Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2018.

Factory (album) and Factory (Buckethead album)[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 Redirect Factory (album), keep Factory (Buckethead album). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of pointless articles being created to complete Buckethead discography, although I restored this redirect, not sure it is of any use with the brackets Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well there are a lot of pointless buckethead album articles being created and this discussion relates to this one particular redirect, there are many many others that could also be discussed.Polyamorph (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there are other albums called "Factory" mentioned on Wikipedia (in which case we should have a disambig), these redirects take anyone using them to the content we have about what they are looking for. No benefit to deletion whatsoever. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's another record called The Factory (album) and Factory Records discography for Factory albums in general AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In which case Factory (album) should be a disambiguation page and Factory (Buckethead album) should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Factory (album) should not be a disambiguation page, that would violate WP:INCOMPDAB. The correct solution would be to retarget to Factory (disambiguation)#Albums and tag {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix (talk) 01:05, 1 May 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.

Dasarahalli, Bangalore Rural[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. Keep the redirect, split the target. I've contacted JHunterJ to do the honors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect now leading to a disambiguation page instead of being a red link. The link to the village is used by Template:Settlements in Bangalore Rural district but now goes circular. The Banner talk 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lots of pages, including some widely used templates, link to dab page Dasarahalli. These are particularly difficult to solve, and help would be appreciated. Certes (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no templates pointing to the disambiguation page any more. I have added a few extra options on that page, to serve the need of those templates. The Banner talk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Names of specific places should not be pointed to a disambiguation title just because the subject has no article of its own. bd2412 T 18:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject had an article of its own. [1]
  • Keep and fix. Split the dab to a disambiguation page and restore the article content from this issue-introducing series of edits. History split involved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'll be happy to do the history split and fix and clean up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this version of the target, before it became a "disambiguation" page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good outcome if we are confident that the town is the primary topic. Certes (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be fair it is the only topic Wikipedia has right now. If articles were to be created on the other topics, then it may be wise to consider disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! Wikipedia doesn't "pre-disambiguate" articles just because of real-world ambiguity. Once there's Wikipedia ambiguity, Wikipedia disambiguation will follow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 2 May 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.

Sociedad Limitada[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) 00:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FORRED, this redirect is pointless and misleading. "Private Limited company" (or whatsoever its variant) is a universal business concept and has no affiliation with any language. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We've also got Sociedad limitada pointing to limited liability company, which is definitely a wrong target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You see. That's just another problem with foreign redirect. More of their problem is yet to be discovered. This is leading people with poor English (who happen to search in their native language) to wrong article and they may not be aware due to the similitude of the two concepts. They are being served wrong information on Wikipedia because of redirect that shouldn't exist in the first place –Ammarpad (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wrong but less specific; content was moved to what became a subtopic, and redirects were not updated. Peter James (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC) This was changed to become an article specific to the United States, with other content moved to a subtopic of limited company. Peter James (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I created the redirect because I found Sociedad Anónima, which is also in Spanish. Sociedad Anónima is wrong? Tajotep (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Private limited company is a universal concept but also a specific concept in countries that use the term, similarly there are various types by country for which those countries' own names are correct (as well as being relevant search terms as they are not translated in companies' names), and there's relevant content specifically for this in at least one country. Eventually it could be that there's an article for each country with a list of company types that tables such as this can be an index to. Peter James (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then this means every language should have redirect to Private limited company. So that everybody searching in their local language will also find the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peter James. This is a term that English speakers are likely to encounter and want to read encyclopaedic information about without know what it translates to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 30 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:CHURN[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Wiki space to user space. The original essay was in Wiki space but was userfied following MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Churnalism. Propose deletion or possibly retargeting to Churnalism, if not against Wiki guidelines. The essay has been mostly used in AfD discussions, so retargeting to a Wiki guideline page that discusses the concept of independence of sources ("churnalism" in reverse) seems appropriate and will preserve incoming links. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Per Wikipedia:Shortcut, shortcuts (e.g. WP:CHURN) "...should not be used in articles themselves". As such, it doesn't make sense to use this shortcut as a redirect to an article in main namespace. Shortcuts such this are handy for users to easily access content, including user essays, many of which have such shortcuts. Furthermore, since the shortcut and redirect has been used in some discussions, it should be retained so that it links to the page that people were referring to, rather than an unrelated page, which would place user comments out of context for future readers. Additionally, no policy-based rationale for deletion or retargeting has been presented. North America1000 01:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Of note is that since the shortcut and redirect has been used in some discussions (see Pages that link to "Wikipedia:CHURN"), they should be retained so that it links to the page that people were actually referring to, rather than a different page, which would place user comments using the shortcut entirely out of context. Not sure how placing said user comments written in the past entirely out of context for future readers would improve the encyclopedia. North America1000 02:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The essay itself has been changed substantively during the MfD, so I don't think the concern about prior discussions is critical here. In any case, there are less than 10 discussions that would be affected. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This proposal to delete/retarget comes across as a solution searching for a problem, which will have an end result of placing information within user comments entirely out of context, which would create factual errors in the encyclopedia. Of note is that there is also the redirect WP:CHURNALISM that is not nominated here, but links to additional discussions that WP:CHURN does not link to. Of concern is if WP:CHURNALISM were to also be nominated as such for redirection to the guideline page, even more comments would subsequently have links to a page that users were not referring to, creating even more context problems and factual errors. North America1000 02:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment: the original essay was removed from Wiki space because its content were not in line with the concept of 'churnalism'. The argument being made by the essay is that the claims of 'churnalism' are too encompassing as to disqualify legitimate sources. Then the redirect of WP:CHURNALISM is misnamed, since Churnalism is quite clear what the concept is about. In any case, even with the addition of the 2nd redirect, there still ~10 discussion. These links can easility be updated, if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Don't think we have consensus, and at any rate, Wikipedia:CHURNALISM wasn't tagged. Is now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:58, 29 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.

