Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2017.

The Circle (comics)(by Brian Reed)[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) 19:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects have two pairs of parentheses in their titles, and I think are not correct ways of disambiguating two articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 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.

Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000[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 as WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unplausible typo in title (double "in"). Loopy30 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please delete. A long-forgotten cockup coming back to haunt me. LOL! Jack | talk page 20:14, 4 July 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.

Idkfa[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 Doom (1993 video game). (non-admin closure) feminist 09:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed from cheat code in 2006 (revision 89869391) and the article section it was later redirected to (after the original target was merged) hasn't existed since 2010 (revision 339876387). The only mention in Wikipedia is in Heretic (video game) but the code was previously used in (and better known for its use in) Doom, so Heretic isn't a good redirect target. Peter James (talk) 19:44, 4 July 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.

Reality Leigh[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We typically delete first-middle name redirects. I haven't seen any indication that Winner is commonly known as "Reality Leigh". BDD (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was in response to the derivation of her name though. there is no evidence she is commonly called that outside of her family members. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, children still get the surnames of their fathers in almost all cases, and I'm unaware of situations where children get surnames that don't belong to either parent. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see her having used this as her common name, not like Cherami Leigh (no relation) who uses first+middle as her stage name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a partial title match. I've yet to find evidence her being called "Reality Leigh" without her surname. Geo Swan's article gave me pause, but it's the second part of a quote that starts "Ms. Winner received her legal name — Reality Leigh Winner — from her biological father..." -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She's not known as "Reality Leigh", and we shouldn't have this redirect if it's not actually helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Despite the lack of ambiguity, the analysis above convinced me that such a redirect isn't helpful. Deryck C. 15:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it just seems wholly unnecessary. WP:COMMONNAME. DrStrauss talk  please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is a policy for article titles, not redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 29 July 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.

Ashley Cheng[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.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in target article. Lordtobi (✉) 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only merged content was an infobox entry for the fact the Cheng was a producer [1] and that's too little to require attribution. Restoring the article doesn't seem to be an option as this brief discussion from 2009 shows that he's not notable. The only information that the original article contained was a list of games that he had produced at the time. Given that he's listed as a producer in several video games articles, that same information is easily accessible via the search results. – Uanfala 11:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm seeing news articles about another Ashley Cheng who owns a local ice cream shop in Austin, Texas, [2] [3] [4]. But he was a production director at Bethesda, would he fit WP:LOWPROFILE as just being in the biz? [5] [6] [7] Are there any articles that go into his background? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 7 July 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.

List of Lego games[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) feminist 09:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This could either refer to the list of video games or the board game series "Lego Games". Lordtobi (✉) 14:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Lego Games as the board games are primary topic for this. There is also a hatnote on top for the Lego video games list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - I respectfully disagree with AngusWOOF. If any person types those terms into the search box, it's far more likely that they're looking for the video games than the board games. We really should have a good article on Lego games generally, but in the meantime let's make ...video games the default and add a hatnote. - Richard Cavell (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have favored the video games but because Lego Games has a specific branding, and that there's a physical list for Lego Games, it should stay there. The hatnote will redirect those looking for the video games. . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Richardcavell. Definitely don't think Lego board games are the primary topic for Lego games. It's much more likely to be the video games. This is especially the case, because these redirects do not capitalize "games", which is capitalized in the proposed alternate topic. A hatnote there would be appropriate though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - I agree that the capitalization makes a difference; someone typing in Lego Games is a different case. I also think that the many varieties of video games are far more known than that specific product series. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and add a hatnote. Both targets seem equally likely, but the video games article receives an order of magnitude higher total pageviews than the board game one [8] [9], so it is much more likely to be searched for by readers. – Uanfala 13:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 4 July 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.

CFQR[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 disambiguate as proposed. Deryck C. 09:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFQR is now a callsign of the new 600 AM in Montreal John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify could refer to AM or FM stations equally. Although the AM and FM version seem to be sister stations so maybe an article can be created with a hatnote to the old FM station. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Angus, draft available below the redirect. It could be argued that the present target is at the moment the primary topic, but this seems set to change with time, and for such a small issue I think it's better to get straight away to the expected long-term solution rather than leave it to be revisited in the future. – Uanfala 11:15, 22 July 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.

