Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2018.

Untitled Gopichand Malineni 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These films and series all have titles now. 74.89.41.111 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects like this continue to serve a purpose for some time after they are moved, in terms of helping people find the new location of the article (like all {{R from move}} redirects do). How long that is depends on how long they remain in use. In this case, two remain in astoundingly active use, strongly suggesting they are linked from somewhere (possibly external) and one in active use and so should remain for the time being. Specifically that means Keep Untitled Han Solo film (1,618 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination; no article space links), Untitled Hanu Raghavapudi film (2,309 hits in the same period; this still has incomming links from article space) and Untitled Warren Beatty project (181 hits; no article space links). Delete the others as they don't show significant use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these projects now have titles, so the placeholder redirects are no longer necessary and may be confusing. None of these redirects have any incoming mainspace links and page views are irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over 2000 page views in 30 days are "irrelevant"!? If there was ever a case for a comment that bore no relation to reality this is it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A certain number of page views does not automatically mean a redirect is useful. Simply having page views is not a reason to create nor keep redirects. Arabic terms for pornography have received thousands of page views per day, but we aren't in the business of serving Arabic porn needs, and similarly we are not in the business of misleading readers by keeping around outdated redirects. For example, "Untitled Warren Beatty project", one of the terms you want to keep, does not refer to Rules Don't Apply because that film has a title. If anything, it would refer to his Dick Tracy sequel. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as astonishing redirects. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I agree. The fundamental thing is that none of these are actually helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all as now useless redirects --Lenticel (talk) 02:48, 10 September 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.

Hedgy[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target and doesn't seem to have been since July 2016. There are sources which suggest the company may be individually notable (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), in which case the final point of WP:RDEL may apply. If the company isn't notable then I don't think redirecting to the list is appropriate; see my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 5#Coinify. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not mentioned on the list. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not on list - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as those potential sources Bitcoin Magazine, Coindesk were the sources that the bitcoin editors rejected for Coinify. You'll have to convince them to accept it as an entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a completely valid word by itself, without a connection to the company, according to Merriam-Webster and other publications. See here. I'm tempted to say that we should redirect this to 'Hedge (disambiguation)', but maybe there's a better option? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either Hedge or Hedge (disambiguation). The former seems to be the best target since it is an adjective derived from "hedge". I found other minor fictional characters with the same name but I think their use is obscure. --Lenticel (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to hedge. If its only definition is "hedge-like" than it would make sense to redirect it there instead of the redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think we should be creating {{R from adjective}} redirects if the word is relatively rare and its meaning is not straightforward: it's not obvious whether "hedgy" is used to describe something that looks like a hedge, or that has hedges in it; the article Hedge doesn't make that clear, and it's not expected to anyway. And there's also an WP:XY aspect as well: there's the bitcoin company; according to one dictionary, "hedgy" can also be an adjective for a type of shifty, dodgy behaviour; and it's easy to confuse with "Hedgie", which is the nickname of one athlete and also an informal term for a hedge fund (example of use). – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 15 September 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.

Mariam (actress)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 19#Mariam (actress)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheyFit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 13#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheyFit

Oil and vinegar[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 disambiguate. Seems this is sort of what everybody wants? At least for now, until an article can be created if possible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oil and vinegar may refer to two salad dressings alone not mixed in as vinaigrette. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that seems like a reason to write a new article to replace the redirect, not a reason to change/delete the redirect before such an article exists. What is it that you're asking for? › Mortee talk 20:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article Vinaigrette talks about oil and vinegar combined. I think that there should be a new article about oil and vinegar not mixed together as a salad dressing. I admit I have placed this discussion in the wrong place. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to salad dressing as such a combination is primarily associated with dressing, and has more options than vinaigrette. Retain hatnotes to the media title. If there's enough to write a separate article or a disambiguation page to spin off the different options for this then go for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting a short dab for this as French dressing and general salad dressing have also used this definition. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is also common in certain regions as a sandwich condiment. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This indeed seems as if it should be turned into a full article itself or, at least, a disambiguation page. It's worth noting in detail how vinegar and oil work together as a marinade, a topic discussed by sources such as this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:12, 8 September 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.

󠁾[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) 11:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of this, I don't know if it is a joke or vandalism or something else Dom from Paris (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has created nearly 100 of these pages [4] --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in case the character doesn't show up for anyone else, it is "U+E007E TAG TILDE". Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is common for people to look up unicode characters in Wikipedia, and the target for this one explains what it is and gives encyclopaedic information about it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator These are all Unicode control characters (which show as invisible at least on Windows 10). They are redirected to a page that discusses their purpose. There is a clear consensus for the existence of redirects from single-character Unicode titles to an article that discusses the character, provided such an article exists. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me but as it doesn't show up on my computer or my telephone I wanted a second opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it doesn't work for me even on Windows 10....seems like a series of utterly worthless redirects. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are supposed to be invisible. They are control characters. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they are invisible how is anyone supposed to search for them or link to them and they don't seem to be mentioned on the target page. U+E007E TAG TILDE. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They can be copied and pasted. The target page tells you that it is a tag character (and explains what these are), and the table clearly shows that E007E is a tilde. If someone needs to know more than what our article tells them then they can use the external links and/or use the information they've learned to refine web searches. It is not a requirement that every redirect be linked to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...? Anyone who manages to dump one of these invisible Unicode characters into Wikipedia's search box deserve to get information about the character they've just input. (Did I muck this nomination up by editing it in Wikitext 2017? Deryck C. 13:27, 12 September 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.

