Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2014.

Jack Spratt (fictional police detectives)[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 speedy deleted at sole author's request. — Scott • talk 09:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just created from an unexplained move and move back, worse, the dab text itself is incorrect (he's singular, not plural). Choor monster (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means delete, it was a typo, from copying category. This should be at Jack Spratt (fictional police detective) singular. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2014 (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.

Спайдър-Мен[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. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spider-Man isn’t Bulgarian either. Gorobay (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete American topic originating in English. Not related to Bulgarian. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects readers to the content they're looking for, rather than being unhelpful. That's a good thing. What's not a good thing is deleting a redirect for no reason at all, where that deletion is harmful to the project goal of building a comprehensive encyclopaedia. WilyD 08:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On an English-language website, random redirects to English-language topics in <insert other language name here> are not useful; they are unlikely search terms. Our database is not an arbitrary translation tool. Other language Wikipedias exist for searching in other languages. — Scott • talk 17:31, 26 March 2014 (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.

Ню Йорк[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. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant languages. Gorobay (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete American topic originating in Dutch. Not related to Bulgarian. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers/editors to the page they're clearly searching for. No rationale has been presented for deletion, nor can I invent any. WilyD 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On an English-language website, random redirects to English-language topics in <insert other language name here> are not useful; they are unlikely search terms. Our database is not an arbitrary translation tool. Other language Wikipedias exist for searching in other languages. — Scott • talk 17:32, 26 March 2014 (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.

Монк[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. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The TV show is not related to any Cyrillic-using language. Gorobay (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete American topic originating in English. Not related to Cyrillic. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're searching for, with no apparent confusion. No one has suggested any reason we might want to delete the redirect, nor can I think any up. WilyD 08:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On an English-language website, random redirects to English-language topics in <insert other language name here> are not useful; they are unlikely search terms. Our database is not an arbitrary translation tool. Other language Wikipedias exist for searching in other languages. — Scott • talk 17:31, 26 March 2014 (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.

Батман[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. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Batman is not related to Bulgarian. Gorobay (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete American topic originating in English. Not related to Bulgarian. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for. No one has suggested any reason we might want to delete or change the redirect, nor can I imagine any. WilyD 08:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On an English-language website, random redirects to English-language topics in <insert other language name here> are not useful; they are unlikely search terms. Our database is not an arbitrary translation tool. Other language Wikipedias exist for searching in other languages. — Scott • talk 17:31, 26 March 2014 (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.

Critical mass (software)[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link here. Redirect that was setup earlier is now useless. All content moved to new page. Linked pages directly linked properly to avoid redirection. Compfreak7 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unless there's a need for disambiguation that I'm missing. It's a plausible search term, and appears to direct the reader to what they're looking for. WilyD 08:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless {{R from move}} and {{R from other disambiguation}}. I don't see any evidence that this could be misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (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.

Illegitimacy (law)[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. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous, and probably not appropriate as a disambiguation page. It might redirect to an article about the question of whether a law was illegitimate, but it should also include Legitimacy (law), which would be a third potential use. Created by the creator of a number of illegitmate redirects to crime. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fallacious and presumptuous redirect. NO need to turn Wikipedia into a thesaurus of redirects.--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2014 (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.
  • After I had deleted this, I noticed that Illegitimacy redirects to Legitimacy (law), so I recreated this as a redirect pointing there. I think that's reasonable, but it can be discussed at a new RfD if desired. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Outoftheblue.jpg[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G6- Retitled image with no signifcant mainpage links, Not straight G6 as there seem to be some talk page links. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pert Stefan2. It is an odd link but does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the target is probably WP:COPYVIO and should go speedy delete. I don't like to do this while things are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target image is non-free and properly marked as non-free. What is the problem? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that an album cover was non-free and copyright to the creator, by default. What WikiMedia says is a different matter, but this is COPYVIO, since an album cover belongs to the copyright holder, and thhe absence of that information on the image itself tends to incline me to beulieve that it was deliberately removed, if you loouok at the back of an album cover you will tend to find the copyright information, just as in a book if you look at the endpapers you will tend to find the copyright information. That is why I am inclined to say it is WP:COPYVIO and it should be removed or I shall mark it as such because WP takes these things quite seriously and for good reason. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it to SPEEDY as COPYVIO. THe information on the image page does not convince me. A full-sized image of an album cover is a copyright violation. I could be wrong, but that is why I have taken it there. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has a properly formatted fair-use rationale. You should read Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. That's what lets our articles have movie posters or album covers. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But in my opinion it exceeds that rationale. It shouldn't be an image that is of the highest quality and able to be copied, that would be passing off. I may have been hasty but COPYVIO is quite serious and best to take it there first, if rejected, fine. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, Non-free image, the image has an FUR, it's used as coverart and it's well within sizing guidelines. NOT a copyvio. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2014 (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.

European race[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 to Caucasian race. As an normal editorial action I will add hatnote there pointing to Ethnic groups in Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be retargeted to Ethnic groups in Europe? 'European' is a disambiguation page. The relevant link there is to 'Ethnic groups in Europe', though there is also a link to White people in the "See also" section. Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose the phrase might also be used to refer to Caucasian race, although that term refers to people from parts of Africa and Asia as well as Europe. Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose it could also go to Aryan race but I am not suggesting it should. It could also go to, say, Tour de France or Monte Carlo Rally or something like that. It seems so vague a term that it is not worth keeping. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is stupid; there Is no 'European race.' There are whites, blacks, Asians, etc. that live in Europe. Most likely this user meant 'Caucasian,' but this a stupid redirect for that, too. Nedgreiner 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caucasian (race) Per Cnilep. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Caucasian race, which is probably what a reader using this as a search term is looking for, at least for Americans; compare to European American. Since race is a social construct anyway, I'm not especially convinced by the argument about there not being such a race. Note that Asian race is a dab; African race is red. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2014 (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.

Political status of Crimea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Political status of Crimea

Manchester City USA[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. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and potentially confusing redirect. There is no club called "Manchester City USA" and the English club is only a co-owner in New York City FC, the redirect target. This could cause confusion with the parent club's US operations or fan clubs. Mosmof (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per nomen. I agree Mr. Guye (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also conceivable that a reader searching for "Manchester City USA" (less likely with "Man City USA") could be seeking an American city named Manchester. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - per BDD. GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_25&oldid=1050183745"