Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2018.

World of Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred[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 Warcraft#Novels. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:43, 6 February 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.

Class Skills (World of Warcraft)[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) 01:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Class skills, and nothing to be disambiguated. Also very WP:GAMEGUIDE-esque. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Going into specific detail on how to improve one's skills in the game is one of those things that Wikipedia just isn't for, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (gameplay concept). No specific term in WoW called Class Skills that needs to be highlighted. Comparable to Skill tree and there isn't a number of Skill tree (game title) dabs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:30, 8 February 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.

Prime Minister of the United States[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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

One would need to live under a rock to think that the United States President is a Prime Minister. Pointless and misleading. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per arguments at previous RFD. Fairly easy mistake to make for people unfamiliar with American civics especially for those who don't live in presidential systems. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redirects don't have to be strictly accurate to be helpful, particularly given how many people may know little about a certain entity. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a rather helpful {{R from incorrect name}} since as an encyclopedia, we must assume that some people are just learning about certain subjects for the first time, and help them arrive to their intended destination using words or terms they know themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:POPE. Yes, most people know this, but the world is a very big place. There was a time you yourself did not know the title of the US's head of state, even if it was when you were a child. Many people live in places with prime ministers and likely assume that countries are lead by prime ministers. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 7 February 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.

Daylight Savings (Chris Brown song)[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) 01:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this song at the target page, the artist page or the discography. Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The album apparently was intended to have a bunch more tracks, and "Daylight Savings" would have been one of them (see here). It may be worth mentioning, expanding the album's article, alongside more information about how exactly Heartbreak on a Full Moon was created. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the redirect when more tracks were listed in the article, but you have my permission to delete if not helpful. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 7 February 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.

Gifter[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. Presumably if more folks show up with the same surname we can make a list, but for now, I am unconvinced by the arguments that "gifter" is too common of a phrase to allow this. In particular, it seems unlikely that anyone looking for gift would need to search for "gifter," so I don't buy that this gets in the way. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested X1. @Emk9:, @EurekaLott:, the tagger and declining admin respectively. The common word meaning one who gives gifts seems primary over the surname. I could not find the person in the first page of google results for "Gifter". Tazerdadog (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd be shocked if someone thought they could get to the target via a common English word. Better to delete amd let the search engine do it's job. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and hatnote to Gift. This reminds me of Paster, which was a similar situation. However, Mordechai does seem to be a little less obscure than Zorba. Searching Google Books gave me three results for the Rabbi on the first page, which seems significant enough, if just that. I'm also pondering if it's actually a common-enough word. For me at least, I think I would use "gift giver" or similar over "gifter" (however, regifter doesn't seem that obscure to me...). -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As stated above, the religious figure appears to be significantly notable to where this makes sense, although I'm not sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I tagged it as x1, @Oiyarbepsy: had moved it to the x1 section on the Neelix list, and I didn't know the admins looked there (and that they actually prefer the redirects be placed there and not individually tagging them), so I tagged all of them x1. Emk9 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because him name happens to be a common word. Otherwise this would be a clear keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; one who gives gifts is a "giver", and a spelling mistake like this doesn't warrant getting rid of a reasonable redirect. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The commonness of the word is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:19, 11 February 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.

Fluorescencent protein[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) 01:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to make this misspelling? If kept, this should redirect to Fluorescent protein rather than Green fluorescent protein. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausable misspelling. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The odd term "Fluorescencent" appears to be used online on a bunch of different websites (perhaps intentionally, maybe with this being an example). I don't see a clear connection between this term and medicine, though. Perhaps a translation error is occurring somewhere? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Correction of misspellings should be handled by the search engine. Millencolin (talk) 11:42, 7 February 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.

Category:Woodwork of West Bengal[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. See closing comments below—and hey, how often do you see a closing comment bigger than the discussion? --BDD (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for growth. —swpbT go beyond 19:14, 6 February 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.

Category:Handicrafts of West Bengal[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. It's never been entirely clear whether category redirects belong at CfD or RfD. I usually lean the former, since they're not true redirects, and since, like this one, the discussions are likely to involve references to category standards rather than redirect ones. Still, this isn't procedurally invalid, and there appears to be no opposition to deletion. If we can delete actual articles after a week without objection, surely this can go too. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMALLCAT with no potential for growth. —swpbT go beyond 19:14, 6 February 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.

