Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16[edit]

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

Zelda theme[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, but change sections to The Legend of Zelda#Music and sound. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are so ambiguous that they seem unhelpful. The word "theme" and "song" are not synonymous with each other. Also, the section at The Legend of Zelda#Music, the redirects' current target, is about when the series' music has been performed live (so this section isn't about the history of the "Zelda theme" song.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Since I just found a related article, Super Mario Bros. theme, I also think these should be deleted per WP:REDLINK in the event that these redirects are not considered ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind on that, as stated below regarding content already existing. Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant information is located at The Legend of Zelda#Music and sound, particularly the paragraph that starts with «"The Legend of Zelda Theme" is a recurring piece of music...». I didn't research the history of the article exhaustively to confirm, but I'd guess that the section was renamed at some point (and would offer that the current section "Music" is not appropriately named, given its contents and the principle of least surprise). If you indulge me the impertinence, I honestly think you've spent more time setting up this discussion than you would have locating the proper information (which surely one would expect to exist in the article!) and adjusting the target of the redirects. I've updated the redirect targets and suggest the outcome of this discussion to be Keep. --Waldir talk 02:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe something could redirect there, but this comment doesn't seem to address the ambiguity of the best phrase "Zelda theme". Zelda is a disambiguation page and "theme" is ambiguous. A more precise term than this would be more preferable. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Legend of Zelda#Music and sound. An action which, BTW, doesn't necessarily need an RfD. "Zelda theme" seems a plausible search term, and "ambiguous" isn't a reason to delete it. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VQuakr: If a term/redirect is ambiguous to a point where it doesn't seem to specifically refer to its current target and if a disambiguation page isn't plausible at the redirect's title, WP:XY basically states "Yes it is". Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 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.

Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 28#Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series

The Organ Of Evening Calm[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) 18:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In-game item used in The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, but isn't mentioned there or the redirect's current target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think we're in WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE territory here. shoy (reactions) 13:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just one of eight named instruments for a collection quest in that particular game. [1] Not a central instrument to the entire gameplay or something they are going out of their way to trademark that phrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a minor bit of trivia, really, compared to the grand scheme of the series and related gameplay. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:18, 19 May 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.

Trump Raw[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) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has had an interesting relationship with the WWE, but it would be silly to claim that it's his Raw or that it would be titled that way. Trump isn't mentioned at the article and I haven't been able to find reliable sources calling it "Trump Raw," even for promotional purposes. Retarget to Trump Steaks Delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as title unrelated to WWE Raw. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Trump's association with professional wrestling is something that probably deserves its own section in some page, somewhere, but I'm not sure where. As it stands, the WWE Raw's own page doesn't even refer to Trump, as stated above, and this redirect ought to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needs a mention like RAW is Jericho for it to stand a chance. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 18 May 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.

Esc2003 and Esc2001[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) 18:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caps is the preferred way for these (ESC2014, ESC2015, ESC2016 etc), As I've just created ESC2003 and ESC2001 these are pretty much redundant to them, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:. Same reason as I stated for the deletion nomination of Esc2017. Editor has clearly created these redirects in good faith and not fully understanding procedure. Might be worth checking if they have done more than just Esc2001, Esc2003, and Esc2017. They may have done similar for all 62 Eurovision contests and 14 Junior Eurovision contests. Mass-nomination of them all if they have been created. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a quick check and there are also ones for Jesc 2010 and Jesc 2011. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:47, 17 May 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.

Crash Team Racing 2010[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 Crash Team Racing#Sequels. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Per the redirect's history, this title represents a different subject than the subject in Crash Team Racing, but the subject of the redirect seems to be mentioned in that article briefly at Crash Team Racing#Sequels, but I'm not sure if that is a good option for retargeting since the subject of Crash Team Racing was rereleased in 2010 for certain consoles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Crash Team Racing#Sequels. In case someone was looking for the cancelled video game title. There should be some reliable news sources from game magazines that the video footage was posted (or leaked) to the groups. It doesn't make sense to redirect to the entire Crash Bandicoot franchise article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per AngusWOOF. Looks like we can say a few things about this game, though who knows if it would've had this title. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 26 May 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.

Outcast Bandicoot[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) 18:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per the redirect's edit history, the subject of the redirect seems to be a unnotable fan-made film based on the redirect's target's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 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.

Sandoicchi[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) 18:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the original revision, this is a Japanese transliteration of Sandwich. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 16 May 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.

Char Lee Slay Ter[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) 19:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Del Eat, this seems to be a bad attempt at Hugh Moore. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a character named Lee Char, but this isn't going to help find him. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... I like it! ... Unfortunately no one's ever going to think of it thus it'll be unused and pretty much useless. –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as really obscure synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 19 May 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.

