Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 30

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 disambiguate. No consensus for a primary topic, so disambiguation by default. wbm1058 (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Citizen → Harry S. Truman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Mr. Citizen" appears to be a book about Truman, but the name does not appear anywhere in the article. I also don't see why should be primary over an equally minor TV series (see target's hatnote). Lordtobi (✉) 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been five years since I created this redirect, and don't even remember it, so if there's another article with that name, or somebody wants to creates to create or rename one, I have no objection to the change. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Mr. Citizen isn't just a book about Truman. It's something that he, himself, wrote (you can see some background here, and so this may be a reasonable enough case of redirecting an author's work to the author's own Wiki page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move TV series over redirect since the TV series has an article. Add hatnote to Bibliography of Harry S. Truman Add book to that bibliography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CWM. The association with Truman is primary over the TV series. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the nickname is stronger, then add "redirects here" and hatnote to the TV series as with I'm with her. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. No clear primary topic. At least a dab page will explain what it is, which the Truman bio currently does not. wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 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.

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nineteenth century Britain → Victorian era  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The 19th century did not begin with the reign of Queen Victoria in 1837. --Nevé–selbert 10:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly, but Victorian and 1800s are a pretty close match, as Victoria dies in 1901. Historians sometimes use inexact definition for historical eras, such as the "long 19th century" which extends from 1789 (French revolution) to 1914 (World War 1). I'm not so sure whether to keep this as is, but this probaby is closer to what readers are looking for than anything else we have. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Eastern Theater of the American Civil War. It was in existence from 1801 (conveniently at the beginning of the century) until 1922, and as Oiyarbepsy notes, the war-era period is Long Nineteenth Century. A redirect at this title really ought to cover the latter half of the Napoleonic wars and the Regency period. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, are you sure Eastern Theater of the American Civil War was the article you had in mind? – Uanfala 22:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, oops. I had just copy/pasted it into another discussion, and I thought that I'd put another link into the clipboard, but I must not have. (Imagine the American Civil War going from 1801 to 1922!) The intended article was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or keep as is. Rarely used (only 62 hits last year and one incoming wikilink, which can be piped to Victorian era) and technically incorrect, this can be safely deleted, but if kept, Victorian era is probably the most likely target. Station1 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Unlikely search term with the century spelled out, for which search engine would bring a better choice of articles. Alternate target for redirect: Category:19th century in the United Kingdom, but that would be a WP:XNR. — JFG ^talk 11:50, 30 July 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.

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 no consensus. Deryck C. 11:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Londonist → Gothamist  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The group this redirects to no longer owns the Londonist brand - until a standalone article on this or the parent company exists, I'd propose this redirect be deleted. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that a recent development? About Us still says it's franchised off of Gothamist? Who is the new buyer? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure there's enough for a stand-alone article. The current target seems to have the most relevant information on "Londonist", so it's helpful from that perspective. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:21, 28 July 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.