Nicholas nasim Taleb and variants[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 7#Nicholas nasim Taleb and variants

Milk Loaf[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 List of breads. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as updated by PamD AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely exists as a thing in UK - will Google and see if can add it to that list when on computer not phone. PamD 05:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Not sure if these results work outside of the UK but there is tons of results on recipes etc, Personally I've never heard of it but there's 70k results so easy keep. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think calling "speedy keep" would be fair to the nomination. It certainly doesn't fit any criteria, rather raising a valid concern that Wikipedia didn't cover the topic at the time. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I put speedy as just assumed it was going to be deleted ..... But anyway retarget per above. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 29 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.

Ammunition bread[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) 22:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No words that begin with the prefix "ammo-" are present in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to represent/identify. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment old term that probably needs to be explained in the context of preparing bread for consumption in the military. [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since History of military nutrition does not explain any special kinds of bread, this should probably be deleted until it is described somewhere useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:19, 1 May 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.

Palace law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 6#Palace law

WONTFIX[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 7#WONTFIX

Pontiac automobile[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. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect given a properly disambiguated version exists at Pontiac (automobile). Practically unused. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 99 hits so far this year indicate that this redirect is very far from "practically unused", rather it's a very plausible search term. We can't expect everyone to know our naming conventions. °Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep easily meets WP:RPURPOSE. Almost 100 people have found it useful this year alone. WP:CHEAP. Finally, the classic advice from WP:RfD itself; "Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.202.102 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Pontiac automobile" would be a car produced by Pontiac, which is well described at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. –Davey2010Talk 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn: Safe to say my judgement here was incorrect. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:11, 30 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.

Neo Pastafarian Church of Costa Rica[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 Restore article with no prejudice to AfD. If I remember in a day or two, I will nominate it for AfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant content on target page. Originally redirected as alternative to AfD. No incoming mainspace links. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I redirected -- additional exchange with Egaoblai here. The impact of deleting this particular redirect is basically nil, however am a little uncomfortable on general process grounds as the page in question didn't meet any speedy criteria, and had been de-PROD-ded (though I don't think it should have been), so redirect => RFD seems questionable given the redirection itself was a slightly IAR. I'm not familiar enough with RFD to know whether this kind of run-around deletion is considered acceptable, but it seems like there might be risks of it being gamed. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD per user:Hydronium Hydroxide. I don't think this was done in bad faith as the redirection and nomination here were by two different editors (neither the one who PRODed) nearly 5 months apart, but RfD should not be used to avoid AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah absolutely no suggestion of bad faith of anyone in this case from creation to redirection (there goes the idea that it would save editor time -- apologies) to nom. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:53, 7 May 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.

Delima[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 De Lima. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the pomegranate definitions and dab entries to that page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the de Lima dab page which contains relevant entries. I don't think any uses of this as a misspelling of "dilemma" are sufficiently prevalent to get in the way of people finding things actually called "Delima" or "de Lima". Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 29 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.

Time in London[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 Time in the United Kingdom. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary in the target article and also mentioned one time only in it. "Time in London" was a concert by Pink Floyd that took place in November 1974 in London during their 1974 tours, but i don't think that someone would be looking for the target article if they seaches for "Time in London" on Wikipedia. I propose deletion or retargeting to Greenwich Mean Time since London uses GMT (except during Summer, British Summer Time (BST) is used instead). Ben5218 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Article on Pink Floyd bootleg can be deleted, because it is already in the list at Pink Floyd bootleg recordings and little information exists about it. I assume that this RfD is meant to straighten out the usage of the phrase "Time in London" as in clocks. A fine idea though I am not knowledgeable on that matter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the Time in London entry should be removed from the bootlegs article? As a redirect, it's okay to Keep, but should be deleted if no longer mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread the history of the "Time in London" namespace and thought that there was once an article on the individual Pink Floyd bootleg that had been redirected to the bootlegs list article. So consider that portion of my comment to be irrelevant. I agree with the basic rationale for this redirect proposal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Time in the United Kingdom (which obviously includes London) as the article most people are going to be looking for. If there is content anywhere about the concert then a redirects here hatnote can be added to the new target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf which seems to me the primary topic for the expression. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:10, 30 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:Tooltip[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9#Template:Tooltip

