Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 29, 2016.

' ' Laughing in the Jungle ' '[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 as G6 (technical deletion). It's obvious to me that the page was previously moved to this title as a mistake and was almost immediately moved to the current title. Deryck C. 12:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki markup will not show in the page title. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:49, 29 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.

Edge hill, north warwickshire[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) 16:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns spelled incorrectly. Not in use, and delete to remove any confusion that any of this is correct especially the lowercase "north" . Edge Hill, North Warwickshire created Widefox; talk 00:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tavix "If this redirect is an incorrect capitalization (a typo), then it is made available to aid searches, so pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target." . There's no current use, or ever. The correct caps will work for search, so considering the ambiguity of "north" vs "North" and the fact it's all wrong, what's the point? We may often keep incorrect caps, but this is just multiply incorrect with no redeeming features. In addition, "Edge Hill" is already disambiguated. Widefox; talk 08:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because likely alternative capitalizations is one of the purposes of a redirect. This is entirely plausible since some people don't use caps when they search. Therefore, it aids searches, especially those from external sites. Remember not everyone searches in the same way. -- Tavix (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tavix Sure, and as unlikely (both obscure, clearly created in error but not a common misspelling) I agree if it aided search yes, it doesn't. WP:RPURPOSE has "Likely alternative capitalizations (for example, Natural Selection redirects to Natural selection). This is not necessary for user searching, but may aid linking from other articles and external sites." - so I'm not following the specific reason to keep as yet (although I agree little harm apart from the obvious that we don't have lowercase generally for place names AFAIK). Widefox; talk 12:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CHEAP this title is completely in lowercase, as would be expected of people typing it into the searchbox. As Wikipedia treats capitalized and small first letters the same, this is not evident in the nomination process, but it is a fully lower case redirect -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 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.

Germans in the American Civil War[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 meh. @BDD: I guess Si's comment is the only feedback we've got for you. I haven't got anything to add after reading the points made by you two. No formal closure action; BDD may delete this himself as WP:G7 as he sees fit. Deryck C. 23:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this, but now I'm second guessing myself. I read something about the treatment of "Germans" in Texas during the Civil War, and that was about German Americans. So this is not inaccurate if taken to refer to ethnic Germans. But as a search term, it would also apply to Prussia and the American Civil War. Should we keep this as is and add a hatnote or disambiguate? --BDD (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{trout}} probably only WP:In the United States would German Americans be called simply "Germans". Who wrote that essay? :) Si Trew (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as WP:XY confusing. I can see the merit of the hatnote, but in the end, this is recently created and if we've done without it up to now, I can't see any great need for it.
That being said, the target refers to some Germans who were not German Americans (they were just foreigners), such as Heros von Borcke, so it's reasonable for this redirect to go there – and,yes, a hatnote (or addition to the See Also section) would be a good idea if kept. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:39, 29 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.

Anthony Bregman[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 keep/withdrawn. It seems that the nominator's rationale no longer applies, there are currently no opinions other than "keep", and the nominator is no longer advocating for deletion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD placed meets csd criteria Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) endless loop of redirects redirects to likely story which redirects to anthony bregman i suggest both redirects are deleted... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:34, 29 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.

American Cemetery and Memorial[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. Deryck C. 00:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this refers to. There are thousands of cemeteries and memorials in the US, and several sites abroad that are referred to as "American Cemetery and Memorial", such as the one at Normandy. BDD (talk) 20:53, 29 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.

American military bases in Romania[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly misleading. The US military maintains bases in foreign countries, and this phrase suggests a list of such facilities in Romania. It's ASTONISHing to find instead an article on a single public airport, whose military sector is occasionally used by US forces. BDD (talk) 19:50, 29 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.

Boism[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. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boism. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of this redirect was an article on a concept called Boism based on the philosopher of Bo Li (an otherwise unknown philosopher) and his book Boism, Marks, and the Modern-Day Decline of Capitalism, a book unknown to any of the major book search databases. I believe the original article was a hoax, and having this as a redirect somewhat perpetuates the hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user has overridden this redirect and insists on having their nonsense on the page, so I have taken the matter to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boism. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:12, 1 March 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.

Rick Santorum's Yahoo problem[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) 22:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and non-neutral title. Unnecessary and irrelevant redirect. SirLagsalott (talk) 16:53, 29 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.

