Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 10

[edit]

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

GoKev

[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) 00:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, ironically this would appear to be promotional marketing. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 10 May 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.

New Body

[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) 14:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This single is still speculation and isn't mentioned at all in the target. WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. apply. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a speculation. The song was confirmed by Kanye West. I changed the target to Yandhi (the album where the song is included) which contains a sourced mention to this song. Lichtt (talk) 22:19, 10 May 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.

Remote location

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Remote location

Twin bed

[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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIC a bad redirect, as the redirect term is only mentioned peripherically but actually not at all explained within the given target article. Hildeoc (talk) 16:52, 10 May 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.

Single bed

[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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIC a bad redirect, as the redirect term is only mentioned peripherically but actually not at all explained within the given target article. Hildeoc (talk) 16:51, 10 May 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.

Femi Oluwole

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Femi Oluwole

Devil Take The Hindmost

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Devil Take The Hindmost

Missing or misplaced brackets (from history merge etc.)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Missing or misplaced brackets (from history merge etc.)

Priest (Catholic Chruch)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Priest (Catholic Chruch)

Missing or misplaced brackes (with history)

[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. Thanks to all those involved with histmerging where it was necessary. As always, I can restore if there's anything we forgot. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I held these over from the previous discussion due to them all having some history; in each case the page was initially created as a duplicate article and then redirected, however no content was merged so there is no need to retain this history for attribution. I'm not sure if it was necessary to make this distinction, but better safe than sorry. Delete all per WP:RDAB and concensus across multiple recent discussions. The history for most of these is largely trivial, and none are linked from mainspace. PC78 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all- I agree with the nominator. Reyk YO! 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I don't know that these actually meet RDAB, but they are simply not useful. The ones I've checked have zero page views before the nomination and the histories are just minor things such as converting a restatement of the title (the proper title) into a redirect. Meters (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. CycloneYoris talk! 06:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any reason why history merging any content with the correctly formed pages would be a problem? For example, Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode) (merge from Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode) is the one redirect I checked and it seems to be possible without any major issues. I'd prefer history merging and then deleting over just straight deleting. - PaulT+/C 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That might work for some of the above, and I've already taken care of the one you highlighted. Is it really worth the bother to preserve a revision like this or this though? Most of it looks like junk to be honest. PC78 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination is odd. Have you actually looked at the history for each of these entiries or are you simply looking to mass-delete them? A bunch more of these have valid history and if you haven't reviewed each page then you shouldn't have put it up for debate. - PaulT+/C 14:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I most certainly have looked at each of these pages, and like I said most of it is junk. I don't know what you find "odd". If you truly think any of these histories are worth preserving then it would be constructive if you could point them out and we can take it from there. PC78 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some examples: Undressed(TV series merged to Undressed (TV series); Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi moved to Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi). I'm sure there are more, but my point is that you are nominating lots of pages (hundreds in some previous cases) without evaluating each on their own merits. It is human nature to want to group them and find patterns, but mass deletion when there is relevant history (and when these links date to 2006 or earlier in some cases) does not seem appropriate or fair. Furthermore, WP:G6 deletions for some of these pages seem to violate the exception present in WP:R3 Page moves are excluded because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them. Such redirects must be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion before deletion. However, redirects that were obviously made in error can be deleted as G6, technical deletions. The "obvious" error was made over a decade ago, not recently as is required by WP:A10. I understand that it looks like the pages were recently created because of technical reasions, but a number of decade-old links were just speedy deleted without discussion. Is that supposed to be able to happen? - PaulT+/C 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you've got it backwards, friend: I evaluated each redirect on it's own merits first, then grouped those I considered like-for-like in a single nomination, and here we are. I've already asserted several times that the history of these pages is junk (IMO) and is not required to be kept for attribution as the content was never merged anywhere; none of them meet the conditions set out at WP:RFD#KEEP. I've gone and moved Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi, since the properly formatted redirect did not already exist that was fairly cheap. Can the history of Undressed(TV series be moved somewhere else? Sure, but why? What's so important about those two revisions that you think it's important or necessary to keep them? For the record, WP:G6 explicitly covers "redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title", and is not subject to any time limit; see {{Db-error}}. Certainly I've never had any such G6 requests turned down or rejected. PC78 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From another guideline, WP:R#KEEP#4: However, avoid deleting such redirects if: ... 4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. G6ing pages that date to 2006 simply because they were moved recently and at first glance look like a recent error seems like a misapplication of the rule and a violation/contradiction in the guidelines to me. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you necessarily did anything wrong, just that there is a discrepancy between these guidelines – I know it is quite shocking because all of our guidelines are *always* perfectly consistent ;).) For the record, Overture (Def Leppard song, Ruth Lyons (TV personality, The Gnome-Mobile (film, The Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who, Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi, and Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode were all speedy-deleted (I'm fairly certain mostly, if not all, with WP:G6) while under discussion here. - PaulT+/C 21:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your concern was preserving the histories of those pages, which is what I did for those, so... what's the problem, exactly? I'm sorry but it's just not clear what you want. The reasons for deletion are covered above and there is ample concensus across multiple discussions. If you find WP:G6 a problem then by all means raise your concerns there. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 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.