America-Freedom to Fascism[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 those with a single dash/hyphen with spaces around them, and delete the rest (double hyphens, no spaces, all caps). Due to the divergence of opinions between different groups of redirects, I'm considering the "delete all" !votes as implicitly supporting deletion of at least these, and if the "delete all" !voters strongly think the leftovers should also go, this closure can be considered to be WP:NPASR (I might have done a "delete these, relist the rest" if that was an option).  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot list 11). Generally I would keep these as {{R from other punctuation}} (not {{R from diacritics}} of course) but I am just doubting if the straight hyphen in "America-Freedom" may make this a bit WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Probably all right, with the rcat, but I wonder if America-Freedom may mean something different than a book title. It's probably OK. Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as a reasonable {{R from modification}}. Substituting a colon for a hyphen (with or without spaces) is far from uncommon, especially in environments were colons cause problems. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most, see below I don't see any news searches that use the dash or hyphen like that. And a general search will get to the book using the colon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Pretty harmless to switch out a colon for a hyphen. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear to be in use, and likely because of where the punctuation occurs that this will do strange things to search results. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has been whether or not using a hyphen or dash is appropriate here. Since that would apply to several other redirects to the target, I'm including them for completeness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Swapping out a colon for either dash or hyphen seems plausible enough, I suppose, even though the utility of these is probably marginal. I'm inclined to just leave them alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that more variants have been added to the RFD, so I will update my stance on this. The dashes and hyphens are not used in the news articles or websites, not even Japanese-styled titles like America ~Freedom to Facism~, which would definitely encourage using the dash/hyphen. They almost all use the colon. Some do not include the colon, and there was a foreign language site that used ellipses instead. So I would recommend:
    • Deleting the dashes and hyphens where there are no spaces between America and Freedom like America-Freedom, America-From Freedom
    • Delete double dashes, e.g. "America--Freedom", "America -- Freedom".
    • Delete ALL CAPS variants. This isn't helpful, otherwise you're setting a precedent to redirect every title in Wikipedia from all caps.
    • Keep single dash or single hyphen or ndash as long as there's a space between America and Freedom. This should satisfy those who are just searching by the cover title which displays no punctuation. Keep in mind that those who are looking up the title by search will receive options with the real title by then. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since more were added, delete all, same rationale as earlier. None have any significant activity: none have more than 1 hit in the last 30 days, most 0, one just gave an API error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most per AngusWOOF. PCN02WPS 21:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd rather that these be broken up now given the differences. Some are far more plausible than others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. Finding articles despite some variation on punctuation or dashes is the obvious work for a search engine. We do not need to create every possible remotely plausible variation. This redirect have the exact opposite effect of the intention of having redirects. Redirects should help readers find the right page, instead if I type "america freedom fascism" in the search box I get 10 suggestions, all of them some of these redirects. So we are telling readers that we have tens of pages with similar names, which should they try? Then when they try one and another the pages are... the same? That is confusing... Also, this is taking up space in the search suggestions, thus taking away the chance for the reader to find other pages with similar words in the title. - Nabla (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS this is what the search page look like when I serach for "america freedom fascism". How can this be helpful in anyway?
"america freedom fascism" search
You may create the page "America freedom fascism", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
America: Freedom to Fascism
America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by filmmaker and activist Aaron Russo, covering a variety of subjects that Russo contends are detrimental to
31 KB (4,466 words) - 2017-02-05T05:58:33

America—Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:10

America — Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:35

America – Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:47

America–Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:42

America - Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:28:11

America-Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
419 bytes (105 words) - 2017-04-22T11:40:56

America -- Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
417 bytes (105 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:53

America--Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
417 bytes (105 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:09

AMERICA - FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:28:05

America - From Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:59

America – From Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:41

America–From Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:22

Fascism and Freedom Movement
The Fascism and Freedom Movement – National Socialist Party (Italian: Movimento Fascismo e Libertà – Partito Socialista Nazionale, MFL–PSN), called simply
3 KB (277 words) - 2017-04-19T19:44:46

America-From Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
417 bytes (105 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:56

Definitions of fascism
What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proven complicated and contentious. Historians
45 KB (6,137 words) - 2017-06-28T05:51:06

