Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2018.

New+Jersey coast[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 deleted as G6/G7 by RHaworth. -- Tavix (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see whether or not New Jersey coast already existed, so I typed in "New_Jersey_coast" and seeing that it didn't exist, created it as a redirect to Jersey Shore. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that I had accidentally typed "New+Jersey coast" (plus instead of underscore) until after I had created the redirect, so I moved it to New Jersey coast. Unfortunately, it automatically created a redirect from New+Jersey coast to New Jersey coast. I want to know whether or not this falls under R3 or not because it's a plausible typo when typing in the URL bar but not when typing in the search bar. If consensus here is that R3 applies, I'll request the redirect for speedy deletion under R3 and G7 (because I'm the one who made the redirect). If consensus is that R3 or not because it's a plausible typo when typing in the URL bar but not when typing in the search bar. If consensus here is that R3 doesn't exist, then I won't request it for speedy deletion. I want to know whether or not this case falls under R3 or not before making my mind about whether or not it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have done this myself in the past, I would say it's not plausible for simplicity sake (we don't need a hundred "Two+Word" redirects). ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 00:01, 4 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.

Facebook worm[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 Facebook malware. Facebook malware has since been created and retargeting there appears to be the most appropriate course of action at this time. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this close, please do leave me a message on my talk page (please be civil) and I will respond as soon as possible. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Facebook worm does not exclusively refer to Koobface, there are also ones like Dorkbot (malware). Note that Facebook malware and the like do not exist. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could this be brought to or become a disambiguation page? Would that be appropriate?―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, how about someone creates List of Facebook worms or Facebook malware or something like that, makes Facebook worms redirect to it, and and adds things like Koobface and Dorkbot (malware)? Maybe a category for all of the pages in the list, like Category:Facebook malware, should be created. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:02, 4 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.

Peter Whitehead (sport shooter)[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) 15:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (i.e. potential confusion) - his first name was Percy, not Peter (and I couldn't find any evidence that he used "Peter" as a nickname). An example of potential confusion is that an editor recently re-added this redirect to the Peter Whitehead disambiguation page after it had previously been removed. DH85868993 (talk) 22:27, 3 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.

Irish general election, 2017[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) 15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no general election held in Ireland in 2017. --Nevé–selbert 21:39, 3 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.

CityPoint (Brooklyn)[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. Nomination withdrawn. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building complex is not referred to as CityPoint. Neither are the other City Point (disambiguation) locations. The only one that is combined like that with the capital P is CityPoint in London. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn in light of articles provided below showing that this stylization is useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems harmless enough, {{R from modification}}. Someone must have thought this was the name, perhaps having their mind driven to camel case via its location on DeKalb Avenue. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As page creator, multiple sources (especially when it was new) called it and still call it "CityPoint", 1, 2, 3, etc. Yes, it's not the official name, but that doesn't mean people aren't often wrong. It's a common association like MetroCard and there are frequent mistakes made, like in NetFlix or DeBlasio, to ascribe camel case to obvious portmanteaux, even if incorrect -- like City Point, Netflix, and de Blasio. Doubt its cognitively derived from DeKalb, but it's common and needed. Unless the contention is that people confuse Brooklyn as being in London? JesseRafe (talk) 22:02, 3 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.

Jessee[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. I'll relist if contested; but should be uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple people with the given name Jessee or family name Jessee. This shouldn't go to Darren Jessee as he is not a mononym or primary topic, but I could be wrong, hence the RFD. There is also a Jessee/Miller Field. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indexify should be uncontroversial: we have multiple articles about people by this name, so a WP:APO index should exist at this lemma. Drafted below the redirect. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:41, 4 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.

Klimaatverandering[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. Involved close per WP:SNOW. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages. This is a clear attempt to undermine the explanatory statement(WP:RFOREIGN) to WP:R#DELETE. Only created a few days ago and provides no obvious use to the Encyclopedia. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 20:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Creation of this is obviously a pointy edit. Also it's not reasonable to expect the English language Wikipedia to have redirects for foreign languages. What next, do we need to add the French, German, Urdu, Tamil, Japanese, Swahili, Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Turkish, South African, Ukrainian, Esperanto and Klingon terms as redirects? Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only used by a user wikilinking foreign terms in untranslated excerpts from references; the excerpts themselves should not be used in English-language articles as they are of no use to English readers. WP:RFD#K5 does not apply as it seems obvious the creator was doing so deliberately to make a point about the foreign-language redirects essay, and got themselves blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Delete WP:POINTy. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosley John Bosley (permalink). --BDD (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Created as purely WP:POINTy disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, created to disrupt RFOREIGN as noted above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely, at least unless someone demonstrates that the Dutch (or Afrikaners) invented climate change. Largoplazo (talk) 00:54, 4 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.

