Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 2, 2019.

No Endgame for Spidey[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) 05:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect term appears to be a quote that was included on a bluray print of the film, [1]. However, while some attention has been paid to it, it's not mentioned at the target and I doubt it would be DUE to do so, leaving me to doubt this redirect's usefulness. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 2 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.

Mountain Meadows massacre/Archive 1[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) 05:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likely created to match the corresponding archived talk pages, and they conceivably make it easier to get back to the article from each of those pages. The problem is that these redirects are in the article namespace, this namespace does not allow subpages, and so the redirects are treated as any other mainspace redirect (e.g. they turn up in searches or in the search box drop-down list of suggestions). Two procedural notes: 1) I have placed notices of this discussion only on the last seven redirects; 2) if the redirects do get deleted, then the corresponding talk pages should obviously not be tagged with {{old rfd}}. – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Uanfala: Huh, just a few hours ago I came across two redirects like this in the new pages feed—World War III/Archive 1 and World War III/Archive 2. Do you know how widespread this practice is? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging by these search results, there appear to be around 130 articles that have this sort of redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a particular reason you've limited your RfD to the 17 redirects listed above? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've curently nominated those with two-digit archive numbers and all the ones for the article that has the most archives. That's a test sample to test the viability of deletion. I'm not keen on nominating all of them at once, because of the possibility of a WP:TRAINWRECK, the need to allow individual redirects to be scrutinised by the community (which is difficult if there are too many of them), and to avoid overloading the RfD log page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually don't have a strong opinion on whether redirects like this are a net positive. Being able to go directly from a talk page archive to its parent article is convenient, and I doubt that most of these redirects are causing any damage. I can think of a few cases where they could be detrimental—for instance, if someone is searching "Hispanic/Latino naming dispute" and "Hispanic/Archive 1" pops up in the search bar suggestion list, that could potentially cause some confusion. The main thing that pushes me towards deletion is that there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to how these redirects were created. Why does A Course in Miracles/Archive 08 exist, while A Course in Miracles/Archive 07, A Course in Miracles/Archive 06, etc., do not? Why do we have redirects to articles with relatively inactive talk pages (e.g., Chutney/Archive 1) but not redirects to articles with much more active talk pages (e.g., Mathematics/Archive 1 and United States/Archive 1). IMO, even if the community decides that redirects like this are a net positive (which they may not be), it would be better to start from scratch and create them in a more consistent and logical fashion. For this reason, I am going to say delete all, without prejudice to recreating if consensus to do so emerges in a more general discussion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In all honesty, for these redirects to be useful, they should target their respective talk pages (archive pages) ... but then, they would be eligible for WP:R2 speedy deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: Retargeting to the archived talk pages would actually defeat the purpose of these redirects. Notice how in Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1, the "Article" tab in the upper left-hand corner is a bluelink? The goal is to be able to get to the American Revolution article by clicking on that tab, rather than having to click back to Talk:American Revolution and then clicking on the article tab. Retargeting American Revolution/Archive 1 to the archive page would take away this shortcut. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lord Bolingbroke: Regarding "The goal is to be able to get to the American Revolution article by clicking on that tab, rather than having to click back to Talk:American Revolution and then clicking on the article tab." ... for the most part, there is no precedent for this (with the exception of 130 or so mentioned above.) In fact, in most cases, the tab on the top left corner is actually "red" when you go to an archive page. As redirects, the nominated redirects aren't helpful because with their wording with "archive" included, readers would be intending to go directly to the archive page. So as redirects, which is what these are, they are unhelpful and misleading in their current state (targeting their {{ROOTPAGENAME}}s) since they are not alternative names for their target articles, and eligible for WP:R2 if they target their talk pages. In fact, IMO, there should be a allowance to have these redirects eligible for WP:G6 speedy deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above - they are not real subpages, and are unneeded --DannyS712 (talk) 05:46, 4 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.

How to become a lawyer that screams "Objection!" every time someone says something that is damaging to your case[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) 05:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this phrase at the target article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, even if I did get a bit of a chuckle when I read this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Know Your Meme gives some context. (Yes, I know how unreliable it is.) Anyway, delete as unencyclopedic and implausible. Geolodus (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel like this is probably clear WP:G3 material, but whatever - it's an obvious delete.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:13, 3 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.

User:Wizzoh[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 soft redirect to Sailor. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old (2008) cross-namespace redirect from a user page to an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to a soft redirect. The user obviously intended there to be a link from their user page to the Sailor article, but a hard redirect is confusing so the best (and normal) solution is to convert it into a soft redirect. Deletion is not required or warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf or a redirect to their user talk would be okay. --Lenticel (talk) 03:35, 4 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.

List of members of the Italian Senate, 2013–[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) 05:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted, now it is backward, the legislature ended in 2018. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:03, 2 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.

God Family Kamikazo[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) 05:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a genuine title, and is instead a literal translation and a shortened nickname of the Japanese title unhelpfully grouped together in a single redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:10, 2 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_2&oldid=925450372"