Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 8, 2016.

The Oldest College Football Rivalry in North Carolina[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) 16:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: These three and The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence also nominated today are the only four redirects in English Wikipedia with names that begin "The Oldest ..." whose target articles do not also have the word "Oldest" in their titles (not counting The Oldest Path (EP), which properly redirects to The Coral as the former is an actual EP of the latter). Of millions of possible articles, such as The oldest human fossil, The oldest university, The oldest university in Alaska, The oldest typewriter, ... Wikipedia has only four articles, so I conclude that these are aberrations and all four should be deleted as nonstandard. Do we want a proliferation of The oldest toaster in the world-type redirects? Moreover, "The Oldest College Football Rivalry in North Carolina" and "The oldest Fourth of July Parade" are capitalized incorrectly. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2016 (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.

The First female Paraoh of Egypt, Hatshepsut[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) 16:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Capitalization is wrong ("First", "Paraoh"); spelling is wrong ("Paraoh"); there are no Wikipedia articles with names beginning "the first woman" except The First Woman Who Passes (an actual film) and this is the only Wikipedia article with a name beginning "the first female" out of millions of possibilities The first woman doctor, The first female speaker of the United States House of Representatives, ..., so this redirect is contrary to the norms of Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:R#DELETE suggests that redirects which are "novel or very obscure" synonyms for an article name should be deleted as not useful. Even if this redirect was correctly spelt, it would still be so obscure as to practically guarantee that it would never be used. Especially as Hatshepsut was not even the first female pharoah. Sobekneferu predated her by 350 years, and Nitocris (if she existed, and was actually a woman) was a few hundred years before that. Overall, the redirect is highly unlikely to be used, potentially confusing, and wrong, and there is no good reason to keep it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2016 (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.

House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna[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. The emerging consensus is that this redirect title is too obscure to be useful and the unusual use of punctuation gives technical ground for deletion. Deryck C. 12:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very obscure, unused redirect. Zoupan 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also listed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_1#House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić). Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither "obscure" nor "unused" are valid reasons to delete a redirect. According to the content currently on the target article, both "Zamanjić" and "Džamanjić" are allowed transliterations from the original serbo-croatian. The "/Zamagna" grammar in the redirect title is an artifact of the pagemove process that was used in 2009. Rossami (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RFD#DELETE #8 gives "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" as a reason to delete. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: That clause was added to allow the deletion of prohibited neologisms and really, really distant variants. For example, the target article in this case is about an Austro-Hungarian noble house. Redirects from variants of the name appropriate to that part of the world are accepted and even encouraged. But if someone transliterated that name into kanji, that would be too distant to be helpful to expected readers of the English encyclopedia. So while R8 does use the phrase "very obscure", it doesn't mean the same thing that was described in the nomination. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Three variant names lumped together with inconsistent punctuation makes this look like an extremely unlikely search term to me. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and WP:R#D8. This easily passes as a novel or obscure synonym, and is definitely an implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2016 (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.

List of Dragon Quest characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 16#List of Dragon Quest characters

dynamic instability[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 convert to set index. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with ideally creation of new stub or DAB. The notion of dynamic instability is far broader than the business of microtubules. It just so happens that is a famous example. This is a general phenomenon occurring in nonlinear dynamics and dynamical systems. I think at least a stub/DAB page with links to various article sections is warranted. As it stands now the redirect is too limiting and potentially confusing (e.g. I read an article about dynamic instability ecology [1], and when I enter the phrase into WP I get taken straight to a page on cellular biology). Here is a list of research publications that discuss dynamic instability and have nothing to do with microtubules [2] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If nothing else mentions dynamic instability, there is nothing to DAB. (Anyway, isn't instability by definition dynamic? What would be static instability?) Si Trew (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— it would be another name for convective available potential energy, apparently. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the terminology is broad and relates to multiple fields, we still have what appears to be a primary topic by far. I don't doubt that we could have other pages created, possible hatnotes put in place, and so on in the future. We'll see on that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – if and when another article is created where it makes sense to have a redirect from the same name, then we can convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. Per SimonTrew, right now there is nothing to disambiguate. Boghog (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a DAB - It's true that "dynamic instability" is a popular meme among the structural biologists and has produced a recent flurry of MT papers. But dynamic instability is an old and important concept in fluid mechanics: we have the category Category:Fluid dynamic instability, it is mentioned in Instability#Fluid instabilities where the microtubule redirect is inappropriate, and in Atmospheric instability#Forms. The term is also used in aeronautical engineering, for instance it is discussed in Aeroelasticity#Flutter. All aerodynamic and hydrodynamic instabilities are dynamic instabilities. Disambiguation seems needed. --Mark viking (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This redirect was not tagged for deletion. I've just tagged it. Please do not close until 7 days after the timestamp on my signature. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB/SIA the various uses of "dynamic instability" in various fields. Deryck C. 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Drafting a dab for this title might help solidify consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted a SIA (call it a DAB if you wish) below the RfD tag. Deryck C. 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DAB. Despite what I said earlier, patently other things do use the term "dynamic instability", although for some reason (my incompetence, probably) I couldn't find any when I searched. Si Trew (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set index article as created by Deryck Chan seems to solve all the problems. Not unique to one field and current link is not primary for the topic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB/SIA as drafted on the article (I edited it a little) - Nabla (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DAB there is no clear primary topic to occupy this title, thus it should be a disambiguation page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2016 (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.

