Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 13

February 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2009

Ted Anderson → Blackpool
The result of the discussion was delete. — TKD:: Talk  08:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no Ted Anderson mentioned in the Blackpool article, and doesn't appear to have been when the redirect was created. Two articles link to the redirect, but they appear to be about different people with no apparent connection to Blackpool, and a Google search finds nothing relevant. — Snigbrook 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, then move Ted Anderson (footballer) to this name as no disambiguation would be needed. B.Wind (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Action per B.Wind above. TerriersFan (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above users  fr33k man   -s-  06:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Brimsdown house → London
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This was created as a stub about a block of flats, which is probably not notable. It was redirected to London, but the redirect doesn't appear to be useful, as the building is not mentioned in the target article. — Snigbrook 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete as it does not appear to be useful. PaulJones (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope (1997 film) → Umut


The result of the discussion was delete. — TKD:: Talk  08:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Umut" was a 1970 film. The 1997 film "Hope" does not have an article yet For An Angel (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom For An Angel (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no connection whatsoever between the two films. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the target is unrelated to the redirect.PaulJones (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Sentaku → List of xxxHolic episodes
The result of the discussion was Keep as the connection between the word and the episode is legitimate without prejudice against disambiguating further in as far warranted.Tikiwont (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC) "Sentaku" is a common Japanese word, meaning "choice". Thus, its connection to List of xxxHolic episodes is tenuous. In my opinion, the redirect should be deleted. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete (nom) &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is the name of one of the episodes of the series and listed as such in the target article. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you search for "sentaku" in the text of articles, you will find many many unrelated hits, including many names of other Japanese productions. So why redirect to this in particular? &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, such a redirect could help readers looking for episode #23 of season 1 by its title, which is romanized as this, just as they are helped by the other episode titles that redirect to this list, such as hanbun (episode #2 of season 2). "sentaku" is also the romanization of laundry (洗濯), by the way.  But that's beside the point.  Why should readers not be helped in the direction of a page discussing a small subject in a larger context, by a redirect pointing from the small subject's name to the larger context's page, per Redirect?  Uncle G (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But on the Japanese Wikipedia, せんたく redirects to 地域・生活者起点で日本を洗濯（選択）する国民連合, a political committee in Japan which goes by the common name "sentaku". That redirect is, in my opinion, valid because "sentaku" is used as an everyday term for an everyday topic (the name even has the word 生活, daily life, in it). This one, however, is not. If this were an episode of an English language television show whose name was a single, common word, I doubt that word would be redirected to its article. Before anyone says that it's different because this is an English language wiki, note that the vast majority of name conflicts are between proper nouns, and we do use Japanese proper nouns in article titles (albeit romanized). It's important that if a redirect has many possible targets, we redirect to by far the most deserving one. When it's not clear that there is a most deserving one, I don't think the redirect should be created in the first place. That's how I see this case. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unaware that we have many episodes titles of English language television shows who redirect to "List of episodes of X" articles, several of which are incorporated into disambiguations alongside conflicting redirects to other places (per the reasoning of Rogerb67 below). You can start with Clam (disambiguation), which includes a SpongeBob Squarepants episode by that title.  This is normal practice, because it helps the readers.  It's the result of applying the procedure at Television episodes, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'd have nominated hanbun too, if I had seen it. That's an even more general word (just meaning "half") which is likely a component of ten times as many names of Japanese topics than sentaku is. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if it is the whole English name of the Japanese topic, as an English language episode title clearly is. You aren't thinking about the distinction between the English-language name of an article topic or sub-topic and a simple English-language translation of a word or phrase. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabify to wiktionary and the episode. Common words (of any language) should be turned into dab pages (or articles on the word) instead being used as redirects or articles. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This is the English language Wikipedia.  It's not an other language Wikipedia, so we use English for titles, as per Naming conventions (use English) and non-English titles are redirects.  And it is not a dictionary, so we don't have "articles on the word" in "any language". Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but why should it redirect in particular to this episode of this show, when there are no doubt hundreds of notable topics named "Sentaku"? I see no problem in creating a disambiguation page without a link to wiktionary. There would still be plenty of topics (if not entire articles) with "sentaku" as a prominent word in their titles that we could disambiguate sentaku to. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then disambiguate instead of reaching for deletion as your first option! RFD isn't a substitute for editing a redirect into a disambiguation.  Turning a redirect into a disambiguation article when multiple redirects for topic and sub-topic titles conflict is one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of disambiguation articles.  Moreover, of course, there should be a redirect to the episode because it's the English-language name given to that episode, which is treated as a sub-topic within an article on a broader topic &mdash; as already explained. This is basic redirect-and-disambiguation stuff, by the way.   In addition to reading the redirect guidelines, and the naming conventions, and the television episode guidelines, already hyperlinked-to in this very discussion, please also read Disambiguation.  Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have lots of articles on words. Some of them aren't even English. I still don't see why a dab to wiktionary won't work. (As was the first part of the suggestion). 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We have articles on concepts, people, places, events, and things denoted by words.  This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as it could help a user find information on the episode. PaulJones (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any redirect could theoretically help someone find something. I don't really see your point. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Why don't we make a redirect for every noun used as an episode title of anything in any language? This redirect, and any others associated with the article List of xxxHolic episodes, are fucking ridiculous. Moogy   ( talk )  18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a silly question, given that it doesn't match these particular circumstances. We aren't talking about "any language".  We are talking about the English-language name of an episode, addressed as a sub-topic in an article with a broader scope, encompassing many such sub-topics.  Go and read Redirect.  This is long-standing common practice, and something that helps the readers to find the subject that they want to read about. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep you're fs. Useful redirect unless you want to disambiguate it. Voretus (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate There are at several articles mentioning "sentaku" as an episode name; List of xxxHolic episodes, List of Nabari no Ou episodes, List of Simoun episodes, List of Death Note episodes, Choices (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) (Japanese title) and others as some sort of title: List of Suzuka chapters, List of Soul Eater chapters. This is not a complete list. It seems to me all these pages have a similar call on this article name, with none as a primary topic. This will also give the opportunity to link to other wikiprojects as appropriate. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)