Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2017.

Population Science[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Population Science

Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms/telecommunications encryption terms[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. 01:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated redirect is an WP:XNR, but its parent page, Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms, is not. Also, the redirect is a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Descriptive notation[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, by Athaenara. They used R3, but I presume they meant G7 as this wasn't recently created. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was most likely created in error, but it's not immediately apparent from the redirect's edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: What error would you be referring to, that's not immediately apparent? As the page creator, I would like to think that I had some legitimate reason for doing what I did, so I'd love it if you'd enlighten me.... but at the end of the day, I have to agree with the nominator and CoffeeWithMarkets. We don't need namespace redirects for every article in the mainspace. J♯m (talk | contribs) 06:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jsharpminor: This redirect wasn't created as a result of a page move ... which is why it is not immediately apparent if this was created in error. Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete then, per CoffeeWithMarkets, Steel1943, and my own comment above. This isn't useful. J♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Footnotes (disambiguation)[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 there doesn't seem to be an appropriate Wikipedia-space disambiguation page for this title. Deryck C. 01:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not a disambiguation page. No current opinion though on whether or not this title should be on a disambiguation page ... Considering that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) targets Wikipedia:Citing sources. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping. I tried to come up with a plausible dab page, but the major candidates are covered by hatnotes at the target article. The matching title, Wikipedia:Footnotes, also redirects to Help:Footnotes, so there is nothing lost to searches by deleting this page. The only dab page this redirect might target is Wikipedia:FOOT, but that's a very weak correlation at best. Deleting it is better. — Gorthian (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alfred F. Conrad[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

typo. Should have been Alfred F Conard Avram (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🔞[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 15#🔞

Kingson[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 as {{r from surname}}. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A single word, Kingson. Why would that be assumed to be Richard Kingson - as evidenced by someone who recently tried to create an article about a band. Kellymoat (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a valid redirect from surname. More notable than most others in fact given the ambiguity between his name and his own brother's surname, which is mentioned in the lead. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with a redirect of Richard Kingston, because the "t" version is mentioned in the article. But not a simple one word redirect. It seems far reaching to me.Kellymoat (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rodinian[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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Rodinian to the Mesoproterozoic article. I think the redirect of Rodinian to Mesoproterozoic should be kept until text can be added to Rodinian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it is in the article with a cited mention --Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Columbian Period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#Columbian Period

Eukaryian[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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible - not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jatulian[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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible - not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Jatulian to the Rhyacian article. I think the redirect of Jatulian to Rhyacian should be kept until text can be added to Jatulian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it has a cited mention in the article --Lenticel (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Oxygenian[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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible - not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Oxygenian to the Siderian article. I think the redirect of Oxygenian to Siderian should be kept until text can be added to Oxygenian page to make it an article. GeoWriter (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it has a cited mention in the article --Lenticel (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Little group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#Little group

Wikipedia:PPG[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 by G7. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created as a shortcut to a proposed new guideline: User:Wiki-Coffee/Protecting_Pages. The Village Pump discussion[1] was strongly opposed to the proposed guideline. The target page has been userfied, leaving this as a Cross namespace redirect from WP: to userspace.

One, two, and three letter shortcuts are a very limited and valuable community resource. They should not be consumed by failed guideline proposals.

This redirect can trivially be recreated for the target page, if/when that page is actually promoted to a guideline. Alsee (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heya: I think Wikipedia editors time could be better spent than debating the use of a shortcut to a Wikipedia Essay page so I will self-CSD to avoid frivolous use of other editors time. Wiki-Coffee Talk 06:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Apostrophectomy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Apostrophectomy

Death Wish (2014 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 delete all. Deryck C. 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a faulty crystal ball. A remake never came to fruition in either of these years, so there's not a 2014/5 film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Event 15[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. Deryck C. 01:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:XY. There's nowhere the film is discussed in any detail, so the best way for our readers to get information about the film is via the search engine. They'd be able to see who starred in the film and if they wanted, can select a specific actor to get more information about them, rather than be funneled into an arbitrary cast member. It's also mentioned at Stephen Rider and Christine Alderson. (Note: All redirects refer to the same film.) -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We shouldn't redirect to a random actor's page, especially when it has zero useful content. Alsee (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the purpose of a redirect is to lead the reader to encyclopedic content on that subject. There is no such content at the redirect destination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it might be okay to redirect to Matthew Thompson but it is not clear which director article it should go to. But it shouldn't go to one of the actors unless they were involved in the production side (producer, writer, director, creator). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Ledger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#John Ledger

Teresa May[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Teresa May

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_23&oldid=1088107541"