Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1
May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2014.

Redmouth grunt[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 request of sole author. — Scott • talk 20:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only goes to Pigfish, a disambig. page, where it is a circular link. Is this correct style? Suggest red-linking it. Smarkflea (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Smarkflea (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another option would be retargeting to Orthopristis, and including the common name there. That might impede creation of an article, but that article might not be coming any time soon. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would also be a circular link there; are those frowned upon? Smarkflea (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know why I created it in the first place. It was part of a bunch of redirects for a table of Florida fishes I was helping someone out with. I'm sure there was a good reason. :) In any case, sure, redlink it. It's the only way to avoid the circulars. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 4 May 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.

Manuel Mayorson[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. Number 57 21:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Riversharks no longer works as he doesnt play for them anymore. Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

  • Redirect to Toros del Este where he is listed. Dolovis (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not worth trying to track every minor leaguer and retargeting every time he switches teams. If he's notable, he should have an article. If he's not, he shouldn't. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 2 May 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) 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. BDD, you seem a little equivocal on this. On the one hand you say there is no point tracking minor league players, on the other hand in a previous RfD recently (you know I am hopeless at finding these things) you have said it is usual to direct players to the teams they are playing in if there is no more information on them. Now I may have you confused with someone else saying that, in which case I put my apologies in advance! But you can't have it both ways. I appreciate that the player no longer plays for that team, but the implication of redirecting players to the teams they play in is this constant maintenance to which you object.

To make an analogy: Do we redirect minor actors to the plays they are currently playing in? I don't think they do: as you said they are either notable and should have an article (or redlink) or they are not, and so not. But you can't have it both ways. I apologise again if it wasn't you who made the opinion of directing players to teams, I shall try to find it but others are much better than me at it. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly it was an American ice-hockey player who played in college league and was deemed not notable, but the closing comments (probably not by BDD) were that it is common to direct the players to the league. He was the brother of someone else, presumably a more notable player. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is only discussed on one page, it's logical for their name to redirect there in many cases. Once there are two potential targets, which do you choose? It often makes more sense to delete at that point. I probably wouldn't create redirects like this at all, but once they're created, that's how I approach them. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a stable redirect, and should be replaced with an article (if notable) or deleted. There's no more than a mention in the article, and if still mentioned there (or in another article), a search will find it. Peter James (talk) 12:32, 3 June 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.

Template:Cita web[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 5#Template:Cita web

Wikipedia:IAP[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. After over a month of discussion, something needs to happen here. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to me like a good candidate for a WP:CNR. I recommend retargeting to the essay Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, a more logical target. BDD (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BDD. It's not a rather useful WP:CNR. In fact, if I saw that redirect, I would think that it would redirect to a page that utilizes the entire "IAP" acronym, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject In-App Purchases, which obviously doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BDD didn't recommend deletion but retargeting. But I would delete because visually, especially on small screens, it is too close to WP:IAR which is more important, and on some devices "P" and "R" will be very easy to mistype (or e.g. handwriting recognition devices). Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: Thanks for that information; I completely failed to see the retargeting option that BDD recommended. So, with that information, I change my stance to retarget per BDD. The essay clearly can be described by an "IAP" acronym; works for me. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. A logical and useful target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Retarget' per BDD. On balance that target is better than my original suggestion of deletion. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - This is commonly used by WP:AUSTRALIA and has been for over 7 years. I note the project hasn't been notified of this discussion. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent is a little known essay created and edited almost exclusively by a single editor only 7 months ago. It seems a waste to retarget this redirect there and page view statistics seem to support this. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is as per AussieLegend... Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent says nothing new or ground breakingly significant, suggest that with only 4 actually incoming links(not counting:shortcuts, those associated to this discussion, user page where it was created, quality assessment) the shortcut WP:IAPD has one additional link, that Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent be merged into Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules/Versions which is specifically for essay variants of WP:IAR. Gnangarra 14:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, mostly per AussieLegend and Gnangarra. Also, the arguments from WP:CNR for removing CNRs don't actually apply in this case, as this redirect is in the Wikipedia namespace and not the main namespace. - Evad37 [talk] 16:31, 26 April 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) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the other, only recently created redirect may now exist is irrelevant. This is a commonly used redirect and has been for over 7 years. As Gnangarra has pointed out, Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent should actually be merged into Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules/Versions, where WP:IAP would not be an appropriate redirect. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, can you give any stats to prove it? But I believe you in principle – if it is commonly used it should stay. Hippocratic Oath, "First, do no harm". Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily check the page view statistics by clicking on the "Page view statistics" link on the redirect's history page. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 10 May 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.

Flintstone-like[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) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, and likely WP:RFD#8. Not a term used to refer to The Flintstones and Google search produces no evidence of usage outside of referring to architecture that resembles the house of the Flintstones. Redirect created by user blocked indefinitely for "Long history of incorrect facts and figures". AldezD (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are quite a few primary sources using the term, but I am not seeing anything about the use of the term. Conceptually, I could see content in the Flintstones article about their impact and a redirect to that section, however, the current article does not come close to having anything that would support such a redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 2 May 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.

Helen and Scott Nearing[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 Nearing. The DAB page has been created since this nomination. This action is supported by half the commentators, safeguards the useful history and also meets the valid concern of the nominator; win-win. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With both Scott Nearing and Helen Nearing having articles, it makes no sense to have a redirect from a title mentioning both to one. (This has significant history that is likely needed for attribution. I don't know what should happen to this- in a similar case, someone recommended to move the history to a talk subpage.) :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we do have articles on married couples as a couple... should there be an article on these people as a couple? If so, we can revert to the article, and strip out information that only applies to each individually. Category: Married couples -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletion may be an option, we dont have a Bill and Hillary Clinton. we certainly will not maintain three articles about the same topic. There does not appear to be significant content about Helen on her own (the one line that she had an affair when she was a young woman would be able to be incorporated into a different article) so turning that to a redirect to Scott may also be an option. Converting the redirect to The works of Helen and Scott Nearing as a daughter article / spin out from the main articles about the individuals and containing the main content about their joint writings is conceptually potential too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nearing to preserve the history. As long as there are separate articles, I can't endorse retargeting to just one. If we do end up merging Helen or something, then no objections to retargeting to Scott. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While we're at it, isn't category "Married Couple" somewhat a redun name: I should suggest renaming to "Married people" but have no idea how to do that. It also assumes a marriage is two people whereas in some religions/countries it may not be.... I dunno. Bierce] defines:
Marriage. A household consisting of a wife, a husband, and two slaves, making in all, two.
I would have thought our oh-so-politically-correct Wikipedia would not define marriage so narrowly. We haven't companionate marriage, which was used in one of the Marx Bros films, the line was spoken by Margaret Dumont when Groucho was leering to her, in Animal Crackers (film) I think.. don't have the fims on me to check. We do have living in sin, though, which is a DAB unfortunately and the second of two defs is cohabiting. Si Trew (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could have an article on a polygamous... unit? Category:Married people is definitely a no-go, as it would imply it's a category for anyone that's married. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 12 May 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_May_2&oldid=1065800748"