Geohistory[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. Drafted a quick one from the links below ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, I believe that geohistory is a field in the study of history that emphasises geographical factors and draws on geographical insights, whereas historical geography is a field in the study of geography that emphasises historical factors and draws on historical insights. These are related but not identical phenomena, and redirecting one to the other, especially without any clarification in the target article, is likely to cause confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Arms & Hearts Hi, my reason for creating the redirect was simply that historical geography seemed to be the most suitable article, in the absensce of an actual geohistory article:.
You may also want to consider whether these should also redirect to a future geohistory article:
However, the matter is complicated, e.g. a search in WP for "geohistory" may suggest that the term is more often used in earth sciences (including geology etc) than in history?
That is, "geohistory" may well also be an abbreviation for:

and possibly others?

Grant | Talk 10:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Thanks especially for pointing out that the "geo" in geohistory often refers to geology rather than geography (especially, it would seem, in the works of Martin J. S. Rudwick). Of the possible targets you suggested I think Historical geology is a possibility, but I think that this further ambiguity also suggests that deletion, in the hopes that an article on geohistory can be created, is the best option. This would be in keeping with WP:RDEL point #10. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Arms & Hearts: a further thought: until a Geohistory article is written, it might be better to redirect to a dab page i.e. Geohistory (disambiguation) and reading something like:
Geohistory normally refers to geohistory, the field of historical research that emphasises geographical factors. Geohistory may also refer to:
etc
What do you think?
Grant | Talk 06:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a great solution, or in keeping with the guidance of the manual of style for disambiguation pages on what to list and what to leave out. Disambiguation pages are for articles that share a common name, and per WP:DABRELATED there would have to be at least an indication in each of those articles that the topic is known by this name in order to list them. I still think deletion is the best option. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, geohistory is an abbreviation and, as such, a reader using it as a search term could be looking for one or several of those things. Grant | Talk 17:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. If "geohistory" can mean multiple things, then disambiguating is the way to go. I agree with Grant's proposed dab, but the lede should just be "Geohistory may refer to:" -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 29 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.

Cosmic energy (Cosmology)[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) 22:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not discussed in target article and I do not believe it is a synonym. Appears to have been created solely for the purpose of justifying a dab page of that title. SpinningSpark 01:08, 29 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.

Cosmic energy (General theory of relativity)[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) 22:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not discussed in target article and I do not believe it is a synonym. Appears to have been created solely for the purpose of justifying a dab page of that title. SpinningSpark 01:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, they call it dark energy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term, and without the disambiguation, would never to energy in the relativity context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 29 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:Switch[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. There's history as well as arguments at the TfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No parser function "switch" exists (the parser function is called "#switch" {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came across "#SWITCH" in the source code of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting ( {{#switch: {{FULLPAGENAME}} ... ) and didn't know what it meant. I searched for "WP:#SWITCH" which doesn't work because of the #, but there is a WP:Switch, which is the same soft redirect as the nominated redirect. A redirect "Template:#SWITCH" wouldn't work either, and since the code I quoted looks like a template, the redirect is a reasonable search term. (The use of #SWITCH in the source code of WP:RFD does make it unnecessarily complicated to understand, but that's another story). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhnotsoloud. Whether the # is part of the name or not is not something that we can expect everyone to know. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 30 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.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood[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) 22:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way too soon, this won't going to happen until filming is done. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:C1C6:47D6:2DA1:EB05 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Listen, listen, listen. Though Leonardo DiCaprio himself confirmed—standing right next to Quentin Tarantino at that—not one frame has been shot of this movie yet... they are already doing press about it, together. The whole "This is my next Pulp Fiction" shebang and everything. On top of the fact that Tarantino has already made public statements about it. Which in my opinion, should give the article enough information to start. We know the release date, the writer and director (obviously), most of the top billed cast, the production company, and the premise and all of these have verifiable, notable sources. And clearly the fact that we're here means people are already searching for the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... for articles thay DON'T have the information that this subject already has acrrued. Upcoming films get articles all the time, like that Untitled Avengers sequel that doesn't even have a known title let alone plot. So why not? Trillfendi (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I put it back to redirect as it was only a stub, but I just noticed a previous version has plenty of solid references. As poster above states, DiCaprio, Tarantino and Sony all confirmed it's a GO. TheLostBoy (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as listed in that section. Per WP:NFF film has not commenced principal photography, so making it a separate article is too soon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 1 May 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_29&oldid=1127753109"