Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 21

October 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2017.

The Breakage of the Sunflower: pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq (Documentary Literature)

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 move without redirect to The Breakage of the Sunflower: Pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakage of the Sunflower: pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq (Documentary Literature) → The Breakage of the Sunflower (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect arose from moving an article from this to a shorter title. It is a most unlikely redirect : Noyster (talk), 23:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move without leaving a redirect to The Breakage of the Sunflower: Pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq. Basically leave the full title but remove (Documentary Literature) since that isn't part of the official title. Whether the work itself is notable should be a different discussion like AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move w/o redirect per AngusWOOF. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Battle Royale (2001)

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 Battle Royale (film). (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Royale (2001) → Battle Royale (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no entry in the series that was released in 2001. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The closest possible entry to retarget would be Pac-Man, but that was released in 2011, ten years too late. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Battle Royale (film). The film's major English releases happened in 2001. Steel1943 (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd agree with Steel if that was mentioned in the article, but it isn't, and it's therefore not clear that the film is what the searcher wants. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Steel. I see no other entry on the Battle Royale dab page that this could plausibly relate to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Steel and Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Forever

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Forever → foundation:Fundraising (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wikipedia:FOREVER → meta:Fundraising_2009/Website_Design (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Soft redirect with no apparent use (one link to it, in a talk page archive). In no way does it matchup with its target. Dysklyver 22:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: I cannot think of a Project Page to retarget otherwise. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: note: I've added Wikipedia:FOREVER to this nomination so the discussion should not be closed early
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

Comment. I've added Wikipedia:FOREVER to this nomination, this was created shortly before Wikipedia:Forever and has a more precise target. That page includes a link to m:File:Intro Banner.png, which is a screenshot of a 2009 fundraising banner with the bold slogan "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER", and explains both redirects. There are several things I can think of relevant to this name in project space (Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital Preservation, WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Link rot, backups of Wikipedia, preservation of knowledge for future generations, etc) but nothing stands out as more relevant to this shortcut than anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:FOREVER, Retarget Wikipedia:Forever to the Meta page. Good find, Thryduulf! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. It is unclear how or why these redirects are applicable shortcuts for either existing target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its perfectly clear why Wikipedia:FOREVER is applicable to a page that includes a banner which proclaims in big letters "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Whether it is a useful shortcut is a very different question, and one I have not made up my mind about. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thryduulf: Are you referring to one of the targets in this nomination? Just wondering since I do not see the word "forever" in either target, not even when doing an in-page text search for "forever". Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see now: the banner file you linked. I'd still say "delete" since the file isn't transcluded (file linked/displayed) on the page, and thus, it could be confusing since it is not present in the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found the file because it is transcluded on meta:Fundraising_2009/Website_Design (image #2, WIKIPEDIA FOREVER is readable even at thumbnail size on my screen at least). Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I see ... it's in the gallery of images displayed near the bottom of the page. But, it's only one image of many, and it looks as though the rest do not include "forever". Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah. As I said earlier, the page is clearly applicable to the search term and the rationale for the redirect being created is clear (I presume, but haven't checked, that there was relevant content on the Foundation wiki page in late 2009). That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a useful target, or that it is the best use of this redirect. I'm still on the fence about that but leaning towards deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I got that. I just didn't see the image at first. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Wikipedia: Forever to match its all caps version per Thryduulf. Makes me feel old that I remember when this was biggest controversy on Wikipedia way back then.[1][2] I remember some denounced it as horrible because of its unfortunate similarities to pro-segregation comments in George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong meh: Clearly they should both point to the same place (or both be deleted), but I cannot get myself to care much one way or the other which we end up doing. This is from '09, folks! --N Y Kevin 01:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and redundant. There are lots of important-looking and useful WP: redirects out there. This ain't one of them. If you feel the need to point it somewhere, send it here instead! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't really see an outcome here that ends with helpful redirects. I suppose I'd prefer foundation:Fundraising as the target if we're picking one of those two, but again, there really doesn't seem to be a good option for retargeting. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trans*

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 Trans#Gender which is a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trans* → Transgender (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should point to Trans if anywhere, I'm not sure if it is a likely search term given the asterisk at the end, note that Trans- already points to Trans. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Dabify, this is a commonly-used umbrella term in the transgender, transsexual, etc. community. --N Y Kevin 01:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trans#Gender which lists transgender and transsexual as possible articles. "Trans-" is different in that is more of a general prefix. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Trans#Gender as this term can refer to both topics. f e minist 13:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to mention there is a Transtar dab page as well so I have added Trans* there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.