Aaron Russo (category American activists)
Libertarian-leaning political documentaries including Mad as Hell and America: Freedom to Fascism. After a six-year battle with bladder cancer, Russo died on August
6 KB (623 words) - 2017-03-20T21:57:38

Fascism and ideology
The history of Fascist ideology, or fascism and ideology, is long and involves many sources. Fascists took inspiration from as far back as the Spartans
164 KB (21,457 words) - 2017-06-24T19:42:02

Neo-fascism
Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration
27 KB (3,008 words) - 2017-06-25T18:36:00

Fascism
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control
171 KB (16,736 words) - 2017-06-27T12:34:48

View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Nabla, you're seeing these bizarre results only because these redirects are all RfD-tagged now and the search engine treats them as normal pages. – Uanfala 19:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it still goes to show that the search engine does not need help with the punctuation. And readers do not either (if they do they need to learn something much more basic than what "america--freedom:fascism" is - Nabla (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... wait... So we write a all bunch of variations, in order to help searching the right page, but then we instruct the search engine to ignore the variations? - Nabla (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Nabla. If any are kept (and I can see there might be reasons for this to happen only for the spaced hyphen/dash ones), then they should probably be marked at least as {{R unprintworthy}}. – Uanfala 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:37, 4 July 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.

Idol Minds Digital Entertainment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 24#Idol Minds Digital Entertainment

Menv[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. Keeping disambiguation page because this allows readers to reach all suggested targets. WP:NPASR here or at AfD. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is supposed to be, as the target article does not include this word even once. Lordtobi (✉) 20:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Tin Toy#Production for now since that's where the most information is. The environmental degree would be MEnv, and I would support creation of that redirect to List of environmental degrees#Other 2 per Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included in the dab page a link to Tin Toy#Production. Also noting that there's also a third entry, for MENV. – Uanfala 00:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Many hits for either a "Master of Environmental Science" degree or the Maryland Environmental Service. I'm dubious any of these are notable but an early Pixar animation program is not going to be what very many people are looking for. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of environmental degrees. It's very likely people will look up what this means when seen as postnominals or a degree type and it is mentioned in that list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the existence of several eligible targets necessitate the creation of a disambiguation page? – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Uanfala, the best option is a disambiguation page. There's an article for Marionette (software), the successor/alternate name of the Menv environment. Menv is also mentioned at Tin Toy, and there's this paper about the software. Diego (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good find, Diego Moya. Marionette (software) seems like the best place to link to for the animation engine. But Menv will need to be mentioned there. Do you have any sources that say this is its predecessor? – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I've drafted a dab page below the redirect. There are plenty of sources about Menv being the successor (or predecessor?) to Marionette [10] [11], although I haven't updated Marionette (software) with any mention of it. – Uanfala 13:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:35, 4 July 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.

Bougenvilla[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 Bougainvillea. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bougenvilla" isn't mentioned at all at target article. - TheMagnificentist 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jax 0677, per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people without a Wikipedia article aren't suitable for lists. - TheMagnificentist 08:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is the kind of list like notable alumni/students, not a complete list, so non-notables don't need to be included. The other artists in Spinning have articles because their work has charted. I don't see anything in Dutch Music Charts [12] or Dutch Top 40 but is there another one they might have been listed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but hatnote to Bougainvillea. Google hits are about equally split between the artist and the plant genus but I think the artist should take precedence over the misspelling (even though it is very plausible), a hatnote will cater for those who were after horticulture rather than music. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote to Bougainvillea per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bougainvillea as an {{R from misspelling}}. Keeping it redirected to Spinnin' Records is out of the question as the list there is only for artists that already have articles. A conceivable alternative would be the creation of an article about Bougenvilla, but there was one and it got deleted at AfD in October. – Uanfala 14:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bougainvillea exactly per Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:31, 4 July 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.

Talk:Sally Jones[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 fixed. In this case it's clear that an article was moved, a new article was written on top of it, but the redirect left behind by the talk page of the old article remained. So I'm boldly closing this request and applying {{BLP}} to create a new talk page for the current article at this title. Deryck C. 11:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the redirect. "Sally Jones" is about the ISIS activist, not the journalist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply add project tags, as is normally done, and ideally also a note explaining that until October 2016 this was the title of the other article. – Uanfala 11:41, 4 July 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.

