Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 18, 2019.

State Prison station[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) 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the purpose of this redirect is. An internet search would suggest that there are quite a few state prison (fire) stations, and the target article doesn't specifically mention any stations. I would suggest deletion unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note in the infoboxes of Joliet Union Station and Lockport station (Illinois), an invocation is given under station services, because there was a "State Prison" railroad station at one point along the Alton Railroad. I could bypass the redirect by using Module:Adjacent stations/Alton Railroad if need be. Cards84664 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that does explain things. However, I'm concerned that having a redirect from a station article that looks like it's pointing at another station but then dumps them on an essentially unrelated article might be too surprising. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The external links section at Joliet Correctional Center does contain the railway station sequence boxes, but there is no other content on that page. If anyone has access to sources I think adding content about the station either to the prison article or as a new stub and targetting this redirect to the relevant article or section would be best. In the absence of any content then deletion would be best I think. I'll alert the trains and stations WikiProjects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be redlinked until there's actual content about the station. Having a succession box at the bottom of the related article isn't sufficient. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect is not taking the reader to the desired encyclopedic content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My Google searches aren't showing any colloquial references to "State prison station" for this correctional institution. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 26 November 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.

Newbury, CT[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 Brookfield, Connecticut. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, it's not clear that any place named Newbury, Connecticut exists. I would suggest deletion unless a justification is provided signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Brookfield Chamber of Commerce website, where it states that the town was formerly known as "Newbury":
https://www.brookfieldchamber.org/brookfields-history/ --AirportExpert (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
In light of this, I would suggest retarget to Brookfield, Connecticut which actually mentions its history as the Parish of Newbury. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)AirportExpert[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.

Calaq[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26#Calaq

Santa Clara principles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26#Santa Clara principles

Template:Info[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 29#Template:Info

JNQXAC9IVRw[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. The rough consensus is in favour of disallowing redirects from YouTube IDs in general. Deryck C. 14:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Benjamin (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment at the previous RfD: Per point 8 of WP:RFD#DELETE, this is a rather obscure search string even though its target is unambiguous, and it will not help anyone except those who search by copying and pasting. I find no evidence that this ID is particularly significant—these IDs are not commonly known or referred to—and I will note that even the most viewed YouTube videos don't have such redirects. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Also note that there were 49 pageviews total in the two years preceding the other RfD, which likely is responsible for the surge in pageviews (i.e. this does not reflect much usage). ComplexRational (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike the other redirect, this subject is actually a YouTube video, so the YouTube ID is even more relevant. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really cannot figure out how this would be widely useful. Who would be copy and pasting only the youtube ID of a video into the search bar? I believe that redirects are cheap, but keeping some redirects can open pandora's box to a lot of really useless redirects. I don't think we should encourage youtube IDs as redirects generally, and I don't see how this is very helpful. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ComplexRational. We don't even keep redirects from Wikidata IDs, so I don't see how this works as anything more than an easter egg. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is likely to become a landmark precedent, so we should have as much participation as possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and emerging consensus above. Yes, redirects are cheap, but these are also implausible address URLs. So, consider this my blanket support to the nom, and to other noms, to delete (possibly with salt) current YouTube video database calls that are redirects. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless. Who's going to be copy-pasting video IDs into here and expecting a result?  Nixinova  T / C   03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not the title of the work in question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New comments are still coming in, so give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirects being cheap may be a reason for keeping ones that are vaguely useful but not a reason for keeping ones that are useless. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is still going on. Most useless and implausible redirect ever. Hopefully we don't need to wait a full 7 days... Doug Mehus T·C 03:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: You had already given your opinion above, so I'm not sure I understand why you felt the need to give you opinion again. Could you please speak on that? Do you really believe that the YouTube ID for an article on a YouTube video qualifies for the title of the most useless and implausible redirect ever? That certainly doesn't seem accurate to me, so if you can help me get to how you reached that conclusion, I would be grateful. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Point taken. I've struck my comment from the record. It was extraneous fluff.Doug Mehus T·C 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Any notable YouTube video has an ID, I see no useful justification why there's any need for a redirect for them. I'd be perfectly happy for this discussion to set a precedent for deletion of any others. ~ mazca talk 21:33, 19 November 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.

