April 7

Asylum (Shackled City)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasDelete ~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 ananchor. 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 benotable 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, andTemplate: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 inTemplate: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 theShackled 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.

Untied

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasRetarget toUnited ~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 toUnited 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 proposeretargetting to the dab page atUnited 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 theunited dab page, I propose adding a link toWiktionary:untied on that page (I'll put a note attalk: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 atAll pages with titles containinguntied seem appropriate. I don't think retargetting totie is best (for most of the entries there "untied" doesnt' make sense); note thattied is a red link.TimBentley(talk)16:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've now createdtied as a redirect totide - it's both a homonym and a typo so it seems doubly useful.Thryduulf (talk)01:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toUnited.{{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 startedUntied.comWhisperToMe (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 theuntied redirect.Thryduulf (talk)01:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of things are "untied", orretarget tounited as a{{R from mispelling}} just asTied redirects totide 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 themWhisperToMe (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. SeeWP: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 withUntied.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 caseUntied.com seems like the best fitWhisperToMe (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.

Unitedairlines.co.jp

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasspeedy retargeted. The target was changed by a bot fixing double redirects whenUnited Airlines was redirected toVarney 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 forUnited 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 toUnited 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.

New wiki page peding approval

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasspeedily deleted byWinhunter.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 redirectEagerToddler39 (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.

Template:Headnote

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.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 aWP:Hatnote, not aheadnote or generalwikt:headnote template, so is highly misleading. Hatnote templates have a specific Wikipedia context perWT: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 atWikipedia 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 Levy04:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and the discussion atWT: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.

Vince Watchorn (musician)

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.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 ofVince Nudo and DanWatchorn). 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.LazyBastardGuy00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As explained above, this is a highly implausible target. Someone by this name is the headmaster ofProvidence 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 Levy05:09, 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 ofEdgar 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 atwikt: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.