Dicks[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 retarget to Dick. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be consensus at Talk:Edmond de la Fontaine#Requested move 10 May 2017 that the current target is not the appropriate WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for the nominated redirect; however, such a change was never made. So, to put it bluntly, I propose that this redirect to be retargeted to Dick. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Retarget to the DAB pages where there are many Dicks listed. Legacypac (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - 'Dick' is a disambiguation page that helpfully lists a variety of linked articles for readers to examine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 09:28, 7 February 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.

List of designers of the Final Fantasy series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 16#List of designers of the Final Fantasy series

Comparison of Final Fantasy Titles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 15#Comparison of Final Fantasy Titles

Federal President of Switzerland[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 President of the Swiss Confederation. That is, keep but pointed at the now-settled location. These are useful to cross sociocultural boundaries and, as shown, has been used. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong new construction, this term does not exist at all, just created for a (erroneous) move. ZH8000 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. It's not implausible that someone would refer to the presiding officer of the Swiss Federal Council as "Federal President". We have functional redirects from titles that are much more wrong, such as Prime Minister of the United States. That said, this is new enough that this would be the time to delete it if we wanted to. I hope the user who moved to this title will explain his rationale. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At least one publication from the official Swiss government website uses the exact term "Federal President". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bypass double redirect, or not, depending on where the target lands (it currently seems to be in flux). Either way, keep as a plausible search and WP:CHEAP. --NYKevin 01:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Misleading name for a title that does not exist. We don't have Federal President of the United States either. — JFG talk 13:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask me, I'd kill the misleading Prime Minister of the United States as well. — JFG talk 22:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that a prior discussion kept the "PM of US" as a {{redirect from incorrect name}}, that does make sense. The equivalent here would be Prime Minister of Switzerland to help people who assume that any country has a PM. However, "federal president" doesn't help at all, it only creates confusion by implying there is some other president who is not the federal one. — JFG talk 23:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the discussion JFG links mentions, people outside the US or unfamiliar with its politics may use the search term "Prime Minister" in error. It would be interesting to see the stats on how often the redirect is used, and consider this in the discussion. = paul2520 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this warrants more attention and discussion, but keeping in mind WP:OSE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not help people find the tatget just creates confusion. These redirects get copied and mirrored. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's used by various reliable entities, including even the official Swiss government website, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. The term does get some use (eg: [1][2][3]) and it is the correct target for anyone searching using this term. If it's truly incorrect, tagging it as {{R from incorrect name}} will make it unprintworthy. Also note that my search revealed a lot of the usage to be from works translated from Russian. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets and Tavix. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Opposition by anyone following Coffee is ludicrous; you'd be saying that the Swiss government doesn't know what it's talking about. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we all think better after coffee? --BDD (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While my initial comment leaned this way, I realized I hadn't formally registered a vote. --BDD (talk) 02:09, 12 February 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.

All In (Chris Brown song)[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 speedily deleted (G7) by GB fan. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No song on target, Chris Brown or his discography page. No other likely target. Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from page creator: This title must have appeared in the article's text at some point, otherwise I would not have created the redirect, but I am fine with the page being deleted. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: This is what the target looked like when you created the redirect, and the song was in the article as part of the track list. The source is a "sneak peek" Instagram post. However, All In didn't make the final cut. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for double checking. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 7 February 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.

Aukje[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 Auke (name). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target and an implausible spelling. PRehse (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I am the one who put this redirect in, and you are quite right in pointing out that it is incorrect. I was dealing with Frisian boy's and girl's names at the time. 'Auke' is Frisian boy's name, and 'Aukje' is its feminine counterpart (comparable to 'Antonio' - 'Antonia', which you're probably more familiar with). Anyway, this was one and a half years ago, so I don't remember it clearly, but obviously I must've made a mistake, thinking that the Auke page is about the Frisian boy's name. So this redirect can be deleted. It would be better, though, in my opinion, is 'Auke' was renamed 'Auke (people)'. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Seems the best solution. ('Auke (people)' sounds okay, too, for the 'Auke' page, but that's really a separate discussion.) Nihola (talk) 02:37, 12 February 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.

Digital (Soulja Boy Tell' Em song)[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 Soulja Boy#2009–10: The DeAndre Way. It's mentioned at the target, and as Tavix rightly points out, digital is a damned hard word to search for. Who knows if the single line will remain, but it seems interesting for fans and is sourced. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No similar named song at the target or discography page. Richhoncho (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The song is mentioned in the section that AngusWOOF links to, and the source used shows it as a track on the mixtape, but the source does not verify that the song was to be a single from The DeAndre Way. Soulja Boy has released over 50 mixtapes, so individual songs from these mixtapes are going to be super trivial to list/mention in a biography or discography. Furthermore, It's a hard thing to search, because the word "digital" is used for so many other things. If it's sourceable that this was to be a single, then it seems like it would be noteworthy enough to mention (as it is now). Otherwise, I'd support removing that sentence from the Soulja Boy biography and deleting the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CLCStudent: why? -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not similar enough. CLCStudent (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What does that mean? -- Tavix (talk) 15:28, 6 February 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.