British House iof Commons[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) 15:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with "implausible typo or misnomers", it does not meet speedy deletion criteria because it was created too long ago. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 2016 is certainly way too old for speedy deletion, and it's an obvious typo but one that is very plausible given the proximity of i and o on a QWERTY keyboard, and one that is apparently frequently made, as it has received 137 hits so far this year. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely typo. We can't have typos for everything; it's unwieldy. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Doug Mehus. Redirects should not try to take the place of the Search function, and we should not have redirects for every possible typo: this typo does not seem any more plausible than Britiah House of Commons, British House of Commosn, British Hoise of Commons, and many other permutations resulting from the proximity of two keys on a keyboard. Given the creation summary, I would attribute the ~140 page views this year (there were only 50 in 2018) to a misspelled incoming link from article text, which should have simply been corrected instead of converted into a blue link. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unlkely typo. It's not like trying to spell Koinonia AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:59, 19 November 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.

Early 2K (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 keep. The rough consensus is that the redirect in its current state is worth keeping. There is also a consensus to remind User:Ss112 that the act of moving the redirect while the RfD was ongoing had messed up the discussion and page history, so similar unilateral moves should be avoided in the future. Deryck C. 14:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Early 2K, Early 2k both created by the same editor. This was created yesterday and serves no additional or extra advice over and above the 2 existing redirects. Richhoncho (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. "Unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Thryduulf. This just looks like a vindictive attempt to get a redirect deleted because I changed its name at this point. Let it go. Ss112 17:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic interpersonal dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Ss112:. Vindictive? Not for the first time you have made this kind of uncalled for attack. So let's recap, I nominated, Early On (Chris Brown song, which you then moved to this redirect, and deleted the original redirect for nomination. See here, so I did get 'my redirect' deleted, as opposed to what you claim above. Then I point out (and ask) how many redirects does a single non-notable song actually need? Anybody actually looking for the song will have found it long before they type (song) into the search engine. Whether people agree with me or not is not relevant and why there is a debate, opened up by me. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richhoncho: "Attack"? You had to again nominate the redirect for deletion (which I created, by the way, so it was never "yours"—you picking up on a mistake that I would have corrected [like I did with all the other Indigo tracks that were renamed] had I noticed it doesn't mean you got your way) like you couldn't handle not getting the original deleted through your discussion because I moved it. In all other cases you would have tagged it with "R from unnecessary disambiguation" like Thryduulf did above, as you yourself have done this previously (and I have seen you do countless times). So why didn't you do that in this case when you have done so if you've come across a redirect with unnecessary disambiguation? That looks vindictive as hell to me. So don't act like it's "uncalled for" like I just insulted you out of nowhere for no reason. Oh, and by the way, it was Early On (Chris Brown song). I didn't forget a parenthesis. I don't need to be pinged again, Richhoncho. Thanks. Ss112 21:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accusing editors of being vindictive isn't an attack? It was and remains coarse, unnecessary and an attack on another editor. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that's your take. I don't think it's an attack, I called it like I saw it. If you don't want to be "attacked" or described as vindictive, don't do vindictive things. Your nomination of this redirect is what's really unnecessary here. Couldn't get your way the first time so you'll try it again. Also, you've attacked editors before, so don't act like a saint. Spare us. Ss112 09:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I did 'get my own way' - you deleted the redirect. Don't use words you don't understand, Vindictive is an offensive attack on another editor. Now leave it. It's here for everybody to read, who started it and who responded. End of story. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh buddy, I know what vindictive means, thanks. Hilarious trying to condescend to me like we're not all sitting at computers and even if we didn't understand the meaning of words, could not easily just Google them. I will call things like I see them, and I would call it vindictive again, so stop trying to get me to stop using that word, because you can't. As I just told you but will reiterate yet again as you quite often miss the point—I missed moving that one redirect. If what I already intended to do is the same thing that you wanted, then that's not you getting your way and certainly not some kind of "victory" for you. That's just coincidence. Finally, I will not stop commenting just because you deem it the end of the story and you cannot stop me from doing so. Vindictive BS will and should be called out and you personally taking "offense" to it doesn't mean it needs to stop being said. Keep replying if you wish, I'll be back right after it with something else. Ss112 16:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. On a related note, I added Rcats to the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move back the history of Early On (Chris Brown song), which was moved to a different title out of process. If Ss112 wished for a redirect to exist titled Early 2K (song), they should have created the redirect separately instead of intertwining it with a bad redirect. This creates the confusion we see in this discussion and muddies the history of this redirect with an unrelated RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a tough one because I was concerned of the need for attribution preservation, potentially, and Thryduulf made a compelling argument as well. However, it seems the actual song isn't titled this, so it's an implausible typo and it also doesn't seem to follow our naming conventions with the artist's name in parentheses. As well, Tavix had a slightly more compelling argument. Doug Mehus T·C 18:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: Artists names in parentheses are only used when there are multiple songs with the same title that need disambiguating (compare Yesterday (Beatles song) and Help! (song).) You also appear to be mistaken about the name of the song - the track listing shows there to be called "Early 2K" on the album so there are no typos or other mistakes involved. So this is nothing other than a perfectly ordinary redirect from a song to the album it is on, meaning there is absolutely no reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Thanks, as always, for your reply. I'll consider changing my !vote, but would like to hear back from Tavix further on his or her rationale. Perhaps I misunderstood their rationale, or it was otherwise unclear. It's odd we have two fine administrators in disagreement with this redirect. I need further clarity before I decide whether to keep my !vote or change to "keep." Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tavix and I frequently disagree about redirects. In cases where there is no benefit at all to deletion but keeping it will help some readers I will almost always recommending keeping, whereas Tavix will usually only do so if there are an arbitrarily and inconsistently large group of readers who will benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had to open up the collapsed discussion to understand Tavix's argument, but I still don't find it at all compelling. We only look at what's in front of us, and as things stand, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this redirect or its history. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 26 November 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.

