Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2016.

Frankie Wicks[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) 16:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This started as an article about a character from EastEnders, which was eventually redirected to the actor said to have played him. However, the article was a hoax, there was no such character, and so there is no mention at the target, an American country singer who has never appeared in EastEnders. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's not mentioned as a notable character in List of EastEnders characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most prominent Frankie Wicks I can find has some sort of professional connection with the RSPB, possibly a/the manager of their community forums. Whatever, they are, as best I can tell, entirely unconnected with either East Enders or Jason Sellers and are not notable themselves. The second most prominent Frankie Wicks appears to be the daughter of a nonogenarian supporter of a local cricket team - also unconnected with East Enders or the present target and also very much non-notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potential hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 4 September 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.

Ghoul of Calcutta[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Apparently Christopher Hitchens called Mother Teresa this, but "ghoul of calcutta" -wikipedia (68 results) suggests it's not widely in use. WP:RNEUTRAL says we can have such redirects, but I really don't see the benefit delivered by this one. The recent deletions of "Little Marco", "Lyin' Ted", and Crooked Hillary seem relevant here. BDD (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It really is not credible that anyone would try to find MT from this. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable nickname if only a critic brought it up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Unlikely to be a search term. There's an argument to be made to redirect to Christopher Hitchens, if his article mentions this incident, just so that there isn't a redlink to tempt someone. But if it's not notable enough to be in his article, then delete. Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirects, as stated above, don't have to be neutral. However, the term is indeed rarely used. It almost always seems to surface, looking at Google Books for a moment, when Hitchens' viewpoints on things are being directly quoted. We have clear precedent with "Little Marco" et al. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to obscureness --Lenticel (talk) 09:48, 9 September 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.

Quincy Magoo (film)[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 Mr. Magoo (film). WJBscribe (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any film by this name. The target is a cartoon character, not a film. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You don't look up Ebenezer Scrooge (film) for Scrooge (film). For the character itself, by all means keep those redirects, but not for the film unless it has been released somewhere with the given name in the title, perhaps in one of the countries? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Gorthian. Mr. Magoo vs Quincy Magoo is different to Scrooge vs Ebenezer Scrooge, and even then I would argue that both are plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. Mr. Magoo has a first name? Can you imagine someone who's enough of a fan to know it, but doesn't know or remember that the film wasn't released under the much more common name? I can't, really. Maybe Magoo himself... --BDD (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Gorthian. Plausible search term for someone who knows the character name, but doesn't remember the name of the film. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mr. Magoo (film). Creating a redlink is just bait for someone to do this again. Montanabw(talk) 23:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Gorthian, Thryduulf, Patar knight, and Montanabw because I hadn't quite noticed this either: the redirect's history indicates this was referring to a film that was in production as of 2013. Suffice to say its creator is zealous in creating redirects for upcoming films. So it may well be that readers who might search for this term would be looking for the unreleased film, and be SURPRISEd to find one from the 90s. --BDD (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have content about the unrelased film then we should point this there or disambiguate (depending on it's title). If we do not (and I can't immediately find anything, but haven't looked in detail), then I stand by my recommendation to retarget as we should not be making it harder for people to find content we do have just because we do not have content about something that may or may not be notable at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed the history; we just don't have anything about any "upcoming" film. (Neither does IMDb or Google, for that matter.) The creator of the redirect went on quite a spree of "upcoming films" redirects. Luckily, they're all limited to 2013. My vote is still to retarget to the older film. — Gorthian (talk) 00:46, 10 September 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.

