Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 25, 2018.

Government Act[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 2#Government Act

Cooking/Boiling[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 I find the argument for Boiling#In cooking to be reasonable, it apparently has not convinced anyone given this redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. Cooking is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a cooking guide, anyways. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Boiling#In cooking. This is a {{R from subpage}} and {{R with old history}} as it was the original location of the "boiling" article back when Wikipedia used that naming convention. It's doing no harm, and nobody is going to use this to find the "cooking" article so WP:XY doesn't apply. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC) The "In cooking" section is exactly what someone searching for this will be looking for - the use of boiling as a method of cooking. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, {{R from subpage}} doesn't apply to pages in the "(article)" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does, see the second bullet "If this redirect is in mainspace, then it will populate the Redirects with old history category bold-linked above;" Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...Which means that the {{R from subpage}} tag is redundant and unnecessary since on "(article)" namespace pages, {{R with old history}} should be used instead. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it just means that using both tags is unnecessary - {{R from subpage}} is just more specific. We don't say that {{R from American spelling}} is redundant since {{R from other spelling}} exists. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, per the first sentence of Wikipedia:Subpages, subpages technically don't exist in the "(article)" namespace here. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • But the point is that they used to, and these redirects exist to avoid breaking links from outside Wikipedia made during that time. We really should not break those links without a very good reason - and not simply not quite fitting into a neat box for editors is a very bad reason. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...Which is the purpose of {{R with old history}}. I do believe that this is about to turn into a circular conversation, so I must now walk away from this discussion tangent. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, these are different topics. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While certainly boiling things is often a part of cooking, Tavix is still totally correct that these are two seperate topics. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • !vote struck as user already did so above ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Judging from the deletion log, the ancient article at this title appears to have been history-merged into Boiling, so the only reason to preserve this redirect is out of deference to incoming external links. But given the antiquity of this title – I can't see the deleted part of the history, but the article appears to have been moved away from this title well over a decade ago – I don't see this rationale as having continuing relevance today. – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - As much as I adore old history, I think deletion is best in this case. Whereas e.g. Wheel of Time/Way Gates is clearly discernable as a subtopic, Cooking/Boiling appears more like an WP:XY; cooking is akin to boiling (and may have been the primary means of cooking in some places in the past) while wheel of time is not akin to way gates. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:24, 30 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.

Naruto ninja ranks[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. If anyone wants the history, just ask. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fancrufty redirect; unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as leftover Ninja World type of information. The main article mentions a Chunin Exam and the leadership position of Hokage, and that's about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been around for ages and has nearly 2,500 revisions of history, so it's worth at least one relist in the hopes of more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about information being lost. This is full of unsourced Wikia-level cruft AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Details of how the franchise treats its characters, including their different ranks when it comes to certain abilities and the like, is not the sort of thing that Wikipedia is for. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:23, 26 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.

Tailed beasts[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. If anyone (else) wants the history, just ask. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague redirect, could apply to real life "beasts" with tails. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been around for ages and has nearly 4,000 revisions of history, so it's worth at least one relist in the hopes of more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Yeah, a few paragraphs. Persisted for at least a few years in one iteration or another. Why, you want it? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amorymeltzer: I was more or less inquiring about the possible notability of the "tailed beasts" subject, and seeing if it could be incorporated into any existing "Naruto" article. If it looks good smith to salvage and put someplace, feel free to put it in a subpage of my userspace, such as User:Steel1943/Tailed beasts, and I'll see if there's something I can do with it to keep it encyclopedic. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a follow-up, I currently see no place to put the content that was posted in my user space. With that being said, I'm going to tag that page with a __NOINDEX__ since that content was removed from Wikipedia via a WP:AFD discussion, unless I think in the future it should just be removed completely. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 2 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.

