Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zorantb (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 30 March 2017 (→Samurai Gourmet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2017.

Spyz

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 procedural close as this is no longer a redirect. This is without prejudice to an AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of "Spyz" at the target article. Someone seeking information on something named "Spyz" will not find what they're looking for via this redirect and end up disappointed or confused. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like someone is trying to turn this into an article. So this should go through AFD instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 30 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.

Pete&

Is there any usefulness to this redirect? -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search Wikipedia

Not sure if this is needed since it is a cross namespace soft redirect to a special page, and the main way people would get to it is by searching for it in the search box, making it a duplicate. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really hate the XNR-in-principle argument wherever it is, but the "searching for the search function" is pretty solid. TimothyJosephWood 23:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote - just realized that "Search Wikipedia" verbatim is the prefill text in the search box. In the event of a browser or script malfunction, that text could end up becoming the search term. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since users may not understand that this is a search box. I could picture little kids entering "Search Wikipedia" into the search box just to see what happens. UpsandDowns1234 00:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a WP:XNR and it was created only 25 minutes before it was nominated here. Might as well get rid of these before we start seeing arguments for redirects such as View history being created. The nominated redirect is not an article or is related to any specific article, and thus should be deleted. I mean, editors would literally have to type "Search Wikipedia" into the bar that already says "Search Wikipedia" to even trigger this redirect. Or, at Special:Search, searching for Search Wikipedia would return the reader to where they already are, possibly causing confusion. For these reasons, I really don't see this redirect as helpful at all. Steel1943 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete it's not working, obviously a failed G2 test. Cabayi (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Help:Searching which is the target most likely to be helpful to the people using this redirect - very new users who want to know how to search (better) and haven't yet learned about namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but retarget, as suggested by Thryduulf. While the idea behind it is quite a good one, its present form it is not going to be useful to any normal user of the encyclopaedia (not an editor), as it just displays a "soft redirect" message, rather than actually taking the user to the search box, and most people won't know what that means. I thought a hard redirect would work, but it doesn't. However, Thryduulf's suggestion is likely to be helpful to helpful to such users. If this suggestion is not accepted then it has to be delete, since in its present form it is not helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Gourmet

Based on an article by Anime News Network,http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-02-02/samurai-gourmet-netflix-series-trailer-introduces-protagonist/.111758 this is not an alternative name for the target article, but an entirely different television series based on another manga called Manga-han Nobushi no Gourmet by Shigeru Tsuchiyama. The only connect these two have are a similar premise and the staff of the live-action adaptation of Kodoku no Gormet have moved on to Samurai Gourmet. —Farix (t | c) 22:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

Adding this from my talk page as a discussion point on whether Kodoku no Gourmet and Samurai Gourmet should be linked as the "same" show:

It is problematic if true, but the connection I found between Kodoku no Gourmet and Samurai Gourmet is that both are created by Masayuki Kusumi [1]. The other interesting find is that I'm finding Kodoku no Gourmet referenced as Kodoku no Gurume as well, and both list Masayuki Kusumi as a creator [2].

Since both Kodoku no Gourmet and Samurai Gourmet have the same premise, and are created by the same person[3], I would say that Samurai Gourmet is a Netflix adaptation of Kodoku no Gourmet.

Zorantb (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carboniferous Peirod

Unlikely misspelling of "period". This redirect was created so recently that it wasn't patrolled until I tagged it for RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Donald Trump

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to Family of Donald Trump, an article that delves into further detail concerning his three marriages. --Nevé–selbert 22:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gough (footballer)