Idol Minds L.L.C[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) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This redirect was previously only used at List of PlayStation games, though all three occasions on that page have been removed. The redirect is implausible, as it uses a variety of "LLC" usually employed nowhere, and probably steams from a typo of "L.L.C.", as taken off the MobyGames or Spong pages (note that the redirect title only has two puncts, rather than three, as you would expect from the usual spelling and as is present in the two links). Rather insignificant, but to be noted, is that it is also not the correct version, as the company is incoroprated as "Idol Minds, LLC" (1 comma, 0 puncts). Lordtobi (✉) 10:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The strange punctuation makes this one a very unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company is also called "Idol Minds, LLC" (no periods) [13] The one with the incomplete punctuation isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected name with source from Colorado Secretary of State website. Lordtobi (✉) 19:27, 10 July 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.

Template:Cc-by-sa[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 deprecate. Consensus is clear that we shouldn't delete these redirects outright because we don't want to break licences of existing files. However, there is a desperate need to take these templates out of current use because the version of CC-BY-SA ought to be explicitly specified whenever one licenses a file under a version of it. Therefore the most appropriate action is to add a message to the template to show on files with current transclusions that they need to be migrated, and to show to prospective new users of these templates that they should use a different one.

Editors who participated in this discussion are encouraged to help notify uploaders of files with these templates and migrate the licences as appropriate. Deryck C. 13:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially inaccurate. There are many CC-BY-SA licenses ({{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). By using this redirect, an editor may accidentally assign version number 1, the least developed version, as the appropriate free license when they really intended to mark the image as free under a different license. This should ideally be deprecated and turned into an error message that encourages use of one of the other templates. Note that all existing transclusions must be migrated over to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} before converting this. ~ Rob13Talk 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unless and until the nearly 500 transclusions (and any other links from file description pages and policies) are bypassed (and consensus should be sought for this before doing so) this needs to stay as it is. After that nominate it again and I'll consider other factors. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13 and Thryduulf: Added four more very similar redirects to this nomination. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: my above comment holds exactly the same for these redirects as well, i.e. keep until all transclusions and references in policy, etc. have been updated by consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: I don't believe you're familiar with how things typically work surrounding template deletions/merges/etc. No-one is ever supposed to bypass template redirects, merge templates, etc. until there is consensus to do so. That consensus is typically developed at TfD. Here, it's being developed at RfD since these are redirects. In other words, this is the normal sort of venue for the consensus discussion you're asking for. The reason we do this is to avoid influencing the XfD process (e.g. Delete: No transclusions anyway, might as well). I personally volunteer to handle bypassing these redirects once consensus is developed here to do so, and I'll do it before the redirects are deleted. It's a very easy task with AWB. There's no other venue particularly suited for such a discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep (edit conflict) - this is not a delete !vote, only an "action is required" comment. Thryduulf is correct that we shouldn't blanket-delete the template because it will break many licensing statements across the project. However BU Rob13 makes an urgent point with legal ramifications that this situation must be dealt with, as copyright is not a thing that we can get sort-of right, and many of these statements are already broken because they are legally ambiguous. Rob, is it safe to assume that transclusions of the template older than numbered versions of CC-BY-SA can be safely bypassed to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: Yes and no. Yes, that's what we should do. No, it's not "safe" any more than it's safe to apply this template in the first place. It won't harm anything further than already harmed to bypass to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, though. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) It's true I don't normally deal with TfD, but I do deal with with RfD daily and the convention is that we almost exclusively deal with redirects as they are, not as they might be in the future (certainly when nothing of that nature has been mentioned in the nomination). I don't see evidence of there having been any confusion about which license was intended either before or after the target was moved from this title to it's present location in 2013 so I'm inclined to keep it as is. However, I note that in January this year the equivalent template on Commons was changed from the redirect it had been since 2008 to a warning, effectively deprecating the tag. That descision was very contentious, but based on the relevant points made there I think we can say that files using this template fall into several categories.
        • Those first licensed before 25 May 2004 (the date the version 2.0 licenses were released [14]) can safely be assumed to be version 1.0 and migrated there.
        • Those directly uploaded to, and first licensed on, en.wp after 10 December 2004 (when the template was changed to explicitly mention 1.0 [15]) can be safely assumed to mean 1.0 and be migrated there.