Redirects to Consolidated Laws of New York[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 2#Redirects to Consolidated Laws of New York

Bubblegum rap[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3#Bubblegum rap

List of Naruto songs[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no list of songs in the target article, nor in List of Naruto media. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this originally redirected to the CDs section, but has been since been renamed to Music, so I changed the target to that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per AngusWOOF's edit, this redirect currently targets Naruto#Music.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - What's being targeted isn't a list, and I'm wary about that, but things appear helpful enough where they stand. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no such list at the target, so the redirect is misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No list, but information and links are there. This is old enough that someone might have linked to it; I think ending up at a section that isn't a list but has some helpful information will be more helpful than a redlink. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 3 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.

Template:RD1[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that WP:RD1 is about revision deletion, Template:Copyvio-revdel seems to be a more suitable target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. ToThAc (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been used as such for over a decade. It has about 100 transclusions, but this is part of the Z number template system; Z37 itself has around 100 transclusions, spanning from 2011 to 2016. While this has apaprently dropped out of favor, revision delete came around in 2009 and didn't stop this from getting used. There's also {{RD2}} and {{RD3}} and their Z templates (Z38 and Z39) which together have around 200 transclusions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 25 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.

Boom/Can I Get A (Single)[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.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary and non-standard disambiguation for a non-notable topic (the standard disambiguation being "song", not "single"). This is not plausible as a search term and Boom/Can I Get A and Boom/Can I Get a (both with history) already exist. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (Single) as unnecessary caps disambiguation as followup to the previous RFD. There's an unreferenced section of album singles on Wow... The Story, of which Boom was released as both a B-side and an A-side, so (single) is plausible, unless such singles are shown not to exist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AngusWOOF: Per WP:DABSONG: If possible, avoid using other terms like "(single)", "(cassette)" or "(CD single)", etc... -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: that is an article titling guideline for editors, not something we should (or even can) expect readers to know and remember before they are allowed to look for content. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware what I linked to and am aware of your thoughts on the matter, per your !vote below. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as a plausible search terms. We don't require readers to be intimately familiar with our article titling conventions in order to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Old enough for me to lean keep, but the unnecessary dab just makes these excessive — the page is fine on its own with search. FWIW, don't think a split decision works here given the move — any external use would clearly be for the caps title, so deleting that and keeping the "proper" one doesn't really make sense. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 25 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.

Doyle Lee Hamm[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 the first two listed to List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States, delete the third. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Hamm" is mentioned in the references section, but is not mentioned in the article content itself. For this reason, on the article's current state, readers will either be confused and/or not find the information they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand article - Keep the cheap redirects, and expand the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CHEAP doesn't apply when a redirect can be considered misleading. In cases like this, unhelpfulness supersedes WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose finding the name in the footnotes is sufficient for a keep, but if only some of the energy put into creating three redirects were diverted to giving the subject a shout-out in the article body. As for WP:CHEAP, wasting the time of several editors to discuss this, rather than doing the right thing in the first place, is WP:EXPENSIVE. Free human labor is Wikipedia's most valuable resource. wbm1058 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes mention isn't enough to warrant a redirect. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_24#Marilou_Danley. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hamm's entry is now on the List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States#List of offenders previously scheduled to be executed, so the redirects can point to there until removed from the listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens once he's removed from the list? We end up right back here again in the future? That seems awfully pointless. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In support of Tavix's statement, the only other redirect that targets List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States which is a person's name is Jeremiah J. Jackson. (Possibly RfD candidate?) Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There are lists of people executed in the United States to which his name can redirect. Otherwise, he will always be a part of List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States#List of offenders previously scheduled to be executed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to delete such redirects due to their lack of helpfulness. See WP:ONEEVENT. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget first two per AngusWOOF. It's where he's listed, and the list is (apparently) useful, so let's make use of the redirect. It will eventually be out of date once his status changes, but there's no date set, and redirects are easy enough to change. In the meantime, why remove helpful redirects? Delete the third one, middle name redirects not helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist so that May 6th (19 days ago) can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget first two per Angus and Amory. Delete the third. He seems to have some degree of notability so a redirect is not a bad thing, but it should not be a redirect to his laywer.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 4 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.

Elle boutique[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3#Elle boutique

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_25&oldid=1138582465"