Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 17

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2016.

[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) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is not the best place to redirect. How do we know that "Hillary" refers to Hillary Clinton? And even still, the redirect asks about the logo. (If the rules allow) can we redirect this page to the file specifically? And how do we know that the reader is looking for the 2016 logo? She ran a competitive campaign for president in 2008 as well (so WP:XY). All in all, this redirect is far too vague. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:29, 17 February 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.

User warning templates

[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) 17:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently-created WP:XNR, which is a reason to delete at WP:RFD#DELETE. Izno (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used for any new editors who may be unfamiliar with adding WP: to the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promotional Attack (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 February 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.

January 2014 deaths

[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 WP:SNOWBALL keep. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is superfluous; there are no redirects for March 2011 deaths or November 2015 deaths, et al. --Neve–selbert 18:23, 17 February 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.

Template:Footer

[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) 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A footer is not always a navbox. If there are no better retargeting options for this redirect, I'd say delete. (Also, the redirect currently has no transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator. I don't see value in redirecting it at this time, since footers can be ambiguous and so to make the redirect make sense would require some qualifying noun-phrase. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Izno. I can imagine creating a substitution-intended template, at this name, that auto-inserts standard page-bottom material for new articles, for example. But there's nothing presently appropriate to redir this to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:07, 17 February 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.

Template:Header

[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) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, a header is not always a hatnote, yet alone a hatnote that has to be set up stating a note about a term that redirects to the page which {{Header}} is placed. If there is not a better target for this redirect, I'd say it should be deleted. (Also, this redirect currently has no transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 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.

علاء الدين

[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 first four (Arabic and correct Arabic romanisations), delete last two (no affinity to Japanese), procedural close the rest with recommendation to renominate in smaller bundles. Deryck C. 00:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of these Neelix redirects must be nonsense. Can someone use the tools that come up in the RfD listing to check if these are actually used somewhere or where just pulled from his head. Note there is also a DAB for this name. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Japanese... Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 28 February 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.

Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri

[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 / delete each as recommended by 58.176.246.42. Deryck C. 23:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus:

  1. Suggestive Indecent Hips
  2. Monzetsu!! Densha Otoko
  3. Monzetsu Densha Otoko
  4. 痴漢電車 挑発する淫ら尻
  5. Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri
  6. Chikan Densha: Chohatsusuru Midara Shiri
  7. Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri
  8. Chohatsusuru Midara Shiri
  9. Monzetsu!!
  10. Monzetsu
  11. Monzetsu!
  12. Monzetsu! Densha Otoko
  13. 悶絶!!電車男
  14. Chikan Densha: Otakuna Kaikan
  15. Otakuna Kaikan
  16. 痴漢電車 オタクな快感
  17. オタクな快感
  18. 悶絶!電車男
  19. 悶絶
  20. 悶絶!!
  21. 悶絶!
  22. 挑発する淫ら尻

I'm not seeing the need or justification for this string of Neelix redirects to a short article on a Japanese porn film that seems to be about sexually assaulting women on trains. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was going to try to parse this whole thing, but that's going to take too long. Most, if not all, are legitimate {{R from short name}}s or alternative titles mentioned in the target article's lede. At a glance, I think that may apply to all of these. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones which are actually the full title (the one in the RFD template, plus #2–6, #12–14, #16, and #18), rather than just one of the series titles or subtitles . No opinion on most of the rest, but delete Monzetsu and 悶絶 and their exclamation-pointed variants (#9–#11, #19–21) as Wp:R#D8 confusing and unlikely synonyms; they're ordinary dictionary words which are partial matches for multiple creative works and certainly aren't most closely associated with some obscure porno. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent ありがとう Arigatou - we needed someone that can understand Japanese. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:16, 17 February 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.

Asset-backed

[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) 17:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vague adjective. Securities aren't the only things that can be "asset-backed:" a quick search also provided Asset backed lending and Asset-backed risk. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:54, 17 February 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.

Impossibility thorem

[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) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, redirect makes it harder to locate impossibility theorem page in autocomplete. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Ethanol, I seem to be getting different results than you. When you say autocomplete, you mean the search box in the top-right corner, right? I still see both "thorem" and "theorem" listed when I have "Impossibility" in the box, with the misspelling a few spots lower. So you're not seeing thorem at all now? What were you seeing before? --BDD (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tested again after removing all tags from page (just #REDIRECT), in search box, when typing impossibility th thorem shows before theorem, which is misleading/unnecessary. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit Ethanol: what am I reassessing? I asked about the search engine's behaviour at WP:VPT a little while ago (now here). What I'm told is that for redirects, if there are several that match a search string that point to the same target the search tool will only list one, and uses some algorithm to decide which. So if "thorem" scores higher than "theorem", only "thorem" shows up. However, I'm getting the same results as BDD (and I think you are getting the same) so maybe there's something else going on. I don't know how it handles redirects that are RfD tagged, but my guess is that it's not seeing it as a redirect, and so it's skipping the "only one redirect to a target" behaviour. And when you remove the header and get the same results, I'm assuming that has something to do with caching. So ... I don't know what to say here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but either way, currently "thorem" and "theorem" point to different targets, so they would both be listed anyway. I'm going to boldly retarget and see what happens. I'm going to leave it for a bit so that you can see what happens on your end, and in case there's some caching going on, but my action shouldn't prejudice this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine when both pages redirect to same page, should stay like this. Thanks for pointers. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not working for me yet. KHAAAAAAAAche! On the other hand I'd be fine with deleting this one too, it's just ripe for causing confusion, and it got 17 hits in the last 90 days, never more than 1 in any given day. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 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.

Lego media

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 24#Lego media

ParaÍSo

[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) 17:50, 24 February 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.

Vivan Charles

[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, G7 by User:RHaworth Lenticel (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misspelling on my part, I apologise. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 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_February_17&oldid=1037901807"