Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2015.

Funk-pop[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as my posts about disco below. This re-direct suggests WP:OR, where genres are being interpreted as fitting in a section. There is no information about "funk pop" or "funk-pop" or anything in this said article. It's against WP:OR to interpret this genre as representing this in any fashion. I propose this re-direct be deleted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As discussion in November 2014, this is linking to something that doesn't expand on the music genre. There is no mention of disco-pop or disco pop in the article and it is WP:OR to suggest that this genre should link to this section of the article, or even this article at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ditto for the above. discussion in November 2014, this is linking to something that doesn't expand on the music genre. There is no mention of disco-pop or disco pop in the article and it is WP:OR to suggest that this genre should link to this section of the article, or even this article at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All three of the above nominations by @Andrzejbanas were previously on the discussion page for yesterday. I also merged the discussions as best I could since the rationales for each were almost identical. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: thanks for doing that, I was thinking likewise. I had a shuftie for any sensible retargets but couldn't really find any, so I think these must go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone can create substantial entries of information for these, especially as their own articles, then WP:REDLINK applies. If they don't deserve their own articles but something is out there on them, then they should be mentioned in the targets, assuming they are significant enough. Until then, it's not going to hurt to wait to have these redirects. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The odd thing is Discopop seems to be quite a well-trailed term on a gsearch by music publishers, but not wwith the hyphen:Disco pop → Disco#2000s and onward, the same target. Do we really need it then? I mean sure {{R from alternative punctuation}} if you want (not checked that) but it's going around the houses rather, would you not say? Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ethics in fashion marketing[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally created as a class project, but I don't feel like it should be redirected to a page that doesn't mention fashion at all. Tavix |  Talk  20:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete to encourage the creation of the article. There are a lot of ethics and debates in fashion manufacturing, but not sure about in marketing. Surely, if Gucci offers you something and you choose to buy it, I should say that is just supply and demand. Don't know why you would, but that's your choice. The question isone of Choice and this harms it. We all see ads for fashion every day (and if that is not marketing then I'm the [Queen of Sheba]]) but it doesn't make it wrong per se, but this is useless since there is no mention of ethics at the target. Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

When was the clarinet invented[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a joke and thus should be deleted. Wikipedia is not Yahoo! Answers... Tavix |  Talk  19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Patently created as a joke since at that time it attributed the invention of the clarinet to the Virgin Mary, where any fule kno it was invented by Adolph Sax. Jokes are kinda fine, I like them, but this doesn't help. The best place for jokes is WP:DYK because to make "twisty" (misleading but accurate) hooks for the main page is quite good fun. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per made up policy redir: NOTYAHOOANSWERS.― Padenton|✉   18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, we have WP:YAHOO → Wikipedia:Search engine test. Si Trew (talk) 19:03, 18 April → 2015 (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.

Video vixen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#Video vixen

Bobert[edit]

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 to List of The Amazing World of Gumball characters#Bobert. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite useless. Is not linked to from any articles, has no significant history, and was originally created as a joke article. I would say it's an implausible typo and have speedied it as such, but it doesn't qualify for WP:R3 because it's not recent. Ϫ 03:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • Comment. I'm very sorry about this since the discussion is patently closed when I go to edit section, but open when I read it (with Mozilla Firefox). I don't know why that is, but please excuse me if I inadvertently add comments to a closed discussion (I haven't on this one, caught meself). Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portoryko[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN: Puerto Rico doesn't have any particular connection to the Polish language Tavix |  Talk  02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nom, WP:RFOREIGN applies here well enough. No incoming links from articles. Essentially zero traffic. -- œ™ 03:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Polish has no particular affiliation with PR -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is Interwiki linked to pl:Portoryko but it is WP:RFOREIGN and WP:NOTDIC, we are not a dictionary, let alone a translation dictionary. I think I suggested at one time we should have WP:PHRASEBOOK as a redirect to one of these, but obviously that didn't get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2020s in film[edit]

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. 2023 and 2024 were already deleted by RHaworth; 2025 and 2026 by Shirt58. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is waaaay too early to have film redirects of years in the 2020s. List of years in film ends at 2016 so redirects of this type are unhelpful. Anything this far out is usually speculation anyway. See WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix |  Talk  01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as I redirected 23,26. I want them to be deleted. UBStalk 02:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would mean that 2023-2026 qualifies for CSD G7... Tavix |  Talk  02:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 2023 to 2029, keep the first four in the list. Seeing as we already have a "2019 in film" it's not that unthinkable to look ahead at least a couple years, perhaps if reliable sources say a certain big budget movie is scheduled to be released at a set date. But 2029 is just too far. -- œ™ 03:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point, but if a 2020 film is announced we could then just create the article... List of years in film doesn't contain any information about 2020 in film so it is an unhelpful target. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, films take a long time to get funded and to make them and get the standmeat to stand in frount of the camera. Two years at a push is understandable, but five years I think is pushing it too far. 19:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
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.

Samantha Cope[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Cope is a non-notable decoy from To Catch a Predator. She is not mentioned in the main article so this redirect is confusing and unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  01:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the show used many decoys - none of whom are presently notable enough to be included in the article. If they were, they would probably best be mentioned at Perverted-Justice since that was the agency for which they worked; the organization was simply used by the show, which it both predated and outlived. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_16&oldid=1136083196"