        • All other files will need looking at individually to determine whether the correct license is 1.0, the latest version (as of the licensing date) or unspecified (which I think means the latest version as of the licensing date or any later version, but check that with a copyright specialist). This includes all those files not first licensed at en.wp.
        In any case, I think that after all the current transclusions have been migrated to an explicit license and all references in policies and upload forms, etc. have been updated that it would be better to deprecate (as Commons has done) rather than delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf: As noted above, I encourage deprecation to a warning message rather than outright deletion. This is redirects for discussion, after all, so I considered this to still be the right venue. This puts me in a bind. Our community norms surrounding templates say I may not bypass any of these redirects to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} if I intend to bring this up for discussion in the future and that such discussions must be part of an XfD, so if this closes without consensus to accomplish a specific something, I effectively can't do anything with this template even though we all agree the current situation is very sketchy from a legal point-of-view. (As an aside, if no version number is specified after version numbers were introduced, we can't assume anything and the license is invalid entirely. There are some legally meaningful differences between versions, so we can't just guess. As a second aside, perhaps what should be happening here is that template redirects go to TfD.) ~ Rob13Talk 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BU Rob13: Generally template redirects are fine here, but it really depends what you're trying to do - if it's part of a plan to reorganise templates then TfD is possibly better. In this case it seems like the better place for the discussion would be wherever file licensing is discussed (Wikipedia talk:Copyrights? WP:MCQ? I'm not sure) as there are copyright issues at the heart of this that RfD isn't best placed to handle. Thryduulf (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, last I checked, redirects for discussion would be the correct place to discuss redirects. That being said, it seems like it'd be a good idea to alert those places of this discussion if wider participation is warranted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to error message per nom since there are many CC-BY-SA licenses. -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep Apart from the fact that transcluding template redirects does slow down the website a tiny bit, this one creates legal ambiguity if people use it without reading the actual template page. So its transclusions should be cleaned up and this redirect be turned into an error message that transcludes {{No license}}. Same for the other redirects, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've left messages at WP:MCQ and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Hopefully knowledgeable users will follow. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't assume. In copyright matters, any speculations about what someone may have meant are dangerous. We have several redirects here that produce, as an end-result, a by-sa 1.0 license on the corresponding image pages. Assuming uploaders may have possibly meant anything else is not sound. So from the perspective of a low activity WP:CP volunteer, you can merge them to a single redirect, you can replace them by the redirect target, you can delete all files as unlicensed, but what you cannot do is change a valid license statement to a warning or error message, or a different license statement, without subverting each uploaders' copyrights. MLauba (Talk) 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MLauba: What has been proposed is to convert all existing occurrences of the five redirects nominated here to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}, so all pages currently bearing the license would retain it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the only thing proposed in the discussion here, and where the !votes stray from that simple conversion, it becomes problematic. MLauba (Talk) 22:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Before there were CC-BY-SA 2.0 or higher, was CC-BY-SA 1.0 actually called CC-BY-SA without version number? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The official deed of the license seems to have included 1.0 from the start December 2002 archived version. The January 2003 version of the Creative Commons website homepage starts "On December 16, 2002, Creative Commons released version 1.0 of its Licensing Project...". I presume that when there weren't other versions that cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa-1.0 were legally equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to error message given the ambiguity. They shouldn't be deleted since CC By SA is a commonly known license type, so it's more useful to have a helpful reminder to use a more specific license than to leave those who would use these redirects with nothing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete. If a "unnumbered" licence is appropriate (can't I just say "I licence under CC-BY-SA"?) then make it a full template. If a licence needs to be "numbered" then turn into a warning and help to choose one. In any case, keep as little redirects from different spellings as needed. ("Template:CC-BY-SA license" is probably best replaced and deleted) Uses must, really must, be assessed case by case in order to check, to the best of our judgement, what was the intended licence placed by the original user of the redirect/template. We should not change someone else's licence (Looong time ago I uploaded a few pictures, with whatever licence I felt better by then, right or wrong. Then some editors decided to change both the template's content and the template in use in those images. I doubt I will ever again upload any image. Not much of a loss, I know :-) but we do not want to lose more and more contributors, do we?) - Nabla (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks sorely ripe for closure, but I'm relisting in an attempt to encourage further input before any decision is taken on a matter that might have important ramifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:01, 4 July 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.

