Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2018.

Vaas Montenegro

[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REDLINK this could stand to be deleted to encourage a page to be created here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that this should be an article, so support.★Trekker (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this needs to stay at RFD then but should be discussed at Far Cry 3 on whether there's enough notability to spin out a character article. Unless you want us to determine that? Otherwise, there's enough to Keep. A deletion is not required to start a character article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see scope for a notable article at this time. If someone wants to create one, they can simply overwrite the redirect. In the meantime, this redirects to the proper place where someone can learn about the character. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep spinning out an article does not require deleting the redirect. And I don't think in the general case, that video game characters need separate articles. You could just create a List of Far Cry characters and list all of them there, just like any other video game series. There are few video game characters that don't end up being merged back into their main articles or character lists, so I don't think this character will survive as a separate article. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 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.

X-Ray Scope

[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 X-ray optics. Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far too vague to redirect to Metroid. Should be deleted and let the search function do its job. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:23, 12 January 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.

Metroid creatures

[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. on deletion. Retargeting to Characters in the Metroid series (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not really mention creatures. Pointless redirect - delete. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:06, 12 January 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.

Stephen Hawking Space

[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) 07:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a stub about Hawking's trip on a zero-gravity plane. His main article touches on that, as well as his proposed trip to space proper. But this doesn't strike me as a likely search term for either. I recommend deleting as an unlikely search term or retargeting to Gibbons–Hawking space—while Gibbons' name comes first, it's plausible to me that someone would only recall Hawking's while searching for this concept. BDD (talk) 21:38, 12 January 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.

Game of Bones

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#Game of Bones

Angel Studios

[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. Killiondude (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a redirect to Rockstar San Diego; however numerous articles such as 21 (Adele album) refer to "Angel Studios" meaning the Angel Recording Studios complex in London, so I changed it to a disambig. This was reverted with the rationale "Many pages link here" by Lordtobi, to which my immediate response has to be "so what?" The studios have been around for nearly 40 years and IMHO have a far greater claim to being the primary topic. (The article is new and not very well sourced, but the coverage is out there). I think leaving this as-is is incorrect and caused by our systemic bias. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:TWODABS tells us not to use disambiguation pages for ones that would have a low number of entries (in this case, two, of which one is/was never named "Angel Studios", just similarly). As Rockstar San Diego is clearly the more notable topic, and the hatnote is already in place, having "Angel Studios" redirect there is perfectly fine. Lordtobi (✉) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not strictly true, because of the common name guidelines - both 21 and Power Windows (album) have "Angel Studios" in the infobox (link now added), as does Scandinavian Nights, Eyes Open (album), Mike Connaris, Six Celan Songs • The Ballad of Kastriot Rexhepi, The Day's War, William Goodchild .... well, you get the idea. I suspect if I dug through all the articles linking to that term, I'd find more albums. I wonder how many have accidentally linked to the gaming company, and then been reverted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) [...]", how users input the name in infoboxes cannot be called "reliable sources" (Wikipedia is actually considered unreliable by Wikipedia). Of the web-based sources in the article, only two actually mention the name, one, "M Magazine", says Angel Recording Studios, while the other, "De Wolfe Music", says Angel Studios. I'm not sure if M Magazine is a reliable source, though I doubt it, while De Wolfe Music clearly is not, it is a primary source of the studio owners.
If the name is spelled out incorrectly in some infoboxes, they should be corrected. Actually, if you dig through these pages' histories, you will find that I incorrectly renamed them, thinking exactly what you thought above—"Angel Studios" being the proper name—but I was wrong and turned the filter off later on; and I must apologize for not having backtracked and un-corrected these pages in the first place. Also adding here that the studio is incorporated as Angel Recording Studios Limited. Lordtobi (✉) 17:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from on this now. I'll leave this discussion open for a bit to see if anyone wants to put their 2c in; if not I don't mind quietly closing it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the Angel Recording Studios link to some 100+ pages, which should, AFAICS, be all of them. And although this sounds like a lot (let this also be note for future contriubutors to this discussion), WP:INHERIT says that topics are not notable just becuse they have notable related topics.
P.S. I have also undone your disambiguation on Imaginaria, as the link/redirect to Rockstar San Diego was correct (since Angel Studios used to be an animation production company until the late 90s, and did produce the short named in the article). Lordtobi (✉) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a mistake and should have been reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:20, 12 January 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.