Death of Pope Benedict XVI[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 deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are misleading as the subjects are still alive; no information about their future deaths is known. -- Tavix (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's nothing to be found at either target about the death of either figure and no reason why anyone would be looking up either of them, so this is just silly and pointless. Largoplazo (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Though I will admit they are both slightly funny and disturbing, sheesh.) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't it a BLP violation to suggest the death of a living subject? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, it could simply suggest the existence of encyclopedic information on a subject's future death. For example, there is already an article on the Death of Queen Elizabeth II. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wonder if it's appropriate to prepare articles like that whenever someone orders like a coffin or reserves a burial site, or makes changes to their will / trust. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's different. It redirects to an article about plans already in existence for someone's future death. It isn't redirecting to Elizabeth II. Largoplazo (talk) 17:28, 4 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.

Coronation of King Charles III[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 deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If he dies before his mother or he is passed over for whatever reason, he won't have a coronation. Additionally, there is no information about his potential coronation, so the redirect is misleading from that standpoint as well. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I don't see a reason for Redirects like this to exist other than to just confuse the reader. Maybe this needs a Policy debate on RfC to update Speedy Delete criteria for redirects that violate WP:CRYSTAL for events that haven't happened yet. Thoughts? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, SarekOfVulcan. Though, according to that article Charles does not have a coronation in the film as it seems he starts it as King of England. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:16, 3 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.

William, Prince of Wales[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 deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nevé–selbert 18:36, 3 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.
Followup note
Shouldn't Prince William of Wales and William of Wales also get RfD'ed for exactly the same reason?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not G7 obviously, but... ah, heck, if there was ever a case for WP:IAR... Actually, I'm not going to delete them - Prince William of Wales is linked all over the place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But William of Wales wasn't, so he's gone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: See Prince William, Duke of Cambridge#Titles and styles. Before marriage, William was "Prince William of Wales". William of Wales seems to me to be a plausible variant of that, so I'd at least like to see an RfD if that one is to be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, restored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OUYA 2[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) 15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target article. Lordtobi (✉) 18:02, 3 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.

Virtual nation[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 Micronation#Effects of the Internet. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this redirect after someone had blanked it, with the edit summary "Virtual nation is not the same as fictional country." Though blanking wasn't the appropriate way to address that (and I've restored the redirect), I agree with that comment. While that isn't dispositive—synonymy is hardly the only grounds for redirection—the term "virtual" doesn't appear in the redirect target, fictional country, and "virtual nation" implies to me something like an online community that simulates the operation of a country, which is completely different from anything covered at the redirect target. Therefore, I consider the current redirect to be inaccurate and misleading, decidedly unhelpful. I also don't know of an obvious place to point it at, so maybe it should be deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice, that seems reasonable. I endorse that. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 4 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.

LAG Manufacturing Company[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 delete per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this, but in retrospect, solution should be: This should be title of article, the target should be the redirect. I can rename target when this is removed. Current main article (target of this redirect) is named after a division, not the main company. Doprendek (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paging User Tavix, Paging User Tavix. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:20, 3 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.

Bristol park & ride[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 deleted per G5. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a blocked sock. Unlikely search term with and ampersand in the title, users searching for redirect target would probably use full term rather than shorthand Nightfury 15:14, 3 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.

橋彼道[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. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect name in Chinese. 333-blue 14:01, 3 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.

Psychogenesis[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 to delete as deletion was not suggested. @Arms & Hearts: I guess you can do what you like with it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, so the reader who searches for this looking for a definition is left none the wiser. I think this either ought to be a soft redirect to Wiktionary (which has the definition), or the unsourced stub previously at this location ought to be restored. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:30, 3 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.

Microsoft Phone[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. Based on the arguments provided, creation of a disambiguation page appears to be the be appropriate, Within that page it will contain links to all wiki-linked articles within this discussion. If you have any questions are concerns regarding this close, please do let me know by leaving a message on my talk page (please be civil) and I will get back to you as soon as I can. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A UWP app of this name exists (https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/store/p/microsoft-phone/9wzdncrdtbwp). Less importantly, this title may be confused with Windows Phone if someone is searching for a Wikipedia article on a Microsoft-brand phone. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 20:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 3 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.

Celestial bureaucracy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 11#Celestial bureaucracy

LEGO movie (trash)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SNOW. This was clearly meant to be temporary (it looks like the page creator was attempting a round robin page move), so it wouldn't be a stretch to call this housekeeping. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was created way back in 2005 by a new editor apparently trying to delete a redirect after Brickfilm was moved. It doesn't seem to have any reason to exist. Nathan2055talk - contribs 04:09, 3 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_3&oldid=1138582358"