This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2012
Template:Lina Wertmüller Films
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 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.
Template:Sergio Leone Films
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 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.
Woody Island, Sth China Sea
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.
It's not an abbreviation, it was a typo. Content existed at the typo-title for a month before being corrected. We have no way to know if or how many external links exist to that title. The redirect has been sitting without apparent controvery or confusion ever since (June 2006). It should be tagged as {{unprintworthy}} but unharmful redirects like this should be kept because
redirects are cheap and
link rot is a problem we should avoid whenever possible.
Rossami(talk)19:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep per Rossami. Contra Dmitry, stats showing that a redirect is used (as in this case), however few, are a reason to keep a redirect that is not harmful. The most likely ways a redirect can be harmful are by being misleading (which this clearly isn't), by being in the way of something else (which in this case is extremely unlikely) or (sometimes) by discouraging the creation of an article we want (in this case we don't want an article at this title, as it would duplicate the present target).
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:53, 27 March 2012 (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.
Toy industries
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.
Delete All: The article "toy industry" has for a long time not been about that generally, but about the
Birmingham toy industry; I have accordingly moved it there. I am in the course of trying to remove incoming links to the resultant redirect, by either altering them to links to "toy" or to the new article, but there are a lot in redirects, with no incoming links at all. This seems pointless.
Toy industry ought to be a redirect with possibilities, if some one is prepared to write an article on toy production.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The article now at
Birmingham toy industry is correct in noting that historically, "toys" meant more than just children's playthings. See definition 2 at
wikt:toy. In that context, the move was incorrect since that historical usage of the phrase was not unique to Birmingham. That said, the current usage of "toy industry" is more in keeping with the content at
Toy#Economics or perhaps at
Category:Toy companies by country. To fix it now, I think we should 1) move "Birmingham toy industry" back to the original title, 2) mark that content with a Historical header, 3) expand the rest of the article with content from "Toy#Economics" for a start and 4) keep all the redirects since they will all make sense when pointing to an article that talks about both historical and current usages.
Rossami(talk)05:07, 27 March 2012 (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.
DVB-M
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 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.
Norm Huner
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.
Before being turned into a redirect in Feb 2009, this page would have been speedy-deletable under [[WP:CSD#A7|]]. The only hint that he might qualify for a biography was immediately deleted as a confirmed copyright violation. If he is notable, then a redlink is more likely to attract a proper article. If not, then this redirect serves no purpose. Delete.
Rossami(talk)04:51, 27 March 2012 (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.
Woody Allen Barcelona Project
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.
Vague descriptive redirect. Presumably appropriate before the film was released and before its name was known, but no longer relevant. –
hysteria18 (
talk)
01:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The redirect should have been deleted in 2007 because
we can't tell the future. It wasn't deleted then because we have relatively poor enforcement of WP:CRYSTAL (and a crystal-ball redirect is at least less bad than a crystal-ball article). Now, in my opinion, we are stuck with it because we don't know what (if any) inbound links exist and it's not obviously harmful. Reluctant keep.
Rossami(talk)04:44, 27 March 2012 (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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2012
Template:Lina Wertmüller Films
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 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.
Template:Sergio Leone Films
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 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.
Woody Island, Sth China Sea
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.
It's not an abbreviation, it was a typo. Content existed at the typo-title for a month before being corrected. We have no way to know if or how many external links exist to that title. The redirect has been sitting without apparent controvery or confusion ever since (June 2006). It should be tagged as {{unprintworthy}} but unharmful redirects like this should be kept because
redirects are cheap and
link rot is a problem we should avoid whenever possible.
Rossami(talk)19:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep per Rossami. Contra Dmitry, stats showing that a redirect is used (as in this case), however few, are a reason to keep a redirect that is not harmful. The most likely ways a redirect can be harmful are by being misleading (which this clearly isn't), by being in the way of something else (which in this case is extremely unlikely) or (sometimes) by discouraging the creation of an article we want (in this case we don't want an article at this title, as it would duplicate the present target).
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:53, 27 March 2012 (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.
Toy industries
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.
Delete All: The article "toy industry" has for a long time not been about that generally, but about the
Birmingham toy industry; I have accordingly moved it there. I am in the course of trying to remove incoming links to the resultant redirect, by either altering them to links to "toy" or to the new article, but there are a lot in redirects, with no incoming links at all. This seems pointless.
Toy industry ought to be a redirect with possibilities, if some one is prepared to write an article on toy production.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The article now at
Birmingham toy industry is correct in noting that historically, "toys" meant more than just children's playthings. See definition 2 at
wikt:toy. In that context, the move was incorrect since that historical usage of the phrase was not unique to Birmingham. That said, the current usage of "toy industry" is more in keeping with the content at
Toy#Economics or perhaps at
Category:Toy companies by country. To fix it now, I think we should 1) move "Birmingham toy industry" back to the original title, 2) mark that content with a Historical header, 3) expand the rest of the article with content from "Toy#Economics" for a start and 4) keep all the redirects since they will all make sense when pointing to an article that talks about both historical and current usages.
Rossami(talk)05:07, 27 March 2012 (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.
DVB-M
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 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.
Norm Huner
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.
Before being turned into a redirect in Feb 2009, this page would have been speedy-deletable under [[WP:CSD#A7|]]. The only hint that he might qualify for a biography was immediately deleted as a confirmed copyright violation. If he is notable, then a redlink is more likely to attract a proper article. If not, then this redirect serves no purpose. Delete.
Rossami(talk)04:51, 27 March 2012 (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.
Woody Allen Barcelona Project
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.
Vague descriptive redirect. Presumably appropriate before the film was released and before its name was known, but no longer relevant. –
hysteria18 (
talk)
01:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The redirect should have been deleted in 2007 because
we can't tell the future. It wasn't deleted then because we have relatively poor enforcement of WP:CRYSTAL (and a crystal-ball redirect is at least less bad than a crystal-ball article). Now, in my opinion, we are stuck with it because we don't know what (if any) inbound links exist and it's not obviously harmful. Reluctant keep.
Rossami(talk)04:44, 27 March 2012 (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.