Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 7

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Asylum (Shackled City) → The Shackled City Adventure Path#Asylum (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect targets to a line in the article that is designated by an anchor. Where the anchor is located is the best target for this redirect on Wikipedia; however, the anchor does not redirect to a section. This redirect seems to not be notable enough to exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a {{R to anchor}}. No reason why we shouldn't redirect to anchors if that's the best place to target a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The anchor at issue has been employed in an unconventional if not altogether improper fashion according to my understanding of applicable Wikipedia guidelines. WP:ANCHOR, WP:TARGET, and Template:Anchor speak only in terms of pages and sections, and the anchor does not link the "Asylum (Shackled City)" redirect either to "The Shackled City Adventure Path" page as a whole or to any particular section of that page, but rather to a specific target within a section of the page. Given that the original "Asylum" article concerned itself with a single installment of a 12-part campaign that was initially presented as a 24-page feature in a 98-page issue of a magazine which had a print run of 150 issues over 21 years, to say that it had "insufficient independent scope and notability to warrant its own section, much less an entire article" would be an understatement. Beyond that, it fails to meet the standards set out in Template:Redirect to anchor because it is neither "important within the field" nor "useful to link from other articles in the field of expertise" (i.e., it has little if any significance outside and apart from its role as an episode of the Shackled City Adventure Path). I believe it is unlikely that anyone will conduct a search on Wikipedia for this one episode, especially when none of the others have articles, much less redirects of former articles, dedicated to them. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2013 (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.

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 United ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Untied → Varney Air Lines (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This was originally a redirect to United Airlines but was retargetted by a bot avoiding double redirects (see #Unitedairlines.co.jp below for an explanation). Obviously the current target is incorrect, but instead of reverting I propose retargetting to the dab page at United as a redirect from a typo (it's equally likely to be a typo for anything on the dab page as the airline), unless it would be better targetted somewhere related to "untied" rather than a misspelling of "united"? If we do retarget to the united dab page, I propose adding a link to Wiktionary:untied on that page (I'll put a note at talk:United about this dicussion). Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually was thinking about bringing this redirect here when I had more time. United seems to me to be the best target. None of the articles at All pages with titles containing untied seem appropriate. I don't think retargetting to tie is best (for most of the entries there "untied" doesnt' make sense); note that tied is a red link. TimBentley (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've now created tied as a redirect to tide - it's both a homonym and a typo so it seems doubly useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to United. {{R from misspelling}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Untied" was once used as a criticism of United Airlines. Take a look at this news source:
  • Schmeltzer, John. "UNITED AIRLINES FIT TO BE UNTIED BY UNFRIENDLY WEB SITE." Chicago Tribune. September 19, 1997. Business p. 2.
  • "United Airlines' Internet nightmare is located at www.untied.com, a Web site that United tried to persuade its creator to shut down because of alleged trademark infringements. The site collects and prints, in detail, complaints about service on the world's biggest airline."
• WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After finding more material, I started Untied.com WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article could really do with some post-2000 material, but it is the best target for the untied redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of things are "untied", or retarget to united as a {{R from mispelling}} just as Tied redirects to tide as a mispelling. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not a disambiguation page? There are other things that may have "untied" in their name, so just link to all of them WhisperToMe (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation pages don't list partial title matches, they list articles for which the disambiguated term is a likely search term for. See WP:PTM. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • After seeing that page, an example for something that wouldn't be listed on a disambig page would be, say, Baltimore Zoo in Zoo (as Zoo is too general and only in Baltimore do they know it as a zoo). But if there was "Untied" this or "Untied" that, then along with Untied.com those could be listed at "Untied" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they are commonly known as "Untied" or if "untied" is a likely search term outside of a specific context then they are not partial title matches. However I'm not seeing any such articles in this case, or indeed anything else that would fit on a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case Untied.com seems like the best fit WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2013 (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.

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 speedy retargeted. The target was changed by a bot fixing double redirects when United Airlines was redirected to Varney Air Lines without discussion by a now-blocked user. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unitedairlines.co.jp → Varney Air Lines (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I am failing to see why this redirect even exists. Has no link to the destination. Is it a web address? JetBlast (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the Japanese website for United Airlines, which this was a redirect to until recently. TimBentley (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why it was retargeted to Varney Air Lines. It's supposed to go to United Airlines. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2013 (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.

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 speedily deleted by Winhunter. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• New wiki page peding approval → Gaming computer (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Please delete this unnecessary redirect EagerToddler39 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2013 (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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Headnote → Template:Hatnote (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete the target is a WP:Hatnote, not a headnote or general wikt:headnote template, so is highly misleading. Hatnote templates have a specific Wikipedia context per WT:Hatnote discussion. This is not a generic headnote template, and cannot be used that way, it can only be used for Wikipedia hatnotes. The redirect makes it misleadingly indicate it can be used for any sort of headnote, instead it is supposed to be only for Wikipedia hatnotes. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the above explanation and the aforementioned discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. This redirect is unnecessary and likely to cause/reinforce confusion. Additionally, the use of actual headnotes has been discussed on occasion (and might occur in the future), so it's prudent to reserve the name for that potential purpose. —David Levy 04:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and the discussion at WT:Hatnote that correctly notes that "headnote" and "hatnote" are not synonyms but different concepts sharing only the property of being located at the top of a printed page. A headnote appears at the start of an article and forms part of it, a hatnote comes before an article and is not part of it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2013 (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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Vince Watchorn (musician) → Priestess (band) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect makes zero sense. I'm not even sure such a person has had anything to do with the band (the name is a portmanteau of Vince Nudo and Dan Watchorn). He certainly is not a member of it. We can't have a redirect for every possible typo or mistake. Just run a Google search for ("vince watchorn" priestess) and you'll see what I mean. I move to have it deleted. LazyBastardGuy 00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As explained above, this is a highly implausible target. Someone by this name is the headmaster of Providence Country Day School, but he isn't a professional musician and has no apparent affiliation with Priestess. So the redirect evidently describes a nonexistent person. —David Levy 05:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoaxical. (That should definitely be a real word.) --BDD (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems "hoaxical" is used quite often in discussions of Edgar Allen Poe's works and seems to meet the criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, so it is a real word. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now at wikt:hoaxical. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2013 (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.