Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 23, 2017.

List of the best movie sequels[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) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "best" isn't exclusive to "box-office improvement"; for one, it could also refer to a "best" ranking based on film reviews. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subjective term of which we have no specific article as with the video games. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:08, 24 March 2017 (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.

Jack (BioBhock)[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) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling of "BioShock" in disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2017 (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.

Candy Land (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) 15:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no 2014 film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (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.

Amped (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) 15:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. The target is a novel, and makes no mention of a film. -- Tavix (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2017 (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.

Asteroids (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) 15:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. The film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2017 (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.

Jewel Of India[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) 15:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. I was unable to find any information about a film of this name via IMDb. There's no mention of such a film at Cohen's article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned at Cohen's article, so it must not be that important to his career. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a good target for this redirect. The term can define restaurants, regions in India and notable Indians. --Lenticel (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2017 (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.

Bullet Run (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) 15:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF as the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (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.

1950 (2013 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) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF as the film is still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2017 (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.

Thriller (album)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There was a clear consensus at Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album)/Archive 6#Requested move 15 March 2017 not to move the article. It was suggested within that RM that this redirect be retargeted to Thriller#Albums, but given that there have been 2 former RfDs for this redirect, a 3rd RfD is warranted. Remember that consensus can change. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't keep the status quo If the Michael Jackson album is the primary topic among all albums with this name, then the article should be moved to this title. If it isn't the primary topic then it should be retargetted to the relevant section of the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously the Michael Jackson album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this redirect. Really, the MJ album should be moved over this redirect and the failed more request was the wrong result. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thriller#Albums, because this title is not fully disambiguated. If the Michael Jackson album is primary, then an RM should be started to move it to Thriller, without disambiguation. kennethaw88 • talk 03:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument isn't that the MJ album is the primary topic for the un-disambiguated "Thriller" (which would fail because of the thriller film genre) but that it's primary for "Thriller (album)" since no other Thriller album has anything close to the cultural significance that that one does. While I did support moving the MJ album over this redirect above, there's nothing wrong with having an article be at a WP:PRECISE title, while still having a redirect that is technically ambiguous, but which clearly has a primary topic, point towards that title as well.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "consensus can change", but not necessarily has to change. This is the third time this is discussed (specifically because this was discussed first in 2013, and later last October, and nothing changed those 3 years, so it is safe that nothing has changed in 5 months). Michael Jackson's album is the best-selling album ever, and it has an excessively long legacy, so it is highly expected people typing both "Thriller" and "Thriller (album)" are looking for this album, like the page views mark (pageviews from 25 February to 25 March: Michael Jackson (71,284 per month / 2,458 per day); Cold Blood (159 per month / 5 per day); Eddie and the Hot Rods (274 per month / 9 per day; Lampchop (405 per month / 14 per day).) The only reason MJ's is not the primary topic is because of the genre. So this is one of those cases where "occasional exceptions may apply" apply. Although the status quo is bureaucratic nonsense, it is by far the best solution at the time. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 08:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep out of all the albums with this title, Michael Jackson's is by all means easily the most likely search term with regards to page views AND lasting impact. I'm surprised that the most recent RM (and other past RM's) didn't gain enough support to move the article to that title, though it doesn't mean this shouldn't at the very least redirect to there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the specific practice in this topic area (see the last paragraph of WP:ALBUMDAB, where this redirect is among the examples given). Noting that this discussion isn't a very suitable place to reargue a requested move. Also noting there was a similar recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31#Imagine (song). – Uanfala (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a typical {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, the text of which states, "Such titles should redirect to an appropriate disambiguation page (or section of it), or to a more complete disambiguation."  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – Confusion may be alleviated by properly defining what editors are talking about when discussing "Thriller (album)". "Thriller (album)" as a title has several exact matches among our corpus of articles, therefore it must be further disambiguated, and convention has it that in music topics, the artist name is prepended to the "(album)" or "(song)" designator. Hence the article title must be "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)". Then, "Thriller (album)" as a topic has an overwhelming primary topic which is the Michael Jackson album. Hence the link Thriller (album) must be redirected to the article Thriller (Michael Jackson album) per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. This case is a perennial discussion, and a suitable "Thriller jurisprudence" has been established. WP:PDAB gives other examples, such as Twilight (novel). Our guidelines are perhaps not clear enough and I would support moving some of the WP:PDAB wording and examples into the official WP:DAB guidelines. Finally, on a procedural note, I see no facts that have changed compared with prior discussions of the same issue. Further attempts to assert that consensus has changed are borderline disruptive. — JFG talk 14:18, 31 March 2017 (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.

Jon Kent[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 Jonathan Kent. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jonathan Samuel Kent per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Google search mainly gives results about the fictional character. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This redirect is redundant, only a result from a page move. Please don't retarget the page to "Jonathan Samuel Kent". I'm planning to rename the Jonathan Samuel Kent article to "Jon Kent", which the fictional comic book character is most well-known and commonly referred to. Thank you. Rootone (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Jonathan Samuel Kent to Jon Kent per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jonathan Kent which is a dab page containing a bunch of Jonathan Kent variants. I don't see a clear primary topic, but then again, I'm not versed in the comics world or cricket world. But yikes, that dab page is nuts. A bunch of characters related to Superboy but with slightly different interpretations, and two different cricketers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_23&oldid=1138581844"