Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2018.

CanonAEDE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 8#CanonAEDE

Yanela Brooks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 8#Yanela Brooks

Yanela Piñera[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 procedural close. An article has been created. -- Tavix (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nonsensical redirect from a person to an event The Banner talk 21:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close drafted a stub. Agree with nominator that all these Yanela redirects are unhelpful; should have been left as a redlink to encourage article creation, particularly given the WP:XY problem (she's been a member of two notable ballet companies). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request speedy close as keep, replace redirect by article The IP made a worthwhile article about this lady. The Banner talk 11:21, 7 July 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.

Yanela Meister[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 and the section has been removed. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nonsensical redirect from a person to an event The Banner talk 21:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and remove all the withdrawn candidates from the target article, given the lack of WP:RS; searching on their names gives nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 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.

Yanela Chacón[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nonsensical redirect from a person to an event The Banner talk 21:17, 27 June 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.

Module:Cite DNV[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. Unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(target was originally at Module:Cite DNV/sandbox )Delete as inappropriate redirect to module sandbox. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:47, 27 June 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.

Eminence (DJ)[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. While it's true that redirects on topics that are listed within a wider article are usually kept, that's not the case here because Eminence is not listed in the target. That, combined with a concern that the disambiguator is not correct demonstrates that the delete arguments are stronger. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is Eminence here? It's confusing because all that's at the target is a simple listing that explains nothing about the redirect. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:A90D:1BD8:2F6A:557B (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE; "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include […] sub-topics or other topics which are […] listed within a wider article". Jc86035 (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eminence was removed from the target article as of revision 846505937. Pinging Jc86035 for a possible second opinion in the matter. 99.203.31.73 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first, the disambiguator doesn't seem correct, they're apparently a duo [2] rather than a single DJ. Second, editors of the target have decided that it should only include a list of the label's current artists, meaning that content about Eminence won't appear there (and we might end up with an WP:XY problem if they move to another notable label). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 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.

Mao Zedong Holocaust[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Holocaust" not used in target page (one of many redirects created by now-blocked editor with same target) PamD 16:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Maybe it's not directly used in the article, but isn't this an acceptable search topic? That is unless, the 4 searches for this phrase in the last month are way too low to argue this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Event is never referred to as a Holocaust. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Also per WP:CSD#G5: the sockmaster was blocked in August 2016, so making a new account to create this redirect (in May 2018) was block evasion. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 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.

Exceptional curve[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. Deryck C. 14:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted as the target does not discuss the topic; e.g., the target doesn’t explain the difference between first kind and second kind, a type of the discussion that needs to take place in a standalone article, among others. Making it a red link also encourages the creation of the standalone article ([3] is a type of the materials I have in mind for such an article). Taku (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics inviting input to this discussion from those who understand the subject matter. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The target defines exceptional subvarieties, and exceptional curves appear to be exceptional subvarieties of surfaces. The target article is a stub, and deserve to be expanded (and also to be tagged as a stub). When the target article will be sufficiently complete, one will be able to decide whether a split is useful. It should be less time consuming to add a few sentences to the target article for mentioning the case of exceptional curves than to open this discussion. In any case, this is not by removing information that one improves an encyclopedia. D.Lazard (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I don’t oppose expanding the target; it’s just the redirect is unhelpful for the readers looking for the meaning of the first kind, for instance (and more general info). —- Taku (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 27 June 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.

