Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 25

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

File:Tseung Kwan O.jpg



 * 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.  Wizardman  14:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → File:Tseung Kwan O (1).jpg (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Retitled image shadowing Commons Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. File redirects shadowing Commons are just confusing, and unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Zen Wikimood 08.png



 * 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.  Wizardman  14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → File:Zen Wikimood 08a.png (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Shadows Commons Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That and the other "Zen wikimoods" are by me (modified by KillerChihuahua, I see). I certainly have no objection if you delete that redirect, but what happened? Why was it moved to a different title? Have its siblings been moved too? Bishonen &#124; talk 16:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Not yet, because I wasn't aware of them as such. The image was moved because it Shadowed a different image on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. File redirects shadowing Commons are just confusing, and unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Modern Germanic calendar



 * 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.  Wizardman  14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Heathen holidays (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This term does not exist. . Redirect was created by notorious COI editor trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform for their idiosyncratic views. dab (𒁳) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading and meaningless. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Rökkatrú



 * 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.  Wizardman  14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Germanic neopaganism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Section-redirect created by COI editor in Sept 2011; offending material has since been removed from target article. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Waincraft



 * 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.  Wizardman  14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Germanic neopaganism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Section-redirect created by COI editor in Sept 2011; offending material has since been removed from target article. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Aldsido



 * 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.  Wizardman  14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Germanic neopaganism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Section-redirect created by COI editor in Sept 2011; offending material has since been removed from target article. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Frankish Neopaganism



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Germanic neopaganism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

redirect has no target. No conceivable topic under this name. Term was coined on-wiki, google yields only Wikipedia mirrors. --dab (𒁳) 14:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a conceivable topic under this name. It would be Neopaganism that worships the gods of the Franks. Tideflat (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDLINK. There's no mention of the topic on the destination page. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Futz!



 * 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.  Wizardman  02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → List of Teletoon Original Productions (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect was previously listed here by me, but I withdrew the nomination because there was no discussion of the redirect's subject in the proposed target article at the time (and, with the only other opinion provided in that discussion violating WP:POLL and thus being invalid, closed the discussion per WP:SK). I have now added some discussion of the subject to the proposed target, so here's my previous rationale for changing the target:


 * This page should redirect to 9 Story Entertainment, not List of Teletoon Original Productions, since a list isn't exactly conducive to discussion. The nominator in the deletion discussion for this page even mentioned doing so as a possible alternative to deletion: "I am suggesting deletion or redirection to the article on the production company." However, the closing administrator (and subsequent redirect creator) refuses to make this change. Note that the deletion discussion doesn't preclude doing so per WP:N: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."

Reminder for other users and the closing administrator: any blatant WP:POLL violations, such as providing invalid reasoning - including WP:N, which does not apply to redirects - or no reasoning at all are not to be considered in determining WP:CON. I'm mentioning this because the deletion discussion's closing administrator, mentioned above, seemed to ignore the existence of WP:POLL (as well as because of the one opinion in the previous redirect discussion, also mentioned above). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Create a disambigation page at Futz, and retarget to that. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? You haven't provided any reasoning whatsoever - not to mention that your suggestion seems completely nonsensical. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Given that the article itself had meanwhile been recreated at Futz, I've deleted it and recreated an analogous redirect. Given that Futz is also the name of a play by Rochelle Owens and a 1969 film (of unclear notability) with confusion about the exclamation marks, disambiguation may make sense. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that there are in fact other possible uses of the term without the exclamation mark, as you pointed out, I obviously agree with this - but the redirect with the exclamation mark should now be changed per my request since this discussion has been open for far more than enough time and no other uses for that particular name have been pointed out here so far. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've created the dab page Futz. Actually I found searching for Futz! in Wikipedia many references to the film including some links, so I agree with the IP to retarget Futz! there, as the better overall solution, and one could stretch WP:MOSDAB to link both to the list and the production company. Moreover, time expired and reminders apart, changing the confirmed decision of the previously closing administrator needs a stronger consensus than I was seeing here when ready to close and presumably other admins felt the same. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you find any with the exclamation mark? If not, then your first suggestion contradicts both WP:DAB and the whole point of this very page. Your second suggestion contradicts WP:DAB.


 * As for the previous closing administrator's decision: did you not read my comment about this above? Additionally, where is there evidence that other administrators agree with this decision? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found some instances and corrected two. Others are still around that you can find with the search function such as in Milton Moses Ginsberg. Since an exclamation mark isn't really audible, grouping A and A! together is a common practice anyways to help not only in linking but also in searching. If List of Teletoon Original Productions isn't a good target, 9 Story Entertainment doesn't tell readers so far much either, and without the sources that have led to deletion in the first place, it is not clear if that changes, so I think leading to a dab page which now contains the same info is helpful and yes I think we can ignore a style rule in that case, but I won't loose sleep over it.
 * Yes, I've read you comment and felt that it charged up the discussion unnecessarily whilst clouding somewhat your own argument. Imo both targets are weak, thus the proposal above. Finally, I did not intend that other administrators agree with anything, just that they may have so far not seen here much consensus to change it, but that is a feeling of mine.
 * It may help the next one, if you can state whether you would agree with pointing to a common dab page or otherwise make your own point clearer. Please note that in any case the link from the the teletoon template can be handled separately as here the context is clear. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you found any WP:RS that use the exclamation mark? I'm having trouble finding any such sources at all, much less reliable ones. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no notable topic Futz!. At that point the question is what people linking or searching might have in mind and a Google searrch for Futz! gives me the same results as Futz, with results mostly explaining the possibly meaning of the word (our wiktionary link) and the imdb entry for the film on the first page. So I think readers are best served with a common dab page. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A Google search has nothing at all to do with this (unless you're manually checking the results) because Google's search engine does not take into account most punctuation, including exclamation marks.


 * Also, it's not a question of WP:N - the reason I'm looking for sources is that I highly doubt that anyone would ever search for the term with the exclamation mark unless the person is looking for the show. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Google search matters here as it resembles how I think most readers search in this case, namely without regard for an exclamation mark. I mentioned notability to remind you that we have just a single sentence on the cartoon, albeit now at three places, and whilst you still haven’t explained what the benefit for redirecting to the production company is, the dab page helps everybody including those asking Futz?, and those who had linked inside Wikipedia to the play as Futz!, as did Time and the NYT  that are reliable enough to beg the question what the actual title is, but The New Yorker and other sources refer to it as Futz, so maybe depends on the theater.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the evidence, I now agree with your suggestion - but on the condition that the page be unprotected for the two reasons that it would redirect to an unprotected page (making the protection a bit redundant) and, more importantly, the original rationale for protection no longer applies since the community has concluded that the redirect should stay (the original rationale was a compromise stemming from the deletion discussion, the closing administrator of which disagreeing with me as to whether a redirect was justified given the community's conclusion in that discussion). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.