LTFC history[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 00:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, should be deleted. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - the Luton Town Football Club seems to be primary for "LTFC" here. LTFC (disambiguation) lists numerous other football clubs, but this seems to be the only one which has a separate history article. In that case "LTFC history" refers to this target fairly unambiguously, but the target could hatnote to the dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote, since LTFC is primary for The Hatters, it's reasonable to do as we do for the target of that. We could make a DAB with links to the "history" sections of the various other clubs called LTFC, but that seems like makework. Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is a plausible redirect at all. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 06:36, 21 February 2016
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete opaque redirect, as there are several topics for LTFC, and the formulation is a descriptive title, not prescriptive, as evidenced by the fact that the target places "history" first instead of last. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Ivanvector; we have an established primary topic for "LTFC". I'm not sure a hatnote is worthwhile if none of the other LTFCs have standalone history articles. It's pretty standard fare to have history sections. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 7 March 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.

Proposed 2017 'In/Out' Referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union[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. This is still getting decent traffic; we'll see what it looks like in the future. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This referendum will take place in 2016 (not 2017) so this redirect could cause confusion. Philip Stevens (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; this is an {{R from page move}}. Hits are around 20/day but I imagine these come from A Well-Known Search Engine hoisting WP up the results, and will tail off. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as both a valid {{R from page move}} situation as well as a straight-forwards typo case that readers can naturally make CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was moved to this title in August 2014, and reverted after 38 hours; continued use would be misleading. Peter James (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peter James and implausibility. -- Tavix (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Precedent suggests that we should not delete redirects simply because an event has been rescheduled {{R from former name}} is perfectly applicable in such cases. But this redirect title is so contrived and has both quotation marks and a slash in the middle of it, so I doubt it's useful. Deryck C. 16:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deryck, you mean {{R from move}}, right? At a glance it may be ambiguous whether "former name" refers to the article or its subject, but I suspect this is too entrenched to bother trying to amend. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 29 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.

@BDD: I do mean {{R from former name}}. Before the 23 June 2016 date was decided, the general expectation was that the referendum would be held in 2017 rather than 2016. Deryck C. 00:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Worm[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 Friday (1995 film). --BDD (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Lloyd Banks' page on Facebook was merged with the "Big Worm" page but I see no other evidence of this moniker. Interestingly, Google gives me a partial hit for the Lloyds Bank coprolite. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Big Worm is a character in Friday (film series), so perhaps retarget there? Stats are well below noise level; nothing links to it. Very briefly in 2010 this was an article before being turned into a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Friday (1995 film) per Si Trew, although I think it's better here to target to the original film where the character is first mentioned. Thought about pointing this to sandworm too, many of the fictional examples are very large. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 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:REQUESTACCOUNT[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut of Wikipedia:Request an account; requesting deletion because ACC has four other shortcuts, and Wikipedia:REQUESTACCOUNT isn't short by any means. -- Cheers, Riley 05:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --忍者ポップ (talk) 06:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CHEAP and straightforward. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to have so many redirects, it is relevant. SirLagsalott (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:RFD#K5 (someone finds it useful). If you think that there are too many shortcuts listed on the page, you could just remove some of the links from the shortcut box. But this is a perfectly reasonable redirect, and having too many redirects isn't a problem in and of itself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reasonable redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:36, 2 March 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.

African tiger[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, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, did not and does not exist. Revision history brings up something in which a sabre-tooth is mentioned, but sabre-tooth tigers lived only in the Americas. Perhaps the article creator meant sabre-tooth cats. In any case: no tigers in Africa. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • African tigers? Only in Kenya. Seriously, delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, there have been tigers in Africa just as there have been pet dogs in Antarctica and humans on the Moon; they're not native at all but get shipped over. But this redirect isn't helpful. We don't have a 'List of Tigers placed in Africa' article and just going to the parent article generally about tigers is misdirection. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:47, 3 March 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.

Speedy Deletion[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) 16:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about this one, as Proposed deletion and Articles for deletion have already been deleted. I don't want to bite, and I think it might be convenient for new editors if their page has been deleted, but at the same time, I think it may also be inappropriate because of the above two examples, also disregarding the fact I am a speedy deletionist. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete WP:XNR to pipework which is not useful to the readership and non-encyclopedic material. It is not about the encyclopedic coverage of speedy deletion in the world at large -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept it should go to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.--69.157.255.253 (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CNR and WP:ASR and also per precedent of the other two mentioned above. ansh666 13:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This has been deleted many times in the past, and keeps being recreated. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/70.51 and WP:SALT per Hammersoft. If something comes up in the real world which is known by the title "Speedy Deletion", then someone can ask for the protection to be lifted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this kind of pipework doesn't appear particularly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—there isn't the slightest harm in users being able to type "speedy deletion" in the search bar and end up on the right page. The page having been created many times would seem to indicate a legitimate demand. User:GKFXtalk 13:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – not an WP:XY case and the stats show that it has some usage. Very useful guidelines for most noobs who got their first article A7ed. sst✈ 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirecting deletion policy. --忍者ポップ (talk) 15:41, 7 March 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_29&oldid=1057404166"