Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 13

May 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 13, 2018.

Design error[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 Product defect. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design error → Postage stamp design error (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Too generic to refer specifically to postage stamp design. May be discouraging creation of one or more standalone articles about design. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig or write an article. This is the result of a 2005 page move, and gets quite a few hits. We seem to have quite a lot of articles that are about various design errors in specific circumstances, but nothing generic - although such would be useful. I'm unsure whether a separate disambiguation page or the general Error (disambiguation) page is the best location for the disambiguation though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to product defect, which is also where design flaw redirects to._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to product defect per Zxcvbnm's suggestion. That article has information on when products don't work the way they were intended, for whatever it be defects in quality or by design. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 15 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.

List of botanical cryptids[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 List of cryptids. There isn't any consensus on deletion, however List of cryptids does seem to be generally agreed as at-least better than the current target, even if people did argue against targeting there. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of botanical cryptids → Cryptozoology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such list at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have List of legendary creatures by type#Plants, creatures associated with (which lists both plants and creatures associated with plants), List of fictional plants and Category:Mythological plants. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would not a redirect to list of cryptids make more sense? Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to List of cryptids makes much more sense here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomimator comment: Due to the current state of List of cryptids, I oppose retarget to List of cryptids since List of cryptids currently does not list any botanical cryptids. At the present time, readers looking up this redirect will not find what they are looking for at List of cryptids. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cryptozoologists almost exclusively focus on a handful of specific entities from the folklore record. Cryptozoologists very rarely turn their attention to botany. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_fictional_plants#In_mythology as the closest matching list we have, as well as being part of a larger list which may have other items relevant to the search. --Qetuth (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't there a large number of fictional plants that were previously thought to actually exist? The infamous man-eating tree comes to mind. Is the problem just that the aforementioned page about cryptids needs work? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. It could be expanded with a section on plants, as long as they are sourced properly as cryptids. That way everything would be in the same place. The problem is that it could get large depending on the number of plants that would be added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be notable enough to keep. It just needs to be expanded and have all pieces of information given proper citations from reliable sources.--Paleface Jack 16:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I initially closed this as no consensus, but a good-faith request was made to reopen this, so I am relisting it for a full discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there is one plant currently on the list (the Umdhlebi), it doesn't appear to be "notable within cryptozoology" and so isn't actually within the scope of the list. It's clearly a legendary creature - the primary source is The Religious System of the Amazulu. I can see cryptobotany redirecting to cryptozoology given that there is essentially no cryptobotany, but there's no need for a redirect of a list based on that.--tronvillain (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to list of cryptids, where botanical cryptids should be listed. It has been noted that Umdhlebi is listed, and I have added man-eating tree per CWM's request so there is actually some semblance of a list now. Some of the other retargeting options above are close, but I feel those other entities should be added to list of cryptids if they are actually cited as such. I oppose keeping this as-is because there is no such list at the current target, and would prefer deletion over keeping as-is if it helps form consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man-eating tree is similarly not notable within cryptozoology, and the only mention of cryptobotany on that page is in the literature and film section in the title of a book on science-fiction and fantasy. --tronvillain (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My research shows otherwise, there seems to be plenty of sources depicting the man-eating tree within the context of cryptozoology. With so many entries there without sources, I'm not sure why this one is being singled out. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My research shows no such thing, but if you've found something better than a reprint of Wikipedia articles, let's take a look. And that there are currently articles on the list outside of its scope is not an argument for adding more. --tronvillain (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "list of cryptids", any notable cryptid would and should be included, and man-eating tree is one of them. I'm not saying there are currently articles on the list outside of its scope. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying they aren't notable within cryptozoology (as bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster clearly are), which is the scope of the list. It's not "list of anything ever called a cryptid by anyone" or "list of things that seem like a cryptid to me", but we should probably have this discussion on one of those two pages rather than here. --tronvillain (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a discussion at Talk:List of cryptids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 14 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.

Grammatical error[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 22#Grammatical error

Buddhist New Year[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 Buddhist calendar#New Year's Day. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist New Year → Vesak (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no such thing as a "Buddhist New Year". Southeast and South Asia has its own New Year traditions, and so does East Asia. Neither of those have Buddhist roots, nor do Buddhists consider it a religious festival. E.g. Thai Songkran, the Thai New Year, isn't seen by the Thai people as a Buddhist celebration, but rather a "worldly" celebration with different roots. Legends about its origins do not feature any Buddhist elements. Should for some reason be decided that the page is kept, it should certainly not link to Vesak, which has nothing to do with New Year celebrations. In calculating consensus, please take into account this editor's opinion too. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Buddhist celebrations of new Year festivals are unrelated to Vesak. JimRenge (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Buddhist calendar#New Year's Day, where detail of any celebrations can be added or linked. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget according to Thryduulf's suggestion. Vesak Day is not a Buddhist new year, in no culture do they mark Vesak day as a Buddhist new year, Buddhist cultures typically have thier own new years i.e. Songkran, but those are unrelated to Vesak and dont even appear on the same date. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Buddhist calendar#New Year's Day per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 15 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.

Alrosa Villa[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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alrosa Villa → Dimebag Darrell#Death (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect should be deleted, and the page returned to a redlink. I believe that the topic is some sort of semi-famous nightclub / concert venue, and it serves no purpose to redirect to a page about a musician who was shot and killed there. Natg 19 (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or create article - If there is no higher purpose for this redirect, keep it, or create an article about the establishment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the Alrosa Villa was deleted after Afd and speedy deleted when recreated. You know this because you !voted So "create an article" doesn't seem like a great suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was deleted and speedy deleted when recreated. The redirect is doing more than a redlink would and the place certainly hasn't become more notable than the last 2 times the article was deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 14 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.