I Suck

[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 Here Comes the Fuzz. Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Here Comes the Fuzz, which has a song by this title. Someone saying "I suck" is exhibiting low self-esteem, but that's far too tenuous a connection to justify the redirect. This is the sort of thing I'd usually be WP:BOLD about, but the redirect history shows a lot of back and forth. BDD (talk) 20:40, 12 January 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.

Amor propio

[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) 07:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED once removed. Wiktionary says this is Spanish for self-love, but lacking a firm connection between a Spanish-speaking culture and self-love or -esteem, this isn't a suitable redirect. BDD (talk) 20:39, 12 January 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.

Defunct

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#Defunct

Process context identifiers

[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. as retargeted during the course of discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A wrong/confusing/useless redirect. PCID and CPUID are completely different things. The CPUID article just mentions the PCID-support flag in the table of CPUID features, which does not help anything (the redirect is even not to that specific table, but to the whole article). As is, this redirect should be deleted (apparently, there is no better target). Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Process context identifiers correctly redirects to a mention of the feature in the CPUID article (section CPUID#EAX=1:_Processor_Info_and_Feature_Bits). This is quite normal as a list entry, and a redirect to a section where it's mentioned. Both those are now true. The redirect is in use in two articles and a dab page. Widefox; talk 18:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:Mikhail Ryazanov. Widefox; talk 18:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. A good discussion of PCID can be found here it is completely different to CPUID. With the current storm around Meltdown a lot more people will be looking for this, so it's worth having a semi-reasonable entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.116.105 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed with above two assessments. Nothing to add. Akostadi (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Useful. Create the article. It can guide to what little we have until then, but I doubt it's notable as a topic per se. It's correctly marked as a redirect to a list, which CPUID does list this, and I don't know a better target. FYI, this topic has been in the dab PCID as a WP:DABMENTION for months, but now the dab is improved by using the redirect there, so it's also useful at the dab. The fact that nobody has yet created an article on it, doesn't mean it's not useful. The assessment above indicates there will be reader demand, which is why I held off creating the redirect and used the dab until now, but the article Kernel page-table isolation used the term without the acronym so the redirect that was not created but listed on the dab, was needed and useful now (I'd refrained from creating months ago). It's not misleading, just not very useful. I believe we don't delete useful redirects. Widefox; talk 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to section  Fixed. Widefox; talk 13:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not help at all. It is even harmful, since the reader will have to go through that rather long section just to find out that there is basically no additional information (the existence of this feature was kind of obvious from its mentioning). If you want to do something helpful, create a stub section in Translation lookaside buffer (or wherever it is appropriate) with one sentence and a reference to some external source. Or at least switch the redirect to Control_register#CR3 and mention there that PCID is the lowest 12 bits of CR3. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mikhail Ryazanov see WP:RGUIDE good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. yes. I can't see how this nom is any of WP:RFD#DELETE.
The lack of additional information or frustration of the lack of an article, or proposing a "stub section" whatever that is, is offtopic here at WP:RfD, more WP:AfC . Widefox; talk 22:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Widefox, CPUID is surely not "the article they were looking for". User:Widefox, the PCID page has essentially the same information as CPUID and is much shorter. User:Widefox, see WP:RGUIDE: In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader. User:Widefox, as I explained above, this redirect in its current state is actually harmful to the reader.
Ping User:Widefox. (User:Widefox, by the way, there is absolutely no need to ping me or mention me every time when you reply to my own words.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CPUID mentions the topic, and per WP:DABMENTION it is valid at the dab. Not only do I disagree with you, I don't think the nom to delete is in line with guideline as this applies:
WP:RFD#KEEP 3, 5, 7 apply 5. Someone finds them useful. 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. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility. yes in 2 articles + yes a valid DABMENTION of the acro (which may as well be defined) + yes pageviews is at 4000 views per day [1] 7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, ... I think we all agree that's plausibly but unlikely, but a redirect to a section (yet to be written) is most likely 3. They aid searches on certain terms.... It doesn't help readers to try to delete a redirect that thousands of readers are using, when it targets the best place we have. (don't understand what you mean about PCID, but please ping me once if there's something guideline based to say, no times if not.). This RfD just hinders thousands of readers per day currently, forcing them an extra click and should be SNOW closed. Widefox; talk 02:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So far it seems that only you find it useful. I suppose, if wmflabs had a WTFmeter in the pageviews, it would probably read very high, as those thousands of people are indeed interested (due to the recent events) what PCID is, but find a completely misleading stuff there.
Now, when I looked closer at what you wrote in PCID, I am sure that you misunderstood what Intel's PCID is (it is not "a CPUID feature bit" and not in "the x86 architecture"). I have corrected that disambiguation page and added short descriptions to Translation_lookaside_buffer#Address-space_switch (creating a redirect Process-context identifier to that section) and Control register#CR3. All these can be improved/extended, but at least they make much more sense.
This redirect (Process context identifiers) probably can be retained as "a frequent misspelling" (although I have corrected all the article links), but should be retargeted to where Process-context identifier points. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* Retargeted to Translation lookaside buffer#Address-space switch. Good work, much better target now. I suggest you take up your spelling feedback with the actual editors of CPUID (clue - not me), but actually check the source they used beforehand - the spelling they used was correct "Process Context Identifiers, PCID" [2]. Further, if you read WP:DABACRO then we just mirror what the articles say, in the article where the acro is defined (that's me, done correctly). What I personally understand is irrelevant, but if you look at my edits you will see, but the timing of when I created the dab to assist readers for the acronym it was when PCID support was added to the Linux kernel. Widefox; talk 23:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for assisting readers and WTF, what part of forcing 20K readers a day to click twice instead of once due to the RfD tag helps them Mikhail Ryazanov? This could have been retargeted seamlessly without any of the above, but not until the content was written. Widefox; talk 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we can close this as it is now. It might eventually move around, since (finally!) other people have started improving the bare minimum that I've wrote, but in the current state it is at least workable. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pls close. Next time think twice about conflating redirects with article content issues for highly visible redirects Mikhail. This was always a SNOW close, so the quicker the better for readers. Widefox; talk 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that it has been retargeted 3 times since nominaton, so your "keep" actually means returning it to the original state (→ CPUID). Do you really want that? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this was unclear. What I meant to keep was the status of the link at the time of my vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_context_identifiers&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=819464391&oldid=818840451
This reflects the consensus reached by the participants except for that the link target now uses an embedded anchor rather than a section header for easier future maintenance (best practise).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 18:35, 12 January 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.