㊗[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 perhaps unfortunate since I would say there's consensus on making some sort of change, but no real agreement on where. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to disambiguation without clear target The Banner talk 20:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want to go that route, the better target is wiktionary:Appendix:Unicode/Enclosed CJK Letters and Months. If someone is searching this, they're going to want the definition. Your suggested target doesn't help someone figure that out, but mine does. -- Tavix (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should not be sending someone to Wiktionary when we have a suitable target at Wikipedia. The Wiktionary appendix should be linked from the target page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, your suggestion isn't helpful from a reader's perspective. It gives them the code, but our readers would be wanting to know what the emoji means. My suggestion gives them both. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, since the current target defines what the emoji is. I'm also leaning towards retargeting to the wiktionary appendix, both solutions would be okay with me. I am strongly opposed to Thryduulf's suggestion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like Gorthian's suggestion better. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO it should not remain as it stands, the redirect is to an Easter egg. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there's a wikt entry in the dab page which tells us what it means --Lenticel (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that entry is not for the single character, nor does it define it in Chinese. — Gorthian (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary:祝. As it stands, this character targets its pronunciation, not its meaning. We have customarily redirected other emojis to their meanings (e.g., ⛪️ → Church (building), 🏵 → Rosette (design), 📆 → Calendar date). In this case, ㊗️ means "blessings", "good wishes" or "congratulations" in Chinese or Japanese. But we don't have an article for the concept (just a dab page that doesn't mention the meaning). — Gorthian (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf as it will get what the readers are looking for, a link to the Wiktionary appendinx on the target page is enough IMO, if they wanted that, there's the link. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think that what readers are looking for is a list of Unicode characters? Is it not more plausible that they would be looking for information on ㊗ in particular? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary: (probably to the appendix listing encircled characters, with their meanings) WP is not a dictionary: an encyclopedia covers topics, and 祝, whether encircled or not, is not a topic in English. Therefore we can only assume the reader wants to know what is means, and there are two elements to the meaning: the 祝ness, and the encirclement. The Wikt appendix appears to cover both. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I'm persuaded that taking readers to the related Wiktionary article is the best idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:47, 8 September 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.

Hokkien pop[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete – technically not all Hokkien pop music is Taiwanese, although most of it is. Redirect may serve to confuse some people, as the majority of Taiwanese music is not in Hokkien Prisencolin (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep – I haven't any knowledge of Taiwanese music, I just created the redir when the article was in this version, so I thought it was a good idea. Prisencolin, I think your target move has some problems: The article "hokkien pop" has become a double redir now. And the target article is now named "Taiwanese Hokkien popular music", but the content still refers to Taiwanese pop in gerneral. Anyway, as far as I understand "Hokkien pop" is a common expression, therefore a redir to some target (or an article itself) should exist in the Wikipedia as aid for our readers. Therefore a "keep". --Cyfal (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Deletion or WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB seems like a better outcome here, roughly the same as all those "Foo → Foo in the United States" redirects that were discussed recently. There's also Hokkien pop in Singapore and Malaysia (dunno about the mainland or the Philippines). Those were influenced by Hokkien pop from Taiwan, but they're not the same topic. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 13 September 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.

Volnovakha checkpoint attack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 13#Volnovakha checkpoint attack

Trojan centipede[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Trojan centipede

Lacta-[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) 16:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Removed from target page Imaginatorium (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as not in target page. PamD 07:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wish you hadn't done this. I asked you to gain consensus for removing the sourced mention of the prefix. Given that this has been the topic of an RfD already, it should not be considered uncontroversial. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying all other editors in previous discussion, to make sure this does not go unnoticed: @BDD, PamD, Thryduulf, Matthiaspaul, Tavix, JFG, and Godsy: Imaginatorium (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My comments in the previous discussion remain valid. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Previous discussion determined that this entry was unfounded, as a one-shot Italian translation of the Indian lakh- prefix, no use in practice and no existence in English. — JFG talk 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 5 September 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.

Physiologies[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 retargeted to physiology. Withdrawn by nominator with nothing that would indicate opposition to the new target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real word, I propose deletion. Physiology is an uncountable noun and so has no plural. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment wikt:physiologies exists. -- Tavix (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget This plainly is the plural of "physiology"; while the latter is usually a non-count noun, I do not believe there is a single such [U] noun which cannot have a countable usage. So it may be marginal, but not invalid. However, it should obviously redirect to physiology, not the human body. (Amended: "retarget" is the word I wanted) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's uncountable if it refers to the discipline, but it has uncountable uses. For example: "Doctor, you can't transplant that chimp's foot onto that man! Their physiologies are incompatible!" Doesn't suggest an obvious fate for the redirect, though. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Physiology as {{R from plural}}. BDD, you are clearly steeped in old B-movies. — Gorthian (talk) 19:21, 4 September 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_September_2&oldid=1138581344"