Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 16, 2016.

Hamilton![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 23#Hamilton!

Saarland Protectorate[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Recently created (June 2015) redirect that contains a completely incorrect and inaccurate name for the article subject, two different topics have been merged into one title: "Saarland" refers to the contemporary German state while "Saar Protectorate" refers to the the French Protectorate established after WWII. There are also no articles that have ever been directed to this page. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 21:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag as {{R from incorrect name}}. "Recently created" in terms of redirects means a few weeks old at the most, not well over a year, so that part of your rationale is incorrect. As for the meat of the matter, the term is historically incorrect, but google searches show that it gets plenty of uses in a variety of independent places and always unambiguously refers to the period of the Protectorate so the target is unarguably what people are looking for (there are in practice no XY issues, before anyone brings that up). The stats show that the redirect is regularly used, despite there being no present links from the English Wikipedia (it is not possible to know what links to it from elsewhere, and it is not possible to know what linked to it from anywhere, including en.wp, at any previous time). Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect's creator was not notified of this discussion, I have corrected this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator). I'm not familiar with these redirect deletion discussions, but I must admit I'm puzzled by the rationale. Clearly the term "Saarland Protectorate" is wrong - otherwise the article would be at that title. It is, however, something that might reasonably be searched by users. As Thryduulf says, this is evidenced by the Google search data. As I say, I'm struggling to see any legitimate reason behind the deletion discussion. (Thanks to Thryduulf for the notification too.)—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as before. I've tagged it with {{R from incorrect name}}, but since this was succeeded by Saarland, which remains the region's name to this day, it's certainly plausible that a reader could make this error. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 23 August 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 Saar Protectorate[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. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created (Sept 2015) redirect that contains an unnecessary prefix "The" in its name.There are also no articles that have ever been directed to this page. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 21:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, and then do to this whatever's done with the Saarland Protectorate redirect. There's no way the two should end up with different results. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC) I misread this as "The Saarland Protectorate", identical to the other one except for "The". Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all my arguments in favour of keeping Saar Protectorate except being regularly used (this one isn't) but it is equally harmless. Additionally, being "unnecessary" or having "unnecessary" prefixes, disambiguations or suffixes is never a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect's creator was not notified of this discussion, I have corrected this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When "The X" redirects to "X", and when we often speak of "X" with a preceding "the", e.g. "France and Germany both border the Saar Protectorate", it's entirely reasonable to keep "The X". It's not like "The Germany", because we'd never say "France and Denmark both border the Germany". Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Nyttend. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:34, 17 August 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.

People's Republic of Reuss[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 23#People's Republic of Reuss

Bioshock Game Engine[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect: the engine used by BioShock is the Unreal Engine, an engine used very often. Its use in BioShock is not notable enough to keep a redirect to the section BioShock#Game engine. Changing to Unreal Engine would not be useful either, as the only mention of any BioShock is about the use of Unreal Engine 3 by BioShock Infinite. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless at worst. Someone searching for this term (and the hits indicate that people do) will be educated at the target that Bioshock uses a "heavily modified Unreal Engine 2.5" which seems to be exactly what they will be looking to learn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While "bioshock game engine" is a reasonable search phrase, giving it a redirect creates the impression that there is a unique engine for the game(s). (There isn't: its using modified Unreal Engine). It's hard to check but I would assume that without the redirect, a general search of "bioshock game engine" will still end the user at the same place as the redirect work. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the pageviews from the last year, I don't consider this to be worth keeping. And to make a WP:OTHERSTUFF-like argument, doesn't mean having this redirect to one section in the article can also mean that we can start making redirects like Bioshock reception, Gameplay of BioShock, The Story of Bioshock, with every variation of capital letters? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Besides OTHERSTUFF, WP:BEANS applies here somewhat, as does WP:POINT. A general Wikipedia principle is not to delete what can be sensibly repurposed, and specifically what I've called "RfD zen": recognizing that something that shouldn't necessarily have been created in the first place nevertheless shouldn't be, or doesn't need to be, deleted. There's no real equivalent to this at AfD, but RfD has substantial gray area. Redirects like this, or the redlinks you've cited, aren't really necessary, but neither do they cause harm. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a reader to expect an article on the topic, and we do have coverage of it. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Anyone mislead by the phrase would be corrected in that belief by the information at the target article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 23 August 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.

Bioshizzle[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 both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sensible redirect. Only result in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine is a single occurrence of "bioshizzle" is a reaction by a reader on Game Informer. Not used as a short form or common nickname, like for instance codblops or LoL. I've also nominated Bioshizzle (see CfD). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uses don't need to be in reliable sources for a redirect, but I'm not seeing it widely used anywhere and not exclusively to refer to Bioshock (2). For the etymology see wikt:-izzle. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable jargon AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've bundled similar discussions together for convenience. -- Tavix (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delizzle per Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:32, 17 August 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.

Ribbi[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 the first to Rabbi, delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all Neelix redirects, but rather than straight deletion I think it is worth discussing whether any or all of these are useful as is and/or should be retargetted, possibly to Rabbi? I'll alert the Judaism wikiproject and, if there is one, a noticeboard or project related to Hewbrew. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is Neelix? "Ribbi" is in use by some Jews as an alternative pronunciation of "Rabbi". Debresser (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: they're talking about Neelix (talk · contribs), who took it upon himself to make a couple of redirects. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Well, with the exception of "Ribbi" they should be deleted as non-existent and unlikely even as typos. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 16 August 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.

Pigfucker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 23#Pigfucker

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_16&oldid=1088110215"