Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2019.

Draft:"Trelawny:, Soldiers Hill, Ballarat

[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) 18:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary (and some malformed) quotation marks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal is to move the current text from Common law#Common law legal systems in the present day to Common law legal systems in the present day, I'd oppose that. The full article needs that list of examples. Duplicating the text means that the two copies will diverge, and each will get only half as much correctness attention as the single copy gets today.
If the proposal is to delete the redirect-only page Common law legal systems in the present day, I don't see immense harm (though there is some harm -- readers find the page, sometimes up to 30 times a day -- seems odd to pull the rug out from under those readers).
My first impulse is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But maybe you see a "broke" that I don't.
At the end of the day, I'm largely indifferent.
BostonBowTie (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no moves will happen. All we're doing is proposing to delete the "Common law legal systems in the present day redirect, which is malformed in that it only has one quotation mark. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Now I see the problem! Yes, have at it! BostonBowTie (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2019 (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.

Touch (Bebe Rexha song)

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page, artist's page or discography. Richhoncho (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (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.

/56 Nights

[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) 14:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These redirects with the leading forward slash are obvious errors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2019 (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.

Motel Symphony

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, the artists page, the two albums released or the tour page. No other WP entries for the term I could find. Richhoncho (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2019 (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.

"John"

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 18#"John"

Shooting Star Summit

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable video game location not mentioned at the target Druaga2 (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2019 (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.

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 18#Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana

Dunne D.10

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 18#Dunne D.10

Eclipse Engine

[edit]

Two "Eclipse Engine"s exist, one by Digital Eclipse and one by BioWare. I don't think either is more notable than the other, and the redirect should possibly be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 06:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Pick this one to be primary topic redirect and put a hatnote there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote as this seems to be the primary topic (the only thing that seems to come close is (parts for) engines for the Mitsubishi Eclipse), but if you disagree that there is one then the redirect should be changed to a disambiguation page. There is certainly no case for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: B dash, please allow me to reopen this discussion as it had escaped my FOV and I hadn't watched this page. @Shhhnotsoloud and Thryduulf, you are saying that this one is the primary topic, but how come? On BioWare, this is three sentences, while that on Digital Eclipse has four sentences in a dedicated section. This is why I stated in my opening that neither is really more notable than the other. Should we be aiming for keep, though, the secluded section for Digital Eclipse's game engine would make for a better place for a redirect notice. On BioWare, it is a vanchor skippin into a section, so the hatnote at the top would go completely unnoticed. Furthermore, the current hatnote, "For eclipse engine in digital eclipse, see ..." is very unsatisfactory. Lordtobi (✉) 06:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Picking one to be a primary topic, redirecting there, and having a hatnote, is far preferable to not picking a primary topic, and having a 2-entry disambiguation page. I don't really mind which is primary, as long as one is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huricane

[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) 10:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an implausible misspelling/typo. CycloneYoris talk! 03:35, 10 April 2019 (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.

Conduction block

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 18#Conduction block

Industrial food

[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat derogatory, odd redirect PrussianOwl (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as suggested makes sense to me--they are all possible meanings. DGG ( talk ) 11:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to convenience food as more-or-less synonymous. Anything else is a reach. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree that anything other than convenience food is a reach. While academic definitions of the term are nearly synonymous with convenience food, search results indicate that there is no primary topic for the term across all contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • note I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. If the consensus is to retarget (which per above I disagree with) then this should be moved to Industrial food (disambiguation) and a hatnote added. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I strongly disagree with because none of those entries are "industrial food". For example, "food industry" and "industrial food" are nowhere near the same thing. You can't say that something in the "foo industry" is "industrial foo". -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice theory, but if you actually look at the search results what you find is that people do mean the (products produced by) the food industry and/or (a specific type of) industrial farming when they talk about "industrial food". Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing links to it; it isn't in use. Let whoever happens to use that phrase in an article and who happens to want it to mean something specific pipe a link to whatever that is. I don't believe a disambiguation is the way to go, as some of the proposed possible meanings in the dab at this moment [2] are definitely too much of a reach. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect, and in this case it's not surprising given it was nominated for deletion less than three hours after it was created. It is however very useful as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (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.

Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article at Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō should be a redlink for now. Ngāti Apa (website), the target of this redirect, is not the same iwi as Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō (website). —Hugh (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2019 (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/2019_April_10&oldid=893177481"