Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 30, 2017.

Bttle[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely typo also for battle, possibly other words as well, WP:XY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a vague misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For what it's worth, Google assumes I meant "battle" and I found four instances of "bttle" on en.wp - 2 in article space were typos for "battle" (which I've fixed), and two typos in talk space (which I've not touched), 1 for "battle" and 1 for "bottle". Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that Bttls exists as a redirect to Battles (band), but as their website is bttls.com this makes sense. I don't regard that article as a suitable target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. XY typo. Not a common abbreviation for Battle or Bottle. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the votes listed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:15, 2 April 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 Karnataka classical music[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. If anyone is itching to create a list, Patar knight provided a good category to start from. -- Tavix (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was recently created in what seems to be an error as a result of a recent moving of List of Carnatic composers, so I retargeted the nominated redirect to its current location as probably the best option. However, I'm not sure that there's a "list of music" on the target page, and for this reason, I think this redirect may just be better off deleted. (Consider me "weak delete" in regards to this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 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.

Gulf of Policastro[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. Per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation as it is a notable separate geographic entity from the town. Brycehughes (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An article is certainly welcome on the Gulf, but if someone does enter "Gulf of Policastro" then this redirect brings them to a highly relevant best available target. It's useful. Alsee (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its first official website link and picture on article indicates Gulf of Policastro. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially since it's currently being used as a circular redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete to encourage article creation. A user searching for the gulf will still see the current target at the top of the search results, along with a few other relevant articles where the name appears. – Uanfala (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation per nominator and Tavix. While there is some relevant content on the article about the town, a separate article would be preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a involved relisting to allow the March 11 log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 31 March 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.

Richard A. Marshall[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. Per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target article offers no information about this person. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment he is mentioned in the references, and is one of the pioneers of electromagnetic railguns, at least according to IEEE Xplore article. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After seeing his work described in multiple sources (see this, as well), I think that maybe the individual merits his own page. WP:REDLINK appears to apply here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation per CWM --Lenticel (talk) 08:53, 5 April 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.

Johnny English the Movie[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 Speeedy Delete, G5. by User:RickinBaltimore Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary redirect Kostas20142 (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Character wasn't around in any notable fashion prior to the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term, like Johnny English (movie) but easier to type. Mark as redirect from non-standard disambigation. Siuenti (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a recently created redirect which was originally a duplicate article, the film is not known by this exact title, so there's no reason to believe someone will search this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very plausible search term for someone looking for the article about the film rather than an article about the character or franchise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 31 March 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.

Theories of Population[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 the first to the disambiguation page at Theory of population, no consensus for the second, so defaulting to retargeting there as well. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading, the target article doesn't discuss Theories of Population. -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support dab per Shhhnotsoloud's changes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Tavix: @AngusWOOF: and others: I think this needs to be a dab page (or list article, or stub) to direct users to many uses. Is it OK if I just do this while it's under RfD discussion? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: it is more than fine that you make a DAB page. Some people (i.e. me) do it by making a draft e.g. Draft:Theories of Population and then listing that here in this discussion. Others do it by putting their proposed replacement underneath the existing redirect, i.e. because the redirect is not actually a redirect at the moment, you can just add the content after the tag for this discussion. Putting it in a draft like I do makes very little sense really, I don't know why I do it that way really, just add it at Theories of Population. a DAB beats an R any day of the week. Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: OK, I'll do that in a couple of days. If admins could help me by keeping this entry open for a few more days I'd appreciate it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC) PS Any idea why I didn't get the ping?[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Hopefully someone who knows population sciences can refine that list later. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 30 March 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.

Stephen Moore (economist)[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Moore is NOT an economist, so it's a misleading redirect. Calton | Talk 06:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The lead of the article states "In 2014, The Heritage Foundation announced that Moore would become its chief economist." so it seems that, whether correct or not, this is a very likely search term. It is also a {{R from move}} and the article was at this title from 2006 to February this year, so it will likely continue to have many incomming links from outside Wikipedia. If it is incorrect, the redirect can be tagged appropriately. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The distinction between "economist" and "economics journalist" is a fine enough one already. We have precedent that, after all, redirects don't have to be strictly accurate. The important thing is for them to be truly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 March 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.

Captain Underpants (TV series)[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) 16:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of a TV series is mentioned at the target, nor can I find one in production aside from fan-fiction series. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article can be re-created should a network or a VOD group produce one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 30 March 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.

Captain underpants(character)[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few redirects that are missing a space before the opening parenthesis (along with minor CAPS errors). -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 30 March 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.

Trollhunters (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. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failed WP:CRYSTAL. There were rumors of a film being made, but they were cancelled and Trollhunters became a TV Series instead. Therefore, there's no film by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. But if it's getting a ton of recent traffic prior to AFD then consider redirect to Trollhunters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't the label "(movie)", by itself, generic enough that it would also apply to a "TV movie"? That redirect might still be appropriate. I'm not sure if the debut episodes of the series are actually a TV movie in terms of advertising, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:00, 30 March 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.

Future Earth (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. A lot of ideas for films are floated in front of DreamWorks all the time, which keeps the rumor-mill busy. DreamWorks' article keeps a list of the films confirmed in development, found at DreamWorks Animation#Feature films in development. The redirects I have listed are not listed there, nor are they discussed elsewhere at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It should at least make a list like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto Tavix' rationale, which is good research! The only one on the list that just might be in question is Me and My Shadow, which if I read citation #108 correctly, might be a proposed alternative name for Shadows. Unfortunately, that citation link is unavailable to me even in the archive. Another small concern is the age – I didn't check the others, however the Me and... redirect is almost five years old. Don't know if that's a point "for" or "against". So best "guess" at this point in time would be to delete that one along with the others.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:03, 31 March 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_March_30&oldid=1088106643"