Tess Haubrich[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) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actress's name should not redirect to a movie they are in. Kb.au (talk) 04:02, 4 July 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.

MCDONALD'S[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. The capitalisation is apparently seen as implausible and there's no evidence of it being attested, yet the redirect does receive some pageviews that remain unaccounted for. I don't see consensus either way, nor any prospect of the discussion evolving (it has received no input for almost two weeks). I'm closing it as no consensus, though I'm ready to reopen it immediately in case anyone presents any further argument. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 16:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this seems to attract about 9-20 views a month. Is that enough to keep around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no need for this. Without this redirect, the user will still find what they were looking for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have precedent for getting rid of these sorts of redirects. Even if this is a little bit helpful, I still think that we should get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator - 20 hits a year is reason enough to keep a redirect that is pointing to the correct target, this redirect gets five times that figure. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 16:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete onsite or Google search deals with this better. ALL CAPS just makes it harder for the reader to find the page. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. This in no way interferes with readers finding the page, and ALL CAPS stylizations are used by the company in some cases. [22][23] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link 23 is not a McDonald's site, and the usage in link 24 is within blocks of text where every word is capitalized. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:56, 4 July 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.

Hater Shit[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This name isn't explained in the targeted page, and so seems needlessly offensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The term hater is very common in rap music, so this redirect seems vague and useless. It could also be meant or seen to be an offensive reference to the group or their music. lNeverCry 03:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that 'Hater Shit' is a name of a track on the Purple Reign mixtape (contrary to the nominator's claim, this is mentioned in the target article). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's listed as the name of 6th track so it seems quite clear that this was intended to be offensive.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Inside the Mattress (4th track) and Perkys Calling (11th track) also redirect to this article, while 'All Right' (1st track) is mentioned at Alright (disambiguation). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Hater Shit" is a song on the album Purple Reign. It's perfectly reasonable to redirect a song title to the article about the album on which it appears. Peacock (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you can present evidence that this is notable and thus that we ought to delete it to encourage article creation. Aside from that situation, it's quite reasonable to redirect a song title to an article about its album, regardless of the offensiveness of the song title. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:55, 4 July 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.

Bone flowers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 24#Bone flowers

Borana languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 24#Borana languages

Blowing the coat[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. Discarding the delete !votes (as they were based on the the target not having a mention of the term, which has been corrected), we're left with two possible targets: Coat (dog) and Moulting#In dogs. Both now contain mentions of the term, but the first article has more information and is the more specific of the two topics. Therefore, the redirect should be kept targeted at Coat (dog). (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a made up term, but the target article doesn't discuss this. Do we have any article that discusses this type of shedding? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete X1 Neelix nonsense redirect tagged. Blowing the coat is something a groomer does. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And so Dog grooming may have appropriate content. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Legacypac. Onel5969 TT me 03:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has to do with dog shedding, not dog grooming. Some dogs shed their entire coat in a short period of time. Term is used in a bunch of dog care books. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] This isn't blow-drying a coat which is implied in the dog grooming. Add R without mention on the term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither article mentions anything of the sort, so the redirect is more than useless, it's a confusing and misleading waste of time. Moreover, NOTDICT applies even given the foregoing. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consider adding Blows their coat to this discussion (although it's not a Neelix redirect). -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term also attracts 4-9 views a day so it's not a completely made up term. On the flip side "blows their coat" doesn't have that many views. [31] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard could you add that term to the Coat (dog) article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF (talk · contribs), I do not know where the term belongs in Coat (dog) since it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing sections. Do you know where it belongs? Cunard (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section where it talks about shedding, so I renamed it to Shedding and added the term in the paragraph there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and target to Coat (dog), because that is the target that contains the most substantial information. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article had a section for this term at the time this redirect was created. So calling it "Neelix nonsense" is incorrect. This makes at least three redirects on RfD at present where people are not checking the revision history of the article in question before jumping to conclusions. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having personally processed multiplentens of thousands of his redirects, I start from the position he had no clue though occasionally he got lucky and made a useful redirect. I believe we should have nuked the entire list and let people recreate useful redirects as needed. Legacypac (talk) 14:26, 18 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_4&oldid=1143889512"