Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2017.

Affectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6#Affectors

Pokémon Z[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. Deryck C. 15:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such product exists. Page history is entirely rumours and hoax information adding by long term vandal known for creating hoaxes. The1337gamer (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for vandal. Looking through the history it was constantly added as a video game and then redirected to the TV series. I originally thought it might have been a candidate for the new season following Pokemon XY, which explains the huge spike in views in October 2015, but this has since died down once the season title was officially announced. There isn't a video game of this name. There's potentially a decent retarget to List of Pokémon: XY & Z episodes but this wasn't brought up, in favor of redoing it to the video game, and now it's just XY&Z or XYZ, [1] never Z by itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 31 January 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.

Caliber (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 partial trainwreck, delete most of them. The Vault and Mortimer Wintergreen are kept for now; Inamorata (film) is redirected to Inamorata (book) for now, all without prejudice against standalone speedy renomination. The book Affected doesn't actually have a Wikipedia article so retargeting as Angus suggested isn't an option. I'm deleting the rest per unanimous consensus. Pinging all participants: BDD, Tavix, AngusWOOF, Thryduulf, Notecardforfree. Deryck C. 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these supposed films are mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selectively retarget any films where he is the producer of the work. Delete Caliber: he will not be in [2], Weak keep The Vault as he is the producer. Delete The Vault (2015 film). It wasn't released. [3] Weak keep Mortimer Wintergreen but delete (film) and (2015 film) as it was not released. [4] Delete Fierce Invalids film as he expressed interest in producing / adapting it but it was abandoned. [5] Delete Affected or redirect it to the novel. He's not directly producing it but the rights were bought by his company and the original article without the (film) explains it enough. Delete or redirect Inamorata (film) to the (novel). It was a film production idea but not much else. [6] [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC) updated 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:TNT since at the present time, that seems like the best solution. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that any/all of these are not mentioned at the target, I agree they should be deleted per WP:SURPRISE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:57, 29 January 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.

T. J. Battani[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. Deryck C. 15:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY; precedent set for not having this type of redirect Joeykai (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely aside from this being an implausible redirect, the subject being a desperately obscure player with an ephemeral career in the low minor leagues, and quite aside from the creator in question being community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count, this is absolutely an XY deal. What makes his playing for a team in the 2008 Memorial Cup a more likely redirect target than, say, the team for which he was playing, or the seven other amateur and professional teams for which he played? Ravenswing 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and leave as redlink as with the other players without articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 31 January 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 for Bittora (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 retarget both to the novel. Feel free to start a move request to move (film) to the base title. Deryck C. 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this title in the target. This used to be an article on the (planned) film, but was turned into a redirect to prevent deletion because principal photography has not begun. The problem is that there seems to be no potential target that mentions the film. — Gorthian (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added content about the upcoming film in the target page. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, now that the film is listed at the target. There is another redirect for this title at Battle For Bittora (film) (with the word "For" capitalized), which is tagged as {{R from merge}}. It looks like both redirects have a fairly extensive history. I have added that redirect to this discussion so that we don't get inconsistent results for the similarly-titled redirects. However, if the film is an adaptation of Battle for Bittora (novel), then I think it would make more sense to add a sentence at that article to explain that there will be a film and then retarget this to the article about the novel. Mr. Smart LION, what are your thoughts about that option? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is nice. I've added content to the novel article about the film and also corrected the redirect to the novel. But make sure that my Battle for Bittora (film) article shouldn't be deleted because I was the first to create the article on the same topic. Battle For Bittora (film) was created an hour later. So please merge history of Battle For Bittora (film) to Battle for Bittora (film). Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Smart LION, thanks for adding the info to the article about the novel. I am now going to change my vote to retarget both to Battle for Bittora (novel) per my previous comment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If both are retargeted to the novel article, then some user can start Battle for Bittora (film) and some other user can start Battle For Bittora (film) creating confusion. It's better to retarget only Battle for Bittora (film) to the novel article and merge history of Battle For Bittora (film) to Battle for Bittora (film) as I was the first to create the article on the same topic as explained in my previous comment. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some user could start the film article once there is significant notability for it, and the other version would then redirect to the film article. Both histories are still preserved. Should the "for" version be substantial and nothing else is needed from "For" then you can bring it up for deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to novel. Nothing is lost from keeping both of these a redirect should the article need to be recreated. The "For" version can be tagged for miscapitalization, but I don't see anything at least in the talk history section that needs to be preserved. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question afterwards becomes whether (novel) should be moved back to Battle for Bittora as primary topic? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:47, 31 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_28&oldid=1088107293"