Greater Virginia[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. The rough consensus is that the English Wikipedia does not have any definition of this historical placename, nor coverage about a geographical area that matches the historical placename, so we shouldn't keep this mismatching redirect. Deryck C. 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Greater Virginia" is occasionally used in corporate names (such as "Make a Wish Greater Virginia") but has nothing to do with a 17th century polity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've never heard this used in such a way, and I'm a native Virginian. My best guess is that it might refer to the "old" Virginia prior to the creation of West Virginia, but even if we were sure of that, I'm not sure where we'd point it (History of Virginia?). --BDD (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with no discrimination for immediate renomination. There are many historical instances of the term being used in Books.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm hoping that additional input can prevent this ending as no consensus as I don't think anyone would be especially happy with that outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BDD is correct in that it refers to the "old" Virginia, including not just West Virginia, but several other states and parts of states that used to be part of Virginia back in colonial days. This is discussed in detail in the target I suggested. I suggest he reconsider his !vote in light of me finding an appropriate target. Smartyllama (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there's no mention of the phrase at that list, such a redirect is highly likely to confuse or disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nowhere on Wikipedia where this term is defined, leaving readers confused when wanting to know what area(s) this may refer to. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It's not at all clear to me that, as Smartyllama argues, the phrase is used (in the Google Books results linked above or more generally) to refer to something like the topic of List of former counties, cities, and towns of Virginia. As such I'm inclined to agree with Tavix: the encyclopaedia doesn't contain a definition or any discussion of the meaning of the phrase, so the redirect is potentially confusing whichever target it points to. If some evidence can be provided for the argument that the phrase refers to areas that were once part of Virginia I'll consider changing my !vote. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:34, 8 July 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.

Champions League redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 9#Champions League redirects

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (film)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any announcement to make a film adaptation of The Cursed Child. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator and the lack of information about a (potential) film in the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child article other than the title of one reference (which is not used to support anything relevant to this redirect). A sourced statement in an article that there is or is not going to be a film, or sourced speculation about the possibility of such would all justify this redirect but I can find none. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too soon to announce movies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TOOSOON. –Davey2010Talk 18:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:22, 5 July 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.

Chūnibyō[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 7#Chūnibyō

Dance the Night Away (EP)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dance the Night Away" is an upcoming single by Twice, not an EP. Random86 (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Random86: At the time I made this, it was listed under the "extended plays" section of the article, evidently because other users were unsure as to what it was. If we're 100% sure now, by all means it can be deleted. Ss112 07:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's a song on their 2nd Special Album Summer Nights, not an EP title. The song has already been added to the Dance the Night Away dab page though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC) updated 21:07, 27 June 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.

Malayalam Britannica[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 retargeted to Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target is completely unrelated to this title. The redirect target is published by the Govt. of the of Kerala while this article title (“Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia / “Malayalam Britannica”) is published by the private companies DC Books and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Either this redirect should be retargeted to Encyclopaedia Britannica or be deleted.

Further details:

"Britannica in Malayalam". The Hindu. September 20, 2002.

George, Sanu (August 8, 2004). "Errors in Encyclopaedia Britannica in Malayalam". Yahoo News. IANS. Archived from the original on 15 January 2006.

"Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia 3 Vol". Sapnaonline.com. 

Gotitbro (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I quite follow either the backstory of the work(s) under discussion or Gotitbro's arguments. There was an article at this title back in 2014, for some reason created under an inaccurate title (or nickname). See here. My only engagement was to rework the lead and move it to Malayalam Encyclopedia, based not on firsthand knowledge of the subject but on the existing article content. Gotitbro later redirected that title to point to Sarvavijnanakosam. Where I get confused is that Gotitbro here says The redirect target is completely unrelated to this title. The redirect target is published by the Govt. of the of Kerala while this article title (“Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia / “Malayalam Britannica”) is published by the private companies DC Books and Encyclopaedia Britannica. -- if they're completely unrelated, why did you redirect it with edit summary "Redirect to Sarvavijnanakosam, duplication of content; see also redirect target talk"? If they're unrelated, it could not possibly be a duplication of content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected it based on this “Sarvavijnanakosam, known in English as the Malayalam Encyclopaedia, is a general encyclopedia in the Malayalam language.” What I meant was that the Malayalam Britannica is unrelated to Sarvavijnanakosam. The article before my redirect had been edited to be mainly about Sarvavijnanakosam with an unrelated bit about Malayalam Britannica. Gotitbro (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What can be seen is that the redirect target, Malayalam Encyclopedia, is quite generic (as witnessed by edits which completely changed the article’s subject) and shouldn’t refer to a single encyclopedia. The logical conclusion would be to disambiguate it and to restore the Britannica content to an article titled Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia the correct title of the book. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have, in good faith, done the edits as described above by me. I believe this is the best possible solution for this and have retargeted this redirect accordingly. Please see if this discussion can be closed. Gotitbro (talk) 05:41, 27 June 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.

Womp womp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 9#Womp womp

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_27&oldid=1036308174"