Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2018.

Boom/Can I Get a and Boom/Can I Get A[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 Wow... The Story. No point keeping this going, I disagree with this, Others don't so wey hey, I've also moved Single to single. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As we already have Boom/Can I Get A (Single) I'm not really seeing a need for keeping these 2, "Boom/Can I Get A (Single)" essentially kills 2 birds with one stone, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no valid reason to keep those with "a" and "A" when " A (Single)" does the exact same job, I'll move "Single" to lowercase once this RFD's closed, Cheers. –Davey2010Talk 21:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wow as above, both of these are okay as R from songs, especially when there's a single of that name released as described on that album article. Move (Single) to (single) without leaving a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:00, 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.

Template:Update needed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 23#Template:Update needed

Template:Rlly[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) 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Template:Really. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 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.

Limulus darwini[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) 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Circular bluelinks like this are a pest. Readers and editors are respectively befuddled into thinking that there's an article worth reading or that no article needs writing. Narky Blert (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep and unlink having considered the arguments by User:Animalparty and User:Tavix. Redlinks and circular bluelinks in mainspace to articles which are unlikely ever to get written are pointless. Redirects are another matter: they can help with searching or linking. Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a long-standing convention at WikiProject Palaeontology (although like most everything else on Wikipedia, it's a guideline, not a rule) of covering the genus rather than individual species when there is little to be written about individual species. For a good example, the four species of Allosaurus and seventeen species of Psittacosaurus are all deftly handled in their respective genus articles, with each species a redirect. While some pedantic wiki-splitters might want to make a distinct article for every named species, subspecies, and geographic race, a level of common sense is in order. Regarding Limulus, the paleo guideline is a bit murky since one of the species is still living, and has a vast amount of literature coverage, while the others are most confined to primary literature and dusty paleontology tomes. I believe sometimes in cases like this, the extinct congeners of sole-surviving species are covered briefly in an "evolution" or "taxonomic history" section of the focal species. I personally don't think the reader is well served by a plethora of stubs saying "X darwini is a species of X described by Joe Smith in 18XX. It is found in Asia." That said, I really don't care about the fate of this trivial redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this comment by Animalparty, without offering a solution. I have seen articles about extinct families which contain little more than redlinks to extinct genera. (And in some of those, I suspect that serious revision may be in order, because I have found cases where no-one seems properly to have looked at those taxa since C19, and there may well be synonyms.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do we know there is enough to write an article about this species? If not, it may be better to simly remove the link from Limulus, which would resolve the circular blue link issue. -- Tavix (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I actually find the non-!vote comments instructive enough to suggest that keeping would be beneficial, so let's get some more input, especially as regards practice vs REDLINK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I think we should keep redirects if there are really limited existing material to work it into an article. At least the reader knows that IRL knowledge is actually limited on the subject --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 17 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.

Glamour (Charmed)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 23#Glamour (Charmed)

Evil imperialism[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. A reminder that redirects need to be useful and need not follow NPOV if they are indeed useful ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to violate NPOV and is unclear which country it refers to in the target article. Seems unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see how this would be an NPOV violation even if that was relevant to redirects (see WP:RNEUTRAL) but the term is not used in the article, nor based on google is it particularly associated with any one topic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 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.

Untitled Boyapati Srinu project[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. I defaulted to keep this last time given the history, but as it appears to have been cleared up, well, okay, can default to delete here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

...Now that the edit history formerly at this page has been moved to Jaya Janaki Nayaka (film), delete this redirect since the target now has a title. Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, the edit history is now at Jaya Janaki Nayaka as the result of a edit history merge to fix an old cut-and-paste move. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 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.

Republic of Malaysia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#Republic of Malaysia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_14&oldid=1036308177"