Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 20

January 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2014.

Wolverhampton air crash
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 31%23Wolverhampton air crash

Wikipedia:Carr76/sandbox



 * 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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an implausible Wikipedia namespace redirect that used to be a user sandbox. Epicgenius (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Carr76/sandbox → Draft:Carr76/sandbox (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Carr76/sandbox&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Comment. Wow, this sandbox page has gone on a merry dance around the namespaces! The full sequence is:
 * 17:51 4 December 2013 - →  [not a registered user]
 * 17:52 4 December 2013 - →
 * 17:58 4 December 2013 - → User:User:Carr76/sandbox [later speedy deleted per U2]]
 * 18:18 4 December 2013 - user:user:Carr76/sandbox → [note full stop]
 * 18:27 4 December 2013 - →  [note full stop]
 * 00:52 5 December 2013 - →  [full stop removed]
 * 18:01 20 January 2014 - →  [moved by Epicgenius, who opened this RfD a couple of hours later]
 * 21:50 20 January 2014 - →  [moved by JohnBlackburne]
 * 21:52 20 January 2014 - → User:Carr76/sandbox 2 [moved by JohnBlackburne]
 * I suspect that the original intention was to move the sandbox page to Fry Jacks (moving a draft article to Wikipedia space rather than main space is a common error). That page, also created by user:Carr76 on 4 December, has move history to several of these titles and seems to ultimately derive from a copy and paste move of the sandbox content to the article (all the same author so no attribution problems). So, unless anyone objects, I think all these redirects can be speedy deleted as G6 housekeeping as pages moved to the incorrect namespace. The ones in incorrect userspaces I'll nab now as they're definitely U2. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also spotted that Fry jack was created the following day as a separate copy and paste from the same sandbox source. I've now proposed merging the two to the latter title and have left messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belize advertising that (the subject is a dish in Belizian cuisine). Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hm, yes. My moves were when the RfD discussion notice on User talk:Epicgenius came up on my Watchlist; curious I saw a page I thought should be in userspace, a userspace draft, probably meant to be in the user's sandbox, and so tried to move it, choosing a new sandbox name. I was unaware we even had a Draft: namespace, being used to seeing new articles in user space, or at AfC, or started in the main namespace, and didn't notice it the first time I tried moving, didn't investigate until after the second move.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all page move redirects. I have seen lots of examples of the 'new' page move dialog with namespace dropdown confusing new users, and old users trip up on it too. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:21, 21 January 2014 (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.

Prince Windischgraetz



 * 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. No consensus as to whether or not to disambiguate, which can be left to editorial discretion. WJBscribe (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete or retarget to Sissi – Fateful Years of an Empress. Genuinely ambiguous, could mean Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz or Alfred III, Prince of Windisch-Grätz, but the only use not qualified with the name and number, that I can find with a Google search, is for the 1957 film Sissi – Fateful Years of an Empress (here at IMDB and mentioned in the "Cast" section of the article). Si Trew (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Prince Windischgraetz → Windisch-Graetz (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Windischgraetz&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Disambiguate. When you find yourself using the phrase "Genuinely ambiguous" it is a pretty big clue that we need a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per Thryduulf. Possibly renaming it to Prince Windisch-Graetz, with the redirect pointing to this. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment A DAB page seems like a good idea (I thought it might be overkill). But I'd be disinclined to add another redirect; the Windisch-Grätz family seems to carry them like a royal disease. There's no need, in my opinion, for Prince Windisch-Graetz, since the character is not spelt that way, and the two historical figures are easily found via search (and the family in general via Windisch-Graetz, Windischgratz, Windischgrätz, Windisch-Grätz, Windischgraetz, Prince Windischgratz, Prince Windischgraetz, orHouse of Windisch-Graetz). Since the film character is not a member of that family, it's unreasonable to put it there at the family article, so a DAB seems the best, yes. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, Keep and add hatnote at Windisch-Graetz:
 * I think a new DAB would be disproportionate, as that target lists the other likely entries (i.e. Alf I, and Alf III, amongst others) anyway. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a new DAB would be disproportionate, as that target lists the other likely entries (i.e. Alf I, and Alf III, amongst others) anyway. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Si Trew, and add a hatnote at Sissi. "Keep" it simple, silly. --BDD (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2014 (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.