United Conservative Party (Canada)[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) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title created just yesterday as an ill advised page move of the primary topic. That move was swiftly reversed, leaving this redirect from moving the page back to United Conservative Party. The party is based in Alberta, a province of Canada, but to label it a "Canadian" party is problematic as it is not a federal party. Several, but not all, federal Canadian political parties have provincial wings in some provinces, but UCP is only provincial not federal, and not affiliated with the Conservative Party of Canada but the redirect includes all the key words for the federal party. making this a misleading situation by labeling it "Canada". There is also a defunct United Conservative Party (Chile) which is not the primary topic and no DAB is needed as the Chile party is hatnoted. Legacypac (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support moving to United Conservative Party (Alberta) as this is a provincial party that only exists in Alberta. Nixon Now (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Would support that as well, but it needs to go through the proper move discussion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see the argument, but the party in question is indeed Canadian. So what's the problem? There isn't another party in Canada with this name. If we determine there is no primary topic for "United Conservative Party", (Alberta) may well be the best qualifier, but that doesn't mean (Canada) is unsuitable as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was determined already that the Alberta party is the primary topic. I expect they will form the next governmemt in Alberta as the predecessor Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta held power for decades. United Conservative Party (Canada) is too close to Conservative Party of Canada making it bad for search. Further the federal party is the result of a "Unite the Right" effort. This redirect is not used anywhere, is not needed for linking, and the project was fine without it. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could add "Not to be confused with Conservative Party of Canada" to the hatnote, then. I still don't find this title problematic as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Party is Canadian and the only Canadian party of this name (and if there were others, this one would be the PRIMARYREDIRECT). A hatnote might be helpful since the modern CPC came as a result of the PC/Canadian Alliance merger. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep - I can see a future discussion about this article at its current space. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. There have been numerous iterations of big-C Conservative parties at the federal level that have united at one time or another, though none have used the formal name "United Conservative Party", making this redirect both incorrect and vague. The current federal Conservative Party of Canada is the result of a union between the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and Reform Party of Canada after a long campaign popularly known as "Unite the Right" (also United Alternative); the resulting Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance was (and is) commonly known as a United Conservative Party to distinguish it from the older party (which attempts to live on as the Progressive Canadian Party). That party changed their name quickly due to the unfortunate resulting acronym, to just Canadian Alliance, then they just gave up the image and went back to Conservative. But there have also been the Unionist Party (Canada) (a union of Conservatives and pro-conscription Liberals in WWI), and the old Liberal-Conservative Party was a somewhat informal union of Conservative political elements. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are truly more than two topics that could be referred to as "United Conservative Party", we'd need a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pages on each party, and their name chnages and mergers properly lay things out. The problem is the misnomer of adding (Canada) to UCP. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if we suppose readers are searching "United Conservative Party", with or without "(Canada)", and are looking for a topic besides the parties from Alberta or Chile, we'd need to provide for that somehow. Expecting them to trawl through wikilinks in the article for one provincial party is doing them a disservice. Again, this is only a concern if there are indeed more topics readers would seek under this name. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a disambiguation page would fail WP:PTM, as none of those entities were ever actually known as "United Conservative Party", they were merely united Conservative parties. The error is in the (Canada) disambiguator, as no such entity exists nor has ever existed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they'd fail PTM, I don't think they're relevant here. A lot of political parties are democratic or republican, for example. If this were United conservative party (Canada), various other parties that are united and conservative would matter more. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only to have parity/parallelism with Chile. UCP isn't a dab at the moment because of WP:2DAB, so as long as it's the primary topic over United Conservative Party (Chile), I don't see why the (Canada) disambiguator is unreasonable. It's not absurd to think someone might recall it as "the one in Canada" as opposed to "the one in Chile. Alberta is certainly not recognizable/known as Canada. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:33, 15 February 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.

Ym prat[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) 16:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete game detail as example of how to translate Al Bhed language. As this particular phrase is not discussed at the article target, this should be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 8 February 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.