The Norton Anthology of Drama[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. Whether Norton Anthology is or should be a disambiguation page or a set index can be discussed on its talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circular link to a DAB page with no additional information. It's in use by Ubu Roi, and User:DPL bot is complaining. Propose deletion to encourage article creation, and to reduce the number of bad links to DAB pages by one. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and delink from Norton Anthology page shouldn't that be a set index article or just a listing? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norton Anthology is clearly more of a set index, especially with all of those redlinks. Ok to keep the redirect provided target becomes an SIA. older ≠ wiser 09:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target, whether it's a disambiguation page or set index, clearly has no information that's useful for someone who searches for this. The anthology may be individually notable (though it might not – I couldn't find much in the way of reviews, and the second footnoted caveat of WP:BKCRIT #4 probably applies), in which case WP:RDEL#10 would apply. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, which would be consistent with the other numerous redlinks at Norton Anthology. Norton Anthology should be—and now is—an SIA. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I wonder if discussion at this RFD is the proximate cause for confusion about SIAs vs. DABs elsewhere. Sure, all of the Norton Anthology books are certainly related. Other things that have the same name are not necessarily related. We don't want to convert every DAB page in wikipedia into SIAs. Could others please comment at Talk:Palace Hotel#SIA vs Dab? --Doncram (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:REDLINK. Not sure the SIA/DAB distinction matters here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 17 September 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.

Far-left politics in the United States[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly accurate, should probably be an article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as a {{R from subtopic}} and {{R with possibilities}}. The target covers both the moderate and far left of American politics so the redirect is not inaccurate. If there is enough material for a separate article (I have no opinion about that), then go ahead and write one over the article (it doesn't need to be deleted first) or start a draft (it can be moved over the redirect when it is ready), but until we do have a separate article I think that readers are better served with this redirect than they would be with a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Far-left" is clearly a subtopic of "left," and most of the people, organisations and positions described in the article could be called "far-left". It may be the case that this ought to be an article, but the final point of WP:RDEL doesn't apply because the current target contains lots of information on the topic. (I think any article at this location would either have significant overlap with the current target, or would require both articles adopt a more or less arbitrary set of criteria to distinguish the "far left" from the merely "left", but that might be beside the point.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far as I can see, the article indeed discusses both general left-wing organizations and efforts (in the sense of democratic socialism and similar beliefs) as well as hardcore, far left topics (in the sense of Trotskyite thought and similar beliefs). The only issue here is that maybe the target article needs more work separating the two movements and discussing differences in context, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:16, 8 September 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.

File:"Virumbugiren, 2002".jpg[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) 01:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't serve any remaining purpose. The uploader of this file also cannot request deletion via G7 since he's been indeffed. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While it is less important for file redirects than articles, I still don't think we should be deleting a {{R from move}} on the same day it was moved after being stable at the original title since upload in 2013 when the original name is not in any way harmful and not obstructing different image from Commons. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: harmless, not getting in the way of anything else, no risk of confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An argument could be made that the appropriate action would be to move this file back to File:"Virumbugiren, 2002".jpg depending on one's interpretation of WP:FNC#1; I have always interpreted that criterion to only apply to the original uploader, though I have sought confirmation or rejection of that notion and never received a response. Continuing under my interpretation, WP:FMNN would make the move inappropriate. That aside, keep this redirect per WP:FILERED. It is generally only appropriate to delete file redirects resulting from a move if the former title was also recently created (i.e. through R3/G6), which clearly is not the case here as this file was originally uploaded in 2013. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:14, 9 September 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.

G lo[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) 07:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects as I never heard of George Lopez being referred to as "G-Lo," an obvious parody to Jennifer Lopez's J Lo. There was a music artist from the late 80s/early 90s who used the name G-Lo [5], but he does not seem article worthy. 74.89.41.111 (talk)

  • What about Giovani Lo Celso? He's listed as G. Lo Celso in soccerway [6]? Regardless, should be added to Glo (disambiguation) I'm leaning towards keep and add redirects here hatnote for Celso and the dab AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, and add a mention of the name to the article (probably somewhere in the body, not the lede, per MOS:NICKNAME). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - These look like nonsense, but as properly cited nonsense used by reliable sources... I think that we should leave them be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:20, 8 September 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.

Ripped Fuel[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. Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is brand spam for a product sold by Twinlab. Delete. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have no opinion on whether this is or is not spam of any description, but "Ripped Fuel" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia so the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 7 September 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.

Nikki and Nora[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. Will restore article and then submit to AfD Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name is not mentioned anywhere in the target article and refers to a rejected television pilot, which according to WP:TVSHOW, are generally not eligible to have articles. A 7-episode web series was made in 2014 based on this pilot [7], but that does not seem notable either. The fact that it involves lesbianism also does not add notability 74.89.42.17 (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. The last version of the article [8] was unilaterally changed to a redirect by an IP editor in 2012. That version was a stub but it had a sourced claim to significance (I have not investigated their reliability) sufficient that it would not be subject to speedy deletion (and the guideline referred to above says "generally" not "never"). This is a good faith RfD nomination, but the article content should be discussed at an appropriate venue rather than be deleted as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article for AFD purposes. It was originally merged to List of television series canceled after one episode in 2012, however it was deemed a television pilot which is outside the scope of that list so that entry was removed. Entry was shown in Terrace's Encyclopedia of Television Pilots [9] Add distinguish hatnote to Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 6 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_6&oldid=1036307951"