Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 25

March 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2013

Jello

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jello → Jell-O (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I feel that it could be slightly controversial, so I'm raising this here. In the United States, gelatin dessert is referred to as jello, no matter what the brand is. The vast majority of people looking up "jello" are looking for the dessert, not for the specific brand. It is currently similar to redirecting Pudding to Hunt's Snack Pack; although the name isn't the same in this instance. Ryan Vesey 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Ryan, as a genericized trademark. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I find it unfathomable that Jello could redirect to anything but Jell-O. The only difference between the two is a dash in the middle. Jell-O has a corner on the American market, most American gelatin desserts are Jell-O. Maybe add a hatnote. p b p 01:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make a hatnote to gelatin dessert to address the OP's valid concern per p b p. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note Talk:Jello (disambiguation)#Requested move. TimBentley (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the trademarked term is "Jell-O" not "jello". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. A hat note isn't necessary as gelatin dessert is mentioned and wikilinked in the first sentence; anyone looking for gelatin desserts in general will have no trouble finding this link. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hatnote would do no harm, but is probably unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2013 (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.

Andy Thompson (artist)

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, for now ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Thompson (artist) → Andy Thompson (theater professional) (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Redirect is confusing because subject is not an artist in the commonly accepted sense, he is a theatre performer and producer. The article was moved from AfC under the incorrect name. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, not strictly an artist, but I don't see much of a reason to delete here, especially since the first sentence calls him a "theater artist". If we get an article by an Andy Thompson that's an artist, we can replace the redirect with that article and maybe hatnote it, but for now it's fine. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2013 (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.

Century House (Norwalk, Ohio)

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Century House (Norwalk, Ohio) → St. Mary Mother of the Redeemer Church (Norwalk, Ohio) (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete, this link redirects to a redirect. Century House originally was redirected by me to the church parish, only for me to discover that St. Mary has no notability outside of its diocese and was redirected there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on here. St. Mary Mother of the Redeemer Church (Norwalk, Ohio) is the redirect tagged for deletion, not Century House (Norwalk, Ohio). It simply may be that the tag was placed on the wrong page. - Eureka Lott 23:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think the target just got tagged instead. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (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.

Toilets in the Republic of China

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toilets in the Republic of China → Toilets in Japan (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Japan is not Taiwan. Revolution1221 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete redirect makes no sense. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical redirect, even if toilets in Taiwan are pretty similar to those in Japan. Suggest that consideration be given towards a "Toilets in East Asia" article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsensical. Quite frankly, what's the point of a "Toilets in X" article anyway? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For Japan, it makes sense, since fancy toilets are popular and they have toilets in Japan that would completely boggle your mind. For other countries, it's silly. Anyways, delete of course. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete Toilets in Taiwan, Toilets in China, and Toilets in the People's Republic of China. Ryan Vesey 03:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The redirect is borderline offensive. Harej (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsensical misinformation. wctaiwan (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note the other redirect Toilets in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toilets in Taiwan also points to Toilets in Japan. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the arguments so far would apply equally to that one, I think it would not be out of process to delete that redirect as well if this RfD continues in its current direction. wctaiwan (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four previously-named redirects. The creation of those redirects is just beyond bold. --Cold Season (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The redirect causes information to be apparently attributed to toilets in China that is just factually incorrect. As a long-term resident in China, I can confirm that hardly any of the article the redirect points to is relevant to toilets in China. It is borderline offensive to try to assume that Japanese culture and Chinese culture are somehow so close as this redirect seems to assume, though I imagine inexperienced people might assume this from America or Europe (because both places are far away in the same direction so that they appear "close" to such people). Because of this, I request that it is closed with a delete decision as soon as possible. DDStretch (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (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.

Italy Kids Choice Awards

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italy Kids Choice Awards → Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The article this redirects to has no mention of the Italian version. It would be better off being deleted so people know this page doesn't exist and there's no information for it. An article about the Italian version could eventually be created. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:R#D10. We should have an article, not a redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 25 March 2013 (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.

Kids Choice Awards France

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Choice Awards France → Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The article this redirects to has no mention of the French version. It would be better off being deleted so people know this page doesn't exist and there's no information for it. An article about the French version could eventually be created. Astros4477 (Talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:R#D10. We should have an article, not a redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:22, 25 March 2013 (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.

Schrödinger's pussy

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. "Pussy" may indeed be a synonym for "cat" but I find the argument that that implies Schrödinger's pussy is therefore reasonable to be unconvincing. Especially since this looks like it was made in poor faith. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's pussy → Schrödinger's cat (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I don't think that this is a plausible search term, seems like it was created solely for amusement. Lol, pussy!! pablo 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I "perfectly agree with pablo"!
That's definitely "NOT" a plausible term and Wikipedia is "NO place for amusement".
But before thinking of deleting the redirect ... I would kindly consider checking if the lightbulb is out first.
M aurice Carbonaro 09:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Google search results for the term, it seems like an unlikely legitimate search term. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether the redirect was intended as a joke is not relevant, however the redirect has no encyclopedic purpose and any humor in it is very tired and misplaced. The claimed Google hits concern entirely different topics (sexynerdgirl.com, lesbianspotting, glory-holing, and more, apparently—none related to the target of the redirect). The animated cartoon that was inserted twice (diff1, diff2) should not be re-added. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A joke redirect from implausible rephrasing. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Yes, chuckle chuckle, but "pussy" is a synonym for cat, if admittedly somewhat antiquated. No compelling reason to delete.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Schrödinger's mouser? Schrödinger's moggy? Schrödinger's malkin? Just as likely (ie not at all) that people would search Wikipedia for these. pablo 09:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd dispute that any of those are as common a synonym as pussy, but that's immaterial. I don't feel the need to create those, but I wouldn't feel the need to delete them, either. Redirects are cheap.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that they any of those is "as common a synonym as pussy". The thought experiment in question is always referred to as 'Schrödinger's Cat'.
Similarly, I am not claiming (as serial self-amuser Maurice Carbonaro seems to assert above) that "Wikipedia is NO place for amusement". Just wanted to clear that up for you all. pablo 10:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an immature redirect. Ryan Vesey 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's put an end to this jolly jape while we have the chance. In fact, an online search for 'Schrödinger's pussy' leads to many different targets! Sionk (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems plausible enough. though Schrödinger's pussy cat should also exist. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep made my day :) But yeah, pussy is synonymous to cat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But "Schrödinger's pussy" is not synonymous with the paradox "Schrödinger's cat". Sionk (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harmless, valid {{r from incorrect name}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible and immature. wctaiwan (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2013 (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.