Easter basket[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 procedural close, no longer a redirect. An article has been created at Easter basket. I will retarget Easter baskets there as an {{R from plural}}. Contact me with concerns. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that in ENwiki would be new article called as Easter basket. This subject is developed in theese articles. Relevan informations there are also for example in pl:Święconka. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget the first' to Easter Bunny (as the second goes), mentioned in lede of that but only buried further down in easter egg.
It's wholly encouraged to convert a redirect to an article, it doesn't have to come here first. There's no case for a WP:REDLINK delete because there is information at the target. The singular form is tagged with {{R with possibilities}}) already. Si Trew (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Święconka in ENwiki, and there is also redirect Easter Basket to List of Robot Chicken episodes Dawid2009 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate all the "Easter basket" terms on a page with the targets found above. Deryck C. 03:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Easter egg.Delete Easter baskets. Why would the plural form redirect to Easter bunny? That makes no sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC) updated 17:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well why should it redirect to easter egg? The singular is in both; the plural in neither. Perhaps Delete as WP:RFD#D1 per WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The egg article mentions the use of baskets throughout, whereas the bunny article only mentions it in passing as the lead and the caption illustration. I agree the plural doesn't need to be there and that the redirect for that should be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the nominator's thoughts that there should be an article on this concept. I'm going to try to put one together. If this doesn't happen by the time this needs to close, I support WP:REDLINK deletion in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2016 (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.

Peyton List (actress/model)[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 delete (by RHaworth). (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created via a series of page moves. Unnecessary as not descriptive and current Peyton List (actress) is sufficient as a search term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is why {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} exists. Peyton List (actress) fits that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (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.

Peyton List (adult actress)[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 delete. Favonian (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term adult actress typically refers to a performer in pornography, Neither of the actresses linked are in that business, thusly the redirect might be offensive. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with prejudice as implicitly libelous of one or two current BLP topics. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both actresses were teens when they landed a notable role. And neither of them have been adult film stars. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:37, 8 April 2016 (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.

Peyton List (teen actress)[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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently recreated via page move that was undone. Ephemeral disambiguator, target will age out of this so this redirect serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:EPHEMERAL. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both actresses were teens when they became notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; in addition to the comments above, I'll point out that the article was at that page for all of five hours, it's highly unlikely that an external site would have linked to it for that time. TJRC (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete, I've marked this and others as CSD WP:G6 housekeeping as a vestige of a series of page moves, since it is absurd to have a page title that looks like a disambiguated page point to a disambiguation page. Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (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.

The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15#The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence

Hotties[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 Hottie. WP:SNOW and uncontroversial (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely that someone looking for articles about beauty or attractiveness will need this redirect. Slashme (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2016 (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.

How to Train Your Dragon 4[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, WP:G7, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film series is so far on 2 films with a third in production - no mention of a 4th. Really not needed as WP:TOOSOON Nordic Dragon 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When there's enough reliable sourcing to warrant a mention, then it can be recreated. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix, and as a redirect creator. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete per WP:G7 author requests deletion (I have so tagged). Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:30/500[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 per WP:SNOW. It has been demonstrated that the usefulness of the shortcut outweighs the potential for confusion. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The software interprets this as a subpage. WP:30 redirects to Wikipedia:Third opinion and has since 2006. This could cause confusion. Perhaps there is a technical solution that can be implemented with a template. Short of that, what should be done? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and possibly change to "WP:30-500" - I believe that the shortcut is needed and will definitely prove to be helpful in the future. However, the MediaWiki software sees "WP:30/500" as a sub-page (due to the slash "/" that exists in the middle of the shortcut), fooling tooltips and potentially causing confusion and headache in the future as Wikipedia grows and expands. We should definitely resolve this issue now and before it becomes any more confusing (as well as potentially adding more work and difficulty to fix and roll out later). I think that the best solution for this shortcut and this situation is to drop the slash and add the dash... Hey, that's kind of catchy! :-D. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful for the link to have the "/". The convenience of editors should rank above easily worked-around technicalities of the backend. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 30/500 and indeed 30-500 are plausible redirects to the new 30 500 protection level and might as well both exist. I don't see how anyone searching for third opinion could plausibly do so by searching for wp:30/500 which leaves that free to be this redirect. ϢereSpielChequers 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible search term, subpage (of an unrelated page) or not. Steel1943 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The slash is intuitive because it's the way such expressions are almost always written. For instance, we write 24/7, not 24-7. The fact that it brings us to a subpage is only a problem if we're going to stop it from being a redirect, and even then, the only problem would be the automatically generated "go one level up" link at the top. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. 30/500 is much more common and likely to be found. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - plausible search term. –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 9 April 2016 (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.

Bren 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no "Bren Law" (or "Bren's Law") is at the target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Donald Bren Hall School of Law. This one veers in the other direction by being not only incorrect but extremely vague. We do have redirects like Newton law and Parkinson Law, perhaps themselves unhelpful, but it is not as if this is a scientific "law". Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it? We don't have Bren Environment for the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management or Bren Information for the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences. Would Americans really abbreviate it this way? Si Trew (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the common name for that law school. Searches on Google also have it mixed with the Bren School of Environmental Sciences (UC Santa Barbara)'s Council of Legal Advisors. [3] as well as other lawyers who go by Bren. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a temporary name for the school as of 2007 and was undone in 2008 in order to standardize it with other UC schools. [4] The only notable alias that should be retained is Donald Bren School of Law as that is how it's been referred to in related articles. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per D8 (obscure synonym) and D2 (potential for confusion).  Rebbing  14:22, 10 April 2016 (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/2016_April_8&oldid=1088110282"