Elimar

[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 indexify/listify/anthropomorphnymise/you-name-it. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There a lot of people, named Elimar. Redirecting it to Count of Oldenburg creates confusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any other people named Elimar, so I figured a redirect would be better than nothing. I'm sure a disambiguation page would be fine, too. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:10, 12 January 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.

ポケモン,

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pointless due to the comma. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:21, 12 January 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.

Pokémon Characteristics

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems implausible and has little relevance to the target page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:18, 12 January 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.

Pokemon drawing

[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 Pokémon Art Academy. Killiondude (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target page does not mention drawing anywhere. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:17, 12 January 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.

بوكيمون

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Not from the original language of the page's subject. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:08, 12 January 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.

Italian sex

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across these while trying to find a target for #Sexuality in Italy below. Neither slang name is mentioned at mammary intercourse, and I can't find good sources confirming they're correct in order to mention them there. (The ever-reliable Urban Dictionary supports this definition of "Spanish sex", but defines "Italian sex" defines it in terms closer to intercrural sex. Neither that article nor the general non-penetrative sex article mention "Italian" or "Spanish" either.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nominator's findings. Apart from being confusing/misleading since we have no actual descriptions of either act and they may refer to other things, these feel vaguely racist. Wikipedia is not censored but is also not offensive for no reason. Curious that Spanish sex has a reasonable level of pageview activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 12 January 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.

Sexuality in Italy

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Disambiguate The current redirect makes no sense. Ancient Rome extended all the way around the Mediterranean, and modern Italy is unrelated to this topic article. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:11, 12 January 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.

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

[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. On deletion; retargeting to "Duke of Sussex" per support for that (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nevé–selbert 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:37, 12 January 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_January_12&oldid=1037876541"