Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2018.

History of p[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense eubot redirect. Pi is never called "p" {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unlikely search term, meaningless. Lithopsian (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This seems like a reasonable something that a person interested in the history of the English language letter 'P' would type in, particularly if he or she is looking for the information displayed in the section 'P#Use_in_writing_systems' or another subsection of that article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless someone randomly starts creating History of a, History of b, History of c etc etc then I don't see the point of this .... also what I've just realised is the target is Pi not the letter P so as such it's a pointless redirect, Delete. –Davey2010Talk 20:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable media title like The Life of Pi AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 18 April 2018 (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:Abm[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correlation of the abbreviation "abm" with albums (see abm), especially when the just as simple to use {{album}} template exists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Abm" are three letters in the word "album". This TfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{abm}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. "Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete."
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it confused. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copying and pasting would represent more of a time savings (just as you obviously have this copy-and-paste response stored somewhere). I would especially think such unintelligible redirects are inappropriate for WikiProjects. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per nom's follow-up comment to redirect creator. Steel1943 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's no need to have a 3 letter abbreviation for what is only a 5 letter word. None of the 5 bulletpoints copy/pasted by the template's creator convey any coherent defense relevant to this particular situation. I hope they soon figure out that copy/pasting that at every RFD participate in to defend their work, isn't helping their argument. Its confusing, and large walls of text are not conducive to getting further input. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not hard to search for "album" ..... Pointless redirect. –Davey2010Talk 21:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pointless. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The whole point of shortcuts is that they are... short. Unless we have a compelling competitor for this template shortcut or a good reason why abbreviating "(WikiProject) album" to "abm" is wrong, the redirect can stay under the rationale of "somebody finds them useful and it causes no harm". Deryck C. 16:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that is the point of shortcuts however unlike WP: (where Wikipedia is longer) with "abm" you're only missing 2 letters out compared to WP where with Wikipedia you're missing out 7 letters so when you put the 2 side by side one is helpful and the other is pointless..... –Davey2010Talk 16:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I wanted to I could create {{Spf}} to redirect to {{WikiProject Disney}} because I find it useful? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - What is the correlation between Spf and Disney? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2018 (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:NCHESS[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is misleading to editors (e.g., if cited in deletion discussions) in that it implies linking to a subject-specific notability guideline for chess, but no such guideline exists. Instead, the shortcut points at a WikiProject page that does not represent guideline-level consensus. Sandstein 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The guideline was written with the intention of adding it to WP:NSPORT, but it was rejected on the (somewhat dubious) grounds that chess isn't a sport, not because it didn't have "guideline level consensus." The advice there was to place it on the project page. There was no intention to mislead. Are you saying that WP:NCRICKET is invalid too ,because that was drawn up at WikiProject Cricket?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But not because I agree with the notability criteria presented there. The presumption here seems to be that it is misleading to have a shortcut to notability criteria in a format like WP:N[SUBJECT] when those criteria do not have SNG status. But it seems quite common practice for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. There's WP:NAIR for WikiProject Aircraft, WP:RELIG/N for WikiProject Religion, WP:USRD/NT for WikiProject U.S. Roads, WP:LAUNCHES for WikiProject Spaceflight's launch articles, WP:NAIRPORT for WikiProject airports, WP:MANOTE for WikiProject Martial Arts, WP:CUENOT for WikiProject Cue Sports, etc. and then there are the links to essays rather than guidelines outside of WikiProjects like WP:NJOURNALS, WP:BREWERIES, WP:NFICT, WP:HIGHWAY, WP:NHS, etc. I.e. I don't think there's a valid reason to delete here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A shortcut signifies that there is relevant project content at the target page. It does not impart any judgement on the authority of the content. Deryck C. 17:17, 23 April 2018 (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.

Kavalkaran-Silence Means Violence[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. Confusing indeed. It's from 2010, but not clear there's any useful content in the history that the article doesn't contain. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Silence Means Violence" supposed to be a subtitle? A tagline? The article is silent on the phrase, rendering this redirect confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No such term as "Kavalkaran-Silence", and would potentially mess up possible organization phrases of Silence Means Violence. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:03, 17 April 2018 (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.

