Db-x1}} eligible. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They are eligible, but I doubt very much we are going to see a SNOW Delete. There has to be a good target, and if there is not, I might just make the article. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them: the best we could do would be partial title matches, and that's what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I'm not confident about this, but I have to say that I'd rather people be able to just search. You know? We don't have a particularly solid target for any of them that I can see. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:54, 5 October 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_October_1&oldid=1088108676"