Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 30

The result of the debate was speedy keep per WP:IAR - namely, the redirect is shut down while this debate continues, and there is no valid reason to delete it. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is part of a trilogy and not more than three films produced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminso (talk • contribs)

• Keep a trilogy is a series of 3 films, they are therefore synonymous and are perfect rdirects --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 08:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This redirect makes sense. J-stan ^Talk 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As J-Stan said, this is useful. Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Disambig. Converted to a disambig, but left off Cloverfield. Whether that should be included or not is a content issue that should be worked out at disambig's talk page. -- JLaTondre 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created in anticipation that the official title of the movie production code-named Cloverfield would be revealed to be Monstrous or something similar. Since the movie's producer, JJ Abrams, has recently denied this will be the film's title, this now serves no purpose. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- while the title has been denied, people may still be using it to search for the article, and the redirect helps take them to the right place where they can read the latest information, and prevent recreation of the article. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Monstrous is a common word and the article mentions a 'viral marketing' campaing, which is hardly a good basis for keeping this as the 'right' target. If not deleted outright it should become an (admittedly weak) dismabiguation page with other 'monstrous' stuff and a wiktionary link. --Tikiwont 09:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and people may still search for the term, whatever their reason should be. Changed view to that of Tikiwont -- ChrisDHDR   ^{ • @} 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, anyone who is using a title hinted at and then later denied already knows what the common working title of the film is. The "Cloverfield" redirects have already become absurdly large in number, and this one is particularly useless. Flush it now. —ptk✰fgs 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Dabify per nom and/or Tikiwont. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but we probably have articles on some synonyms for this common English word. Leaving it as a redirect to a very obscure reference is surely inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT and somewhat misleading. I'm sure that at least 90% of the people who link to/search for "monstrous" will not have this movie in mind. A disambiguation page sounds like the best bet, but since I'm not volunteering to do the work, I'll leave the option of deletion open. :) Xtifr _tälk 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect to point to Monster, which is where I'd expect to end up if I entered 'Monstrous' in the search box. CIreland 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be slightly misleading, since the term "monstrous" has several other meanings in English. However, Monster would be a fine article to include on the dab page if this is converted to a dab page. Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bounce to "monster", or dabify as above. >Radiant< 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted monstrous about three hours ago. I've asked him to undo this at User talk:WJBscribe#Please undelete monstrous so we can let this discussion run its course; his reason for deletion was per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 27, which discussed monstrous (film). BigNate37_(T) 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Restored. WjBscribe 11:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Red links encourage article creation and while not every TV shows needs per episode articles, our standards do seem to tend toward most TV shows meeting our criteria for inclusion. By the way, the show's title is actually Whizziwig. -- JLaTondre 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes No Sense - this television programme is redirecting straight to it's broadcast channel - should be an article in it's own right, or an empty page waiting for an article. People searching for this programme won't be happy when all they find is the channel. _TheIslander 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Modify target If these programmes are by CITV or only broadcasted by them, redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV. People who are not happy with a redirect can convert it into a full article anytime.--Tikiwont 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - List of programmes broadcast by CITV is exactly where the links to these redirects are situated, thus someone will click the link, and go nowhere. Besides, a red link might encourage a user to stop and enter what they know; a blue link makes it much, much easier to ignore. Bottom line: The programme itself has nothing to do with CITV, so should not redirect to that article or a related article. Bear in mind that in December 2006 a large number of these were deleted (such as Big Meg, Little Meg) - these are just a few that slipped past. _TheIslander 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I intended that the wikilinks are then removed from List of programmes broadcast by CITV. However, if the program is not related strictly to CITV, then it may indeed better or remove these as for the previous examples. --Tikiwont 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As below, for Wavelength (TV series) _TheIslander 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Red links encourage article creation and while not every TV shows needs per episode articles, our standards do seem to tend toward most TV shows meeting our criteria for inclusion. -- JLaTondre 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes No Sense - this television programme is redirecting straight to it's broadcast channel - should be an article in it's own right, or an empty page waiting for an article. People searching for this programme won't be happy when all they find is the channel. _TheIslander 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Modify target - If these programmes are by CITV or only broadcasted by them, redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV. People who are not happy with a redirect can convert it into a full article anytime.--Tikiwont 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - List of programmes broadcast by CITV is exactly where the links to these redirects are situated, thus someone will click the link, and go nowhere. Besides, a red link might encourage a user to stop and enter what they know; a blue link makes it much, much easier to ignore. Bottom line: The programme itself has nothing to do with CITV, so should not redirect to that article or a related article. Bear in mind that in December 2006 a large number of these were deleted (such as Big Meg, Little Meg) - these are just a few that slipped past. _TheIslander 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is obvious if this redirect remains it should point at the list, where it is mentioned. Now, what we typically do for redirects that point to the list where they are linked is one of two things: if we believe the subject can grow beyond a stub, delete the redirect and leave a red link on the list. If the subject isn't judged to be notable enough to have enough sources to write an article about it, then leave it as a shortcut to the list (tagging it with {{R to list entry}} of course) and simply unlink it at the list. I'm trying to remember the name of the page from last time I saw this; it was with a few US naval ships sharing a name on a disambiguation page... one of those ships was so old and non-notable, it was just unlinked and continues to redirect to that disambiguation page. The one line it gets there is probably all we will ever say about it. In a nutshell, retarget to list of programmes broadcast by CITV and unlink at target if non-notable, otherwise delete if notable. BigNate37_(T) 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is notable, as it's a children's television program that was quite popular (as are the other two being discussed here). Unfortunatly, I know little about both, so can't be the one to write the articles, but I feel that if they're left red, and these redirects deleted, someone who could write the article is more likely to spot them in the list, and go ahead and do it. Like I said, there was a job-lot of these deleted in December 2006, after an editor, for some bizzre reason, decided that everything 'red' in the list should redirect back to the list. Most were deleted; these three must have slipped the net. _TheIslander 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted. Red links encourage article creation and while not every TV shows needs per episode articles, our standards do seem to tend toward most TV shows meeting our criteria for inclusion. -- JLaTondre 00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes No Sense - this television programme is redirecting straight to it's broadcast channel - should be an article in it's own right, or an empty page waiting for an article. People searching for this programme won't be happy when all they find is the channel. _TheIslander 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Modify target - If these programmes are by CITV or only broadcasted by them, redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV. People who are not happy with a redirect can convert it into a full article anytime.--Tikiwont 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - List of programmes broadcast by CITV is exactly where the links to these redirects are situated, thus someone will click the link, and go nowhere. Besides, a red link might encourage a user to stop and enter what they know; a blue link makes it much, much easier to ignore. Bottom line: The programme itself has nothing to do with CITV, so should not redirect to that article or a related article. Bear in mind that in December 2006 a large number of these were deleted (such as Big Meg, Little Meg) - these are just a few that slipped past. _TheIslander 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment in the above discussion (Wavelength (TV series) → CITV) also applies here. BigNate37_(T) 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, for Wavelength (TV series). _TheIslander 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.