Modern sporting rifle[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. {{R from non-neutral name}} (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all modern sporting riles are styled after the AR-15 Abote2 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While there have been other uses throughout the past century, the AR-15 style gun has become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since the gun industry (a decade ago?) branded AR-15 clones as "Modern sporting rifle" - with multiple makers selling AR-15 style guns under this nomenclature.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a deliberate misnomer by the gun industry in an effort to hide the fact that these are modified assault rifles. Also this term is used by firearms enthusiasts for other arms such as AK47 [2] at best there should be a DAB such as Modern sporting rifle (AR-15).Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the AR-15 page was called this for a while. It is a gun industry marketing term amd very POV but this is from a page move to correct the problem. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting this would break some links. Feel free to create Modern sporting rifle (disambiguation) or general article about the term; searching finds usage that predates the AR-15. The article describes gun industry usage of the term, so nobody should be surprised by this redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As long as this term is being used by a bunch of media both critical of and supportive of the gun industry (here being an example of an NRA-supportive article on this), the redirect appears genuinely helpful. A lot of readers aren't familiar with the shenanigans related to U.S. gun politics. I agree that it doesn't seem appropriate, but we do have guidelines stating that redirects can be POV-worded and even not strictly factually accurate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I have no objection to creating a DAB page here if there are other uses. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it really shouldn't be a redirect. The term applies to non-AR15 rifles as well. I understand some see is as a euphemism for "assault weapon" but the terms both lack precise definitions and while largely overlapping they aren't synonyms. Really the article shouldn't have been redirected but instead should have been defined as more general than the AR15 Style Rifle article and then included a pointer to the AR15 article. Springee (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only an industry-wide term, but a community wide term (firearms community). It was the article title for 6+ years, and while it's now a redirect, there is no need or cause for deletion. The term is found in numerous sources and is an obvious search term, therefore needs to remain in some form. - theWOLFchild 17:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a synonym for AR-15 style rifle. The redirect should be based on the current common meaning and does not need to account for every technical or vernacular use of the term. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 18 April 2018 (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.

Jessie Ennis[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. Deryck C. 16:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actress who has appeared in multiple films and TV series, so this should not be directed to just one role. --woodensuperman 08:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete She does not meet WP:ENT at the moment. While she has appeared in many shows and films, they were all guest roles, brief cameos, or short film parts. I believe WP:NACTOR's criteria of "significant roles in multiple notable films, shows," etc, means a lead or regular role in at least two major films or shows, which Ennis does not have. Reliable coverage on her is also minimal. It will not hurt to wait a few years to create an article on her if she becomes more notable. 69.118.34.248 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probably known for more than one role, I wondered if redirecting to Jessica Ennis would've been better but Jessica doesn't go by "Jessie" so that too would be pointless, Delete anyway. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable actor. No point in redirecting to the athlete as she has never been called "Jessie."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2018 (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.

Goodwill Ambassador Award[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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:R#K3 -Thibbs (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading since the target offers no content on the Award. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
struck per the below. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2018 (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.

The Dark Magicians[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. Killiondude (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This particular term is not mentioned anywhere in the target article and sounds vague. Which "Dark Magician" is it referring to? We already have a Dark Magician (Yu-Gi-Oh!) that redirects to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game as while the original card used by Yugi Muto is a like a franchise trademark, the archetype and their variants released since the original series is not. The card also does not include "THE" in its name 69.118.34.248 (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "dark magician" occurs frequently in fiction, better to deleted and invoke the search engine for anyone entering this term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not optimal, but Black magic uses the phrase, and is where Dark magic redirects. But the capitalization and definite article suggest a reader would be looking for a specific topic, and it's anyone's guess whether what they're looking for is actually included there. (For the same reason, Dark magic (disambiguation) is a poor choice.) --BDD (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not very good, because the search engines are case insensitive, and ignore articles, and the redirect captures these searches to send the searcher to an obscure article. The current redirect target appears prominently enough in the search results. Oppose guessing a better target, guessing what searchers want is what search engines are for. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. It's true that there's an archetype called Dark Magician but they're not called "The" Dark Magician"s" --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while "Dark Magician" could be tied to Yu-Gi-Oh, having a plural and a leading article doesn't help, and would imply a book or media title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 18 April 2018 (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.

The crossed legs movement: Columbian women lobby for safe highway[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. Killiondude (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search. AmaryllisGardener talk 01:21, 16 April 2018 (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/2018_April_16&oldid=1036307137"