Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2018.

Starburns Industries[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) 00:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. A company named Starburns is a production studio for Rick and Morty (also not mentioned in the target), so it should be retargeted there unless it is notable enough for a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom no content at target.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Honestly, the first thing that this makes me think of is A Star Is Burns. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably. Starburns Industries is a production company started by Community creator Dan Harmon, and the name is a reference to the character Stamatopoulos played in that show. Stamatopoulos is also a co-founder, but I don't think the name association is a good reason to redirect to one member of that group when there's no information there. Starburns is involved in production of several more things than just Rick and Morty, I don't think we should target there either. Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Editnotice[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. Convinced by the below that arguments for deleting CNRs, item 1 is especially relevant for editnotice ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cross namespace redirect Septrillion (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not a reason for deletion, which is why Article → Project redirects are not speedy deletable - there needs to be some reason why this specific redirect is harmful. In the absence of any reason given in the nomination, and the target not being obviously inappropriate, this should be speedily kept. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects such as Articles for deletion and Deletion policy were deleted and those could be useful to a reader who finds an article that should be deleted. This is less useful - editnotices aren't visible when reading an article - and the reasons for deletion of those redirects apply here. Peter James (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because harmful decisions to delete other redirects were made does not mean that the mistakes should be repeated. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CNR: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted". I don't see any reason to change that. "Newly created" I interpret as being after the RfC, closed Feb 14, to which the essay refers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was created in 2015, so quite how your comment is of relevance I'm not sure. Why is this CNR bad? We still have not reasons given, just a WP:VAGUEWAVE towards other CNRs that were deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was looking through the list of pages that start with "Warning" to find an appropriate target, but didn't see one that best matched the purpose of how edit notices are utilized on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it have to be a page staring with Warning? Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Such pages seemed to me like the best place to start, considering that IMO, an edit notice is essentially a "warning message". Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some are certainly warnings, but equally many are informational or instructional - for example the one on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NAVELGAZING, WP:ASTONISH. Unless there's encyclopedic content on edit notices that this could be redirected to, we should eliminate opportunities for readers to inadvertently end up on project-side pages and misinterpret them as articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:ASEAN[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one will have any clue what ASEAN means....need to move or delete this non word cat Moxy (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'll move all entries to the target (as the big template on the category page says). ASEAN is the abbreviation for the target (and only the target), and commonly used, and so it's very likely that people who do know the acronym will continue to look for it at this title - as evidenced by the (currently) 12 pages in it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the category was created by an editor unaware of the pre-existing full title category - the acronym title should only be a redirect JarrahTree 23:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

In event of moon disaster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9#In event of moon disaster

Richest/Richness[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 Richest, retarget Richness to Rich which seems to have been reorganized to solve the primary objection to that result. Further formatting issues and/or whether or not that disambiguation should be split can be discussed on that article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As adjectives, these terms are not exclusive to Wealth; for example, they could also refer to Flavor or related subtopics. It's probably best to delete these so that readers can determine what subject they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Richest per Amoury: the superlative form is unlikely as a generic search term and readers are more likely to expect that to take them to some relevant list (if there ought to be a target for this then the same article that List of richest people redirects to would probably be the best). As for Richness, do not retarget to Rich – the dab page has several dozen entries, only three of which are any relevant. I'm fine with either redirecting to wiktionary (for the general meaning) or with deletion (to reveal in the search results relevant specific topics like Species richness), although we would probably serve our readers best by creating a dab page containing the dictionary meaning plus entries for Wealth, Rich (wine), and the technical terms in ecology etc. – Uanfala (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion would make these more difficult to find, unless disambiguated versions are created as redirects, making a disambiguation page necessary. There are many redirects to disambiguation pages from related words that only refer to a minority of the entries - one recent discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 14#Loping) resulted in a redirect to a disambiguation page with one relevant entry if the Wiktionary definition isn't counted. Other entries can be added, such as Diversity index#Richness (the meaning of "richness" in species richness). Without a redirect from Richest it would be possible to find pages containing the word but not the definitions here that may link to what people are looking for. A redirect would make it possible to find these and the Wiktionary definition, and with Template:In title it's the search results can also be found. Peter James (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If deletion isn't desired for Richness, then redirecting to wiktionary or disambiguating on a dedicated dab page are both viable options. Redirecting to Rich is a bright no-no: redirecting a term to dab page where only a minority of the entries are relevant is indeed commonplace, but in these cases either the minority is substantial, or the dab page is small to begin with, or the relevant entries are either in a dedicated section, or otherwise easy to locate. None of these conditions hold here. As for Lope, I don't see anything either in the current dab page or in its version at the time of the Rfd discussion that would justify it being a target for Loping. – Uanfala (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, an alternative would be to retarget to Rich but only after restructuring the dab page so that uses as a common noun (the ones also likely to be referred to by "richness") are separated from the proper nouns. – Uanfala (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rich. I've added the suggestions offered here to the disambiguation page, with common uses at the top and "doesn't quite fit" uses such as Enrichment and Species richness to the see also. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Rich disambiguation page, which contains the articles someone using these ambiguous terms may be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Back to You (Selena Gomez 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 withdrawn.

The exact nature of the song and its release date have not been officially confirmed, hence listing it on Gomez's discography as her next single is speculative and unverifiable. Hayman30 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn - announced an hour ago, who would've guessed. Hayman30 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. It'd be nice if something about the song was written into the articles first before creating redirects. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rancher[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 10#Rancher

Hey you guys[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 The Electric Company. Disappointed nobody wanted to send this to The Goonies or John Matuszak ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help H3xx post to WP:RfD, his concern is:redirect does not make sense; nothing links here I am natural in this case, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:2017-18 Iraqi Premier League table[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) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

meaningless and cross-namespace redirect; original target is Template:2017–18 Iraqi Premier League table which was deleted and autoG8 seems broken so post to RfD Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 07:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is neither needed nor eligible for G8 speedy deletion as the current target (however incorrect it might be) does exist. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the history at the target seems to be the result of a messy history merge (courtesy ping Killiondude) but this redirect has no history needing to be preserved. I don't know if this content was in a template originally but it is not now, and this template redirect will cause problems if someone tries to transclude it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it was a strange case. I believe the template was created, edited by a few different users, then simply cut and pasted to the article (used nowhere else) so I histmerged the template to the article. See also the original RfD. I guess I forgot to look to see if redirects to the template existed. This may be a case for G6? Killiondude (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UFC on Fuel TV 7[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 9#UFC on Fuel TV 7

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_1&oldid=1138582409"