Caillou Gets Grounded

[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) 00:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Caillou/Archive_2, as this subject seems to have been discussed on and off for a while, and it concluded that it is not notable enough and doesn't have reliable sources to be (or rather, cringy enough to not be) included in Caillou article. So redirecting to a section that doesn't discuss anything about the redirect's subject is unnecessary. NotCory (talk) 13:20, 10 May 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.

Portal:No Escape

[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. Closing early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreated after speedy; my understanding of WP:NCTR was that if an article subject's actual name would put it in one of Wikipedia's namespaces (Book:, Module:, Portal:), we do not create a redirect in that non-article namespace, and a hatnote in the article suffices. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I have restored the history of the redirect. Courtesy ping to the deleting admin Athaenara. -- Tavix (talk) 13:44, 12 May 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.

Droz (professional wrestling

[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 procedural close. Duplicate nomination, see above. PC78 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of PC78 who added the RfD tag to the redirect about 5 hours ago but did not add an entry here. I guess the nomination is for deletion because of the missing closing parenthesis, but hopefully they'll be along before long to confirm. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 10 May 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.

Islamic green

[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 Green in Islam. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target has been removed per research and discussion at Talk:Shades of green#Islamic green (no valid source for a color by this name) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:35, 10 May 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.

🐛

[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 Bug#Biology. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bug (disambiguation) per Paul/Psantora below Retarget to Caterpillar?Although Emojipedia states that Google and Microsoft depict this as a centipede or millipede, the Google/Microsoft renditions shown on Emojipedia clearly most closely resemble caterpillars. A few minor renditions shown on Emojipedia are clearly centipedes/millipedes. Unicode name bug isn't much help for a redirect target (renditions are certainly not representative of true bugs). Plantdrew (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Insect - I love them, but Emojipedia is not the source we should use for this. The source should be Unicode, which is where Emojipedia gets most of its strength from. They say the CLDR short name is bug. Many vendors use the CLDR name for autocomplete, so we should match that if we can. Vendors can interpret the short name visually how they want, like how Apple can make 🔫 look like a squirt gun, but it's really "pistol." I agree that on many platforms it looks like a caterpillar, but on Gmail and others, it does not. Fewer of them look like members of Hemiptera, the True Bugs. I think they mean bug as in the generic term for insect. There is no Bug (common name) page, and few of the entries at Bug pertain to insects or friends. Insect seems like the closest to the intent of Unicode as we can get. --Nessie (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, defining the emoji as "bug" was a bad decision because it's too ambiguous. wikt:bug, definition n1, uses: Any insect, arachnid, myriapod or entognath. Arthropod is a bit broader than that, but it is the article that encompasses "bugs" the best without the exclusion of others (eg: insect would exclude centipedes), as far as I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Not the best choice by Unicode, but arthropod is the best we have. Bug (disambiguation) leads to Hemiptera but the lead of that article gives the synonym "true bugs" and notes "Many insects commonly known as "bugs" belong to other orders; for example, the lovebug is a fly,[6] while the May bug and ladybug are beetles." It is most likely that the common meaning of "bug" is intended rather than the narrow scientific meaning, especially given the varying renditions - e.g it looks like a caterpillar to me and most caterpillars are in the order Lepidoptera but some are in Hymenoptera, neither of which shares a taxon with Hemiptera lower than Class. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:29, 10 May 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.

Castle (montsoreau)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Castle (montsoreau)

Fofty

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Fofty

Old Tongue

[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. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a constructed language that doesn't appear to have any coverage, and is not mentioned at the main article. Furthermore there are instances of "Old Tongue" in other fictional works, namely A Song of Ice and Fire. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:28, 10 May 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.

Doctor Bobert

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Doctor Bobert

Judas-Lady Gaga

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Judas-Lady Gaga

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_10&oldid=898014125"