Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2015.

The recent unpleasantness with the North[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) 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent? The civil war ended (exactly) 150 years ago! Joking aside, I've seen variations of this as minor historical names of the Civil War, but I'm not too sure about this one. Tavix |  Talk  21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think this might be another joke from Futurama, but not suitable for a redirect. Google brings up that this phrase has been used in a book about the American Civil War, but certainly not in notably wide use. Probably unlikely as a search. Ivanvector (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while amusing, definitely not a plausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was thinking North Korea, and various incidents... or North Vietnam -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to WP:DAFT while you're at it. --NYKevin 23:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I think "recent" is pushing it.--Lenticel (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, folks? "The recent unpleasantness" is a genuine term for the US Civil War. I don't know if the nominated term is worth keeping, but it's not outlandish. - Eureka Lott 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I shared EurekaLott's concerns when I read this nomination, so I looked up the term via search engines. Turns out that the phrase "the recent unpleasantness" refers to either a war or an upcoming war in general, and is not a term exclusive to the American Civil War. In fact, when looking up the redirect on search engines, the results vary from the civil war, World War I, and a conflict in India. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, since "recent" is a relative term. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:36, 14 April 2015 (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.

Lord British (ship)[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 no consensus. Deryck C. 08:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this redirect refers to a fictional spaceship in its target article's subject. The fact that this redirect contains the disambiguator "ship" instead of "spaceship" could lead readers into thinking that they are going to find information about a sea-faring vessel. (Also, the attributions that were here previously have been moved to Lord British (spaceship).) Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless there's some other ship this could be confused with -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue here is that the "Lord British" topic at the redirects' target gets such a slight passing mention that unless the subject is as specific as possible in the redirect's disambiguator, a reader could be searching the target article forever trying to find something in the article that doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the main protagonist in the videogame, being the avatar that you control (a spaceship). -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing per nom. Tavix |  Talk  05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no other ships, so how is it confusing -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The minor issue is that nobody has ever been called "Lord British". Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out your pipe. I meant a genuine "Lord British". a Lord of the Admiralty or something. And actually that is one of the few things one cannot do in the UK for naming, is to fake your name. That is just a style. Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party, I give you by example. He was not a Lord and never claimed to be. 62.165.221.104 (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Not logged in. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll check that give me a sec. We are treading on each others' feet here. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, well I think I am right in the case of heridatry titles, but we do have Lord British as an article. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Finchley tried to fix the electric light
Himself. It struck him dead. And serve him right.
It is the duty of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan. — Hillaire Belloc ([[1]], I think this is reproduced in minor variations because that one is different from what I have in my collection).


Noblesse Oblige and all that. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • section four in that article is the queer one. Apparently they only exist in computer games, not in real life. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know the old joke about the engineer with constpiation? He worked it out with a pencil. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how off-topic you got. That joke has nothing to do with Lord British (ship). Tavix |  Talk  07:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I go off topic a hell of a lot. The reason I do is it makes other people, whose minds work differently from mine, think oh well we could have this or that. Which is what we are here for. It is not as if I started talking about Bengal Tigers