Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2018.

मून जे-इन[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. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED created from an accidental pagemove. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, possibly speediable under G6 if this genuinely was a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Seaborgeum[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) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one letter, but it's such an implausible typo. Has an impressively low 34 views in over 13 years. Thegreatluigi (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes the pageviews are impressively low, but in the few cases where it is used I'm sure the users are very grateful for it. Moreover it is a perfectly reasonable phonetic spelling. JZCL 09:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's going to be so much into science that they're looking up obscure synthetic elements, and yet eat the same time not know that elements are spelt "ium"? Also, with less than three views a year, can't we just let the search page take those very few people to the article? Thegreatluigi (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. Firstly: no, if one typed in Seaborgeum into the search bar then the Seaborgium article would not come up - if you don't believe me then try it yourself. Secondly, redirects are WP:CHEAP, and in this case absolutely no harm whatsoever is being done. Ergo no reason to delete. JZCL 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll give you that first one, I stand corrected. But I stand by my claim that pretty much nobody would ever make this mistake. For the second one though, I never really understood that reasoning. If I created a redirect for The element which was named after the scientist Glenn Seaborg, should that be kept? It's doing absolutely no harm whatsoever. (Don't worry, I'm not actually going to create that; I am aware of WP:POINT). Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would have no problem with that redirect existing if there was evidence that it was being used. I would encourage you to think about this redirect in another way: on no fewer than 34 occasions we have helped people (probably some of whom are non-native English speakers with a bad grasp of spelling) locate the article which they are indisputably looking for, and might have been very difficult without it. I can see no way whatsoever that this redirect is hindering the encyclopaedia, and at least one where it is helping. JZCL 16:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JZCL. Perfectly reasonable and perfectly harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JZCL. (Also, at least one element has an alternative name with the "eum" suffix: promethium was originally called prometheum.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm starting to remember why I banned myself from nominating redirects for deletion. Would I be as well just withdrawing this? Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yeah, I can see myself spelling the term this way if I heard it in passing or on the radio. Potentially useful and definitely harmless. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nothing burger[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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per {{Wiktionary redirect}}: "Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary." This is not a term likely to be searched by readers. feminist (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added Nothingburger to this nomination
  • Keep the page view stats show 1,196 hits this year across the three redirects which is very clear evidence that this is something readers are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

\8[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 deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another series of misnomers from the (now indef blocked) guy who brought us such gems as Unicode 0. This one goes up to \127 (119 redirects total). Reason for deleting: escape sequences in C use octal, not decimal, so these redirects either are garbage or point to incorrect targets. (This is also why i'm not nominating \0 – \7 because these numerals mean the same in octal and decimal). Nowak Kowalski (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ravikanth[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 by nominator and only other delete !voter concurs with withdrawal. (non-admin closure) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. It's linked from Maria, My Darling (1980 Tamil film), and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDAB error. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. @Arms & Hearts: that is such a good suggestion that I've gone ahead and done it. t/th are fairly common alternative transliterations from Indian scripts. It also solves the DAB problem, as I've added the qualifier (actor) in the problem article. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. @Shhhnotsoloud: what do you think? This probably shouldn't be closed as withdrawn if someone would still prefer deletion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Reason #10: the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Happy for nom to withdraw. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ravenswood (2017 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. It's linked from Callan Park Hospital for the Insane, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDAB error. We have no articles on the director, writers, or the three principal actors; see the IMDb entry. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Regardless of whether the film is notable, it isn't mentioned in the target (and shouldn't be) or in any other article, so the redirect is unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reason #10: the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:AHK[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) feminist (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross namespace redirect. I don’t know how often it might happen, but anyone typing 'WP:AHK' into the search box will not be expecting to be taken to a user page that will task both their bandwidth and browser JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP: shortcuts to userspace pages are not inappropriate simply by being cross-namespace - individual assessment of the redirect and target is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ideally this would be in Wikipedia space and split over several pages (certainly the latter) but they are not reasons for deletion. The AHK shortcut isn't conflicting with anything else, and the content is certainly relevant to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether it should be in WP space and considered part of the project was discussed on the talk page: see User talk:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge#RfC: Upgrade to essay at Wikipedia:Sum of all knowledge. And there was clear consensus that is should not be moved or considered so. It’s just a user page, and WP:AHK does not look like a redirect to a user page so will just confuse anyone coming across it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redirect shortcuts from projectspace to userspace are common and acceptable. That aside, this is not the place to address the size of the redirect's target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_19&oldid=1036307836"