Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 28, 2009

Sota Higurashi[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the redirect (Sota Higurashi) is such an extremely minor character that he is not even mentioned in the article this redirect points to, and attempts to add him have been reverted by consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per consensus during work on the list, it was agreed that he was too minor for a section, or even mention in the list as he has no significance to the story at all. The redirect, therefore, is unnecessary anymore. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've just added requests for input to the talk pages of four editors who have previously been involved in discussions regarding the notability of Sota Higurashi. It seems that previous consensus has been largely based on the opinion of Collectonian, and I'd prefer to hear from more people who are knowledgeable about the topic. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following suit, I've also posted a note to the Anime/manga project, who are the people most knowledgeable about the topic. The character was removed per consensus Talk:List of InuYasha characters/Archive 1#Sota Higurashi and the discussion was announced in multiple places. That few people participated does not indicate a lack of consensus or even that it is my own opinion. It was done nearly a year ago, with no objections raised since then on an active talk page.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Sota Higurashi" as a redirect - The previous consensus that was referred to in the talk discussion said that Sota should have (as stated by Collectonian) a "Brief mention in Kagome's section and perhaps InuYasha's section is all that is necessary." - So what should be done is simply mention him once in Kagome's section and keep the redirect, but either have it point to Kagome's section or to no particular section at all. Since he is a recurring character some people are likely to look for the character, so by keeping the redirect they are forced to look in the character section. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mention is unneeded in Kagome's section, nor InuYasha's. He was mentioned there once, but it was removed as part of the clean up of the individual sections to bring the list closer to the quality desirable for future FLC. This includes removing excessive in-universe and plot information. Sota has no significant role in the series, and has no major impact on the story. He is just there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does Rumiko Takahashi list Sota or discuss the character in InuYasha Profiles (Published in English by Viz Media [1])? What does that book say about Sota? If the book has substantial content or discussion about the character, or lists him in the same category as other characters who are currently listed in the InuYasha character page, then the series creator would see him as a relatively important character. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the character guide, but he's not mentioned anywhere in the InuYasha Character Guide section (not even in the detailed view) on The Rumic World (although I also have no idea how much of the manga is being worked off of for that list). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether the character is actually mentioned in the article is irrelevant. If the character is part of the series, then the redirect is valid and not problematic or harmful to Wikipedia. Goodraise 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Goodraise's reasoning. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a recurring character in the series, and plays a major roll in at least 1 episode of the anime (episode 90 has his name in the episode title). I think he has a sufficiently large roll in the series that a redirect is appropriate. I personally think he is a more promenent character than a couple of the characters with whole sections in the article (e.g. Jinenji, An-Un). Calathan (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I think that Sota should probably have at least a small mention on the character list page, as he does appear in quite a few episodes of the anime series, there is no point in having this redirect while there is no actual information about him there. Josh (talk)
  • Delete per Josh. Goodraise's reasoning is not sound, as such redirects are likely to confuse users (this has been discussed and gained consensus at RfD multiple times recently). If/when Sota Higurashi is added back into the List of InuYasha characters, the redirect can be reinstated. —Zach425 talk/contribs 10:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. It is simply a misleading redirect, if the information on the subject isn't there, then redirecting a user who searches for the term to there is not helpful in the slightest. It will only serve as to confuse users until the subject is actually mentioned in the redirect target. --Taelus (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Day of Saturn[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 Week-day names (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely redirect - who would search for "Day of Saturn" if they wanted "Saturday"? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to Week-day names I agree that this would not be knowingly used as a search term for Saturn, but it is a plausible search term from someone who heard the phrase and did not make the connection. ("Weak" because it only gets a handful of hits monthly and the other six (Day of the Moon, Day of Mars, etc. are missing.) -- ToET 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is correct and explained at target as "Saturn's Day" and this is a valid alternative under which it is listed in Planetary hours. And if the others were missing as of now... None of the reasons for deleting a redirect applies.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either Planetary hours or Week-day names, preferably the former. This was the natural evolution of the word, and if it saves one annoying piped link somewhere, it's worth it. If Saturn's Day could be wikilinked from the Saturn article, it'd be a nice addition to anyone reading it to be able to pick up on where the concept came from. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom: if this should redirect to Planetary hours, and there should be a set of them, I'll get the rest made up and withdraw this nom. It was redirecting it to Saturday that was ludicrous. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Week-day names - this seems to me to be more relevant and have more useful information than Planetary hours and is unquestionably more appropriate than Saturday. I would also advocate the creation of the other six, and have them targeted here. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2009 Jeux de la Francophonie[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 Reverse redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page so we can move the article "2009 Francophone Games" without losing history and data. thanks Eli+ 10:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse redirect - has nom tried {{db-move}}? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Move cannot be done since both pages exist, copying and pasting would lead to loss of data Eli+ 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{db-move}} would alert an admin that you'd like to revert your previous move; the redirect that you created the first time has trivial history, and it seems that the move would not be controversial. Cut'n'paste is not needed - the history stays with the actual article. Tag it and see... 147.70.242.54 (talk) at another work computer, 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:ScientificValue[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not used in anything but examples and tests for {{val}}. Before anybody starts using it on articles, it should be deleted because having two names for the same template is only confusing.     — SkyLined (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Multiple redirects for a single template are quite common, and this templates name is more intuitive than "val". I've no problem with this. --JaGatalk 20:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that this redirect makes the template easier to find, I would say that having more templates makes all templates harder to find, because there are more to go through. Also, the MoS mentions {{val}} as a good way to format numbers, so finding should not be a problem. Finally, all other formatting templates seem to have short names (probably because they're quicker to type), so I doubt people expect a template with such a long name.
If you're saying that the longer name is easier to remember, one would expect people to have used it in all the time that it has been around (or to have created more similar redirects with other more intuitive names). Neither one has happened.
I think it's redundant because it's been around for quite a while and nobody seems to have ever used it.     — SkyLined (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although it hasn't been used, it's likely to have provided guidance to people searching for {{val}}. It's received between 5 & 15 hits most months, which I expect has led them to the template they ended up using. And for other format templates with longer-name redirects, see {{Measurement converter}}, {{Metric converter}}, {{Fractions}}, & {{Geocoordinate}}, all of which seem to be of some utility. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_28&oldid=1211536052"