Locations in Spira[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) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real life city that was formerly called Spira, this can obviously lead to confusion and should be deleted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:40, 6 February 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 Lost Cities of Spira (Final Fantasy X, X2)[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) 02:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not refer to "lost cities" and has essentially nothing about them. Implausible redirect and disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Discussing the ruins of past cities within certain video game levels is something that Wikipedia really isn't for. As with so many other redirects, this sort of trivia isn't important. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 8 February 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.

Arkavansham[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) 19:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this was redirected, as there is zero evidence that this is actually an alternative name and not some new invention only used on enwiki and some mirrors. Fram (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The current situation (this title redirecting where it does) was the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkavansham; this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there is no merge history or anything else that needs to be retained, "redirect with history" in the sense that the redirect may not be deleted seems incorrect here. Yes, there is a page history, but that would be deleted at an AfD as well and is in itself not a reason to keep something. Fram (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My previous comment is neutral as it was just meant to point out details to any participants. Any closer is free to ignore my previous comment in regards to forming consensus for this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The AfD closer opted to redirect as an alternative to deletion, but nobody came up with any evidence that this title is actually used as a synonym of the target. Most participants of the AfD agreed that unless evidence was found, deletion would be acceptable. Deryck C. 13:01, 13 February 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.

Fire Temple[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. We have R from alt caps for a reason, and this is a good one. We're not to say how people may or may not capitalize what they're looking forward, and in this case we've got a clear target.


Besides, the water temple is more fun. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is essentially procedural; this redirect was formerly a disambiguation page with two entries. In addition to the current target, the other entry was for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as a location/level/stage in that article's subject. However, the subject as related to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has no standalone notability, not identified in the article in a way which explained it, has a vague title, and is unnecessary WP:GAMECRUFT. (If I had nominated the disambiguation page on WP:AFD, it could have been closed to "wrong forum" since I would have been seeking a result other than "delete".) Anyways, by default, my opinion is "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd actually say "delete". There may be a place called the "Fire Temple" in countless video games, but it's certainly not the same as a generalized "Fire temple" in Zoroastranism.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator comment: Yeah, for me, "keep" or "delete" is fine by me, but I'm essentially leaning "keep" because it's a {{R from other capitalisation}}, and there's no other topic that could qualify for the capitalized "T" per WP:DIFFCAPS. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is clearly a good {{R from other caps}}, and as multiple people have said, there is no other viable target. This is from 2004, so I don't want to delete it when it has an obviously valid target. --NYKevin 02:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; a millennia-old active religion is primary over any number of video games. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 February 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.

Redirects to List of recurring Mario franchise enemies[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 most, keep cataquacks, IAR retarget albatoss. Tavix has rescued Cataquack(s), but three weeks later no opposition to the rest. Worth mentioning that many of these have been out of that list for over half a decade. It's not exactly consensus, but rather than delete albatoss I agree it's a reasonable typo for albatross. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects represent enemy characters in the Mario franchise that are not mentioned in the target page, most likely due to lack of notability to be mentioned at all per WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to keep together with the below discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cataquack and Cataquacks. They have appeared in several Mario games, so I have written a section about them at the target. The rest seem less prominent and may be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: With the addition to the target article, my concerns with Cataquack and Cataquacks have been resolved, so thus I am okay with "keep"-ing those two. My opinion remains unchanged for the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 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.

Redirects to List of Mario franchise characters[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 nabbit, delete the rest. While I'm sympathetic to the notion that some of these could get be useful if pointed at a relevant game, I'm not seeing the evidence for that. Nabbit is at least mentioned, so the least we can do is keep a redirect, but many of these got removed years ago and the games in which they are present are well-formed (SMW2:YI is a GA, even) so I find it unlikely there is a major gap in coverage. Salvidrim! I think the first source for Raphael Raven is reasonable even though it's someone musing, but I think you need one or two more that, unlike the other links, are not just references in passing, to warrant mentions or redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are uniquely-named characters (and/or spelling variations of their names) in the Mario franchise which are not mentioned in the target page or List of recurring Mario franchise enemies, most likely due to WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE issues. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Implausible, pure fancruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
retarget & mention Koopa the Quick at Koopa Troopa#In video games as there is some coverage ([4], [5], nothing major but plenty for a mention)
retarget & mention Raphael Raven/Raphael the Raven at Yoshi's Island#Reception as there is coverage in sources mentioning this boss fight as innovative and memorable ([6], [7])
delete the rest. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:00, 13 February 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_February_6&oldid=1037876365"