Propose retargeting to Richard Gough as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Other footballer only appeared in one game and so just barely meets our football notability guideline. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The only two Richard Goughs I had ever heard of "off wiki" are the author of The History of Myddle, about whom we do not have an article, and Richard Gough (antiquarian), of whom I had only heard because it's important not to confuse him with the Myddle gentleman. I believe that the idea of a Primary Topic is often unhelpful, as it tends to both reinforce cultural biases and to make it hard to find and fix incorrect links. In this specific case, I do not see that any harm is done by Richard Gough (footballer) pointing to the dab page, and some harm - incorrect links - can be avoided by it. So I oppose the proposal, but frankly I am not overly bothered by the wikifate of these two muddied oafs. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Systemic bias issues are important to consider in considering what a primary topic is, but in this case the only two footballers by this name are markedly at the opposite ends of the notability spectrum. The page views argument for retargeting is stark: with a 166:1 ratio in former of the more prominent one (or 165:1 if we assume that every single pageview for the Welsh footballer came from people who used the hatnote on the Scottish footballer's page). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is treating a footballer as more important than an antiquary. DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the antiquary is also a footballer, his importance doesn't impact whether "Richard Gough (footballer)" should go to the more prominent Scottish footballer or to the DAB. Anyone is free to move pages around/start RMs independent of this RFD. If Richard Gough becomes a DAB, the current page should be at Richard Gough (footballer) as the primary topic.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I seem not to have made myself clear. I was objecting to having either footballer, or indeed anyone else, as Primary Topic. As well as that I think that as long as we have two footballers of the same name then the "(footballer)" page should redirect to the dab. But I really can't be bothered, so do whatever you like. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and if you can be bothered, start an RM. Your edit summary that we're dealing with "two utterly trivial footballers" is plainly wrong. The current page at the base name notes of the Scottish footballer that: He then captained Rangers to nine successive Scottish league championships. He also played for Scotland 61 times and played in the finals of three major international tournaments., while the Welsh footballer literally only played one international match. Even if you don't like football, it's pretty clear that the two footballers are not both inconsequential with no clear primary topic between them for the (footballer) parenthetical disambiguator.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He could have captained Rangers to the moon, he'd still be an item of pub trivia. You clearly haven't understood what I have been saying, so I'll try to make it as clear as possible - I don't care what you decide to do. I don't care about either footballer, I don't care about the stupid, anti-intellectual, and counterproductive "Primary Topic" rule, and I don't care any more about incorrect incoming links, the editors who lazily introduce them, and the readers who end up on the wrong pages because "Primary Topic" trumps all good sense and logic. I don't care. I wish I hadn't bothered, I wish I hadn't bothered trying to fix DPLBot's stupid errors, I wish I hadn't read the sodding dab page, and I wish I hadn't tried to bow out of this discussion gracefully in my very first post in this thread. I should have just ignored it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. If DuncanHill or anyone else wants to make the disambiguation primary then they should propose this at WP:RM, but that is not relevant to the RfD as we deal with the situation as it might be after a discussion that has not even been started. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Young

Does Janet Young, Baroness Young qualify for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? I can't see why not, she is the only British peer to be known solely as "Baroness Young" without a territorial designation, and considering that she was the only female member of the Thatcher government (while a peer) she has a better than fair claim to wp:primary topic status. For those looking for a different baroness, the {{distinguish}} hatnote at her article should adequately disambiguate. Note that when the redirect was created about a decade ago, it was made as a redirect to Janet Young, so I boldly restored it to that revision a number of days ago. Patar knight reverted my edit yesterday so I've resorted here, where hopefully a consensus can be reached. --Nevé–selbert 14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore DAB. These titles are really just baronies awarded to women with the surname Young, and don't have a geographic or ex officio component (e.g. Duke of Somerset, Duke of Cornwall).Many reliable sources refer to the other two peers just as Baroness Young without the geographic component (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). The other two Baronesses Young are also qualified, one used to be the Labour Whip in the Lords, headed numerous charities and public agencies and is the chancellor of a university, while the other is an accomplished actress and an emeritus professor. The three pages' page views are balanced, which is another argument for not having a clear primary topic. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Dab - whenever someone mentions Baroness Young I feel compelled to check whether they mean Janet or Barbara, and often find that they themselves do not know. Such ready confusion seems to me to require clear disambiguation. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rundeck

WP:RDEL #10, entry was removed from target last year, no other suitable target Paradoctor (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rundeck (software)

WP:RDEL #10, entry was removed from target last year, no other suitable target, and disambiguation is not needed anyway for this term Paradoctor (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book (musical theater)

I personally was confused when the page targeted to such a general article. It doesn't even target a section. I know what a musical is. Tell me something I don't know.

This redirect should be refined, retargeted, created as an article, or deleted. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1821575/
  2. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2146543/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
  3. ^ https://shuffleonline.net/2017/01/11/samurai-gourmet-manga-adapted-to-live-action-netflix-series/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_29&oldid=772959115"