Σημείωσις[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 27#Σημείωσις

Eichhörnchen[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Squirrels are not particularly related to the German language. Gorobay (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's nothing about squirrels in Germany that has any particular resonance either. There's no such special species as "German Squirrel". It's a clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable usage of the name for English Wikipedia. You wouldn't go to German Wikipedia and insist they redirect "squirrel" to this term. There's already the cross-Wikipedia link in the left column for translations into all the other language Wikipedias. Also common word per WP:RFOREIGN AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 18 May 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.

ISO 639:eng-sco[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) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. It is not an ISO 639 code. Gorobay (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would expect this to be Scottish English if anything, though I'm sure we don't want to propagate false ISO codes. Any chance this one would ever be created, though? --BDD (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no chance this could be a valid ISO 639 code, which are all two or three characters long. Gorobay (talk) 20:15, 17 May 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.

LSTI[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) 15:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect causes confusion from my point of view as it does not adress WP:UCN. As far as I can see there has been a previous AFD for this redirect [[2]], where a discussion has been archived. The impression I gain from the argumentation there is that LSTI seems to have been a (internal) working title for a short period of time during the standard development. Nevertheless I could not find a single reference on the web so far where this abbreviation is used nor what it exactly stands for, which makes this redirect questionable as the is no verification for any use of this name anywhere. Therefore I consider it better to delete it. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This acronym appears to refer to several different entities. I think keeping it is unhelpful given the ambiguity as well as how the current target only mentions the acronym once, in passing, anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:36, 16 May 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.

WCDMA HSPA frequency bands[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) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect title is strongly misleading and also false. W-CDMA is an air interface and HSPA is a technology used in UMTS. It is not associated with frequency bands itself. The intention for creating this article probably was to point out that UMTS is deployed in different frequency bands. From may point of view it is completely sufficient to introduce a link to UMTS frequency bands in the section "See also" of the article HSPA to lead readers to the existing table of frequency bands, without consolidating false associations. Therefore I propose to delete the questioned redirect. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:08, 16 May 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.

W-CDMA 2100[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) 15:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect title is strongly misleading and also false. W-CDMA is an air interface used in UMTS. It is not associated with a frequency itself. The intention for creating this article probably was to point out that UMTS is mainly deployed at 2100 MHz. Anyway as this is also not the case this redirect does not make any sense and there is also no new target article where it can point to to fulfil its pupose. Therefore I propose to delete it. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 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.

UMTS 8[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:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. It is strongly misleading. I think that the original intention was to point out the 3GPP Release 8 introduced LTE, but this resulted in the definition "UMTS" == "3GPP Release" which is absolutely wrong. The "8" could also be associated with (GSM) "Band 8" at 900 MHz. As this causes even more confusion and does not aid any, I propose to delete this redirect. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I forget what thought process led to my creating this, but it definitely isn't close to what this "4G-lite" standard ended up being marketed as. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am neutral on the rationale for deletion, but I have no objections. This appears to be a valid {{db-g7}} case, unless the various double-redirect fixes in the history are considered "substantial" content. (I assume that the template should be placed by Damian Yerrick himself, the nominator, or the closing administrator, not just anyone.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Damian Yerrick. Thx for your quick reply and the explanation. Can you start a request for WP:G7 as proposed by SoledadKabocha? That would be great and simplify the procedure (for our admins) as there seems to be a clear point of view and concensus on this topic already. :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Preparation A-G. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 18 May 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.

\376[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 26#\376

Barrages of objections[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) 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barrage of objections does not necessarily mean that the objections are trivial. That said, this strategy is used in argument, but I don't know what it's called. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We should remove the term from the article. I agree it's a different strategy. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some looking around, and it looks like Gish Gallup is what I was thinking - but this didn't have its own article, but instead points to Duane Gish#Debates. Not sure if this would be a good target or not, but it is pretty much a barrage of objections strategy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Gish Gallup is a strategy of debating that's been around for decades, predating even Gish himself, and probably deserves its own article. I recall there being a Monty Python's Flying Circus episode where a character pretends to be a sleazy right-wing politician and says (paraphrasing) "I just go on and on, never allowing my opponents to get in edgewise" while ranting, only to suddenly fall over from exhaustion.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "barrage" or "barrage of objections" is not even in the Law.com Legal Dictionary or Nolo's [3]. Oxford Reference shows just general meanings for the word barrage and no formal law term [4] . Is there another place where this has become a notable term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC) updated 17:52, 18 May 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_May_16&oldid=1088109124"