Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 26

November 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2009

Assassin's Creed III
The result of the discussion was Keep. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:  Reasons for deletion: R9 If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect. The target article contains very little information on the subject, not even fully asserting that it will definately exist yet, as it is a long way in the future. (WP:CRYSTAL) Was speedy kept at AfD and converted to redirect, so I thought it would benefit from some discussion here to gain concensus on whether it is better off as a red link, or a redirect currently. Taelus (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Assassin's Creed (series) (links to redirect)


 * Note to those coming from the AfD, which I also took part in. I am not asserting that the AfD result was wrong and that deletion is the only option, I merely thought the scenario would benefit from a "Redirect for Discussion". I would be quite happy to leave it as a redirect, but would like to discuss the consensus on redirects that are by nature crystal balling in advance of solid release information. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - On a general note, R9 is for topics where we want to encourage a possible article. Which we currently don't want to in this case, as is clear after after two Afds in a month already. The second confirmed (in my opinion) correctly what was already suggested in the first: While we don't want editors to gaze into crystal balls, readers are entitled to search for speculative topics and the redirect leads them to the place where we have it. If that information is little or nil, this conveys the state of affairs and allows for cautions expansion or discussion. Most of which can easily be handled locally by interested and knowledgeable editors. A red link on the other hand gives enthusiastic fans the message that this is still missing in wikipedia. And we go on with AfDs, RfDs, protection, unprotection request, DRV and the like. So to conclude again in the general: With respect to possible successors or future periodical events, WP:Crystal is rather a reason for having a redirect than for deleting one, as long as it leads all interested editors and readers to a a place where they can add a paragraph and / or discuss when it is ready to be branched out. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points, I see that it would indeed benefit the majority in its current state. Whilst some readers might follow the redirect and be disappointed at the lack of relevant information, I suppose it is indeed currently the best we can offer them. Thanks for your input. As I said previously, I do not mind the article being kept as a redirect, however since this forum is "for discussion" rather than "for deletion" I thought it couldn't hurt for a bit of discussion! --Taelus (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Per above.-- Pookeo9 Say What you Want  19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unannounced future game per WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine target to Assassin's Creed (series) as the section mentions the series creative director mentioning his intentions of an Assassin's Creed III entry being the last of a trilogy. While there is not enough yet to justify a standalone article, this is a case in which the existence of a redirect would be helpful to the readers of Wikipedia and help prevent accidental linking to a possible premature article on the not-yet-existing game. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:HPIM0006.JPG
The result of the discussion was - Speedy Deleted (R3). one of the consequences of moving a file and forgetting to clean up afterwards. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → File:Bolton Abbey spring 2007.JPG (links to redirect)

Not useful - redirect to file on Commons - doesn't work properly. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete, it does indeed appear not to work. For my browser at least, it won't redirect, it always loads the image on that page as a transclusion. Usage of it can be cleaned up manually or by a bot for articles it is used in to bypass this 'redirect'. --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And deleted (CSD#R3) - I missed that I'd previously renamed the file, when I moved it to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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