The Big Fun Crafty Show[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. Consensus can change, but there was no consensus to deleting this redirect to a list page. It could be useful to add Rcat to list post-close, but that can be done outside of this RfD. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 18:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a fake too. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The show is not a fake: [1]. What makes you think it is? The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actual show on the network's schedule per Mirror (it's mainly a Sunday/holiday series right now in the morning); the article wasn't good, but I'm not inclined to ask for a deletion of a redirect on a series that does air on the network. Nate • (chatter) 07:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I noticed an IP removed the deletion tag and tried to restart the article. This makes me wonder if the general conesus favors the article (so far, 2 keeps and 1 delete), then would it be appropiate to improve the article in any way. In general, I am neutual on rather to keep it, however Nate mentioned it is real, so I support under that. Thank you, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 18:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The attempted article is terrible. I don't know if the show is notable, but there is a similarly terrible draft at Draft:The Big Fun Crafty Show if anybody want to attempt to flesh it out as an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq Thank you for the reply. Yeah, (he/she?) didn't do the best job in the world, although I will give it a go to see if I can improve it any. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq Would this be an acceptable edit to the draft? Thanks, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 19:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the draft os getting offtopic so I will answer on your talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to ping Degacrowe9 to this discussion to see what their opinion is. I will not !vote. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mentioned [2] Whether it's ready for a split article depends on the other GNG criteria, but as a redirect it's fine as is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Thank you for your input so far. I would say the article is not quite ready for the article space, but the draft seems to be moving along okay for now. Since I made a few contributions to this, I won't vote one way or another, but I just wanted to answer some questions regarding quality. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 16:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Real show that has a mention at the target. Geolodus (talk) 09:52, 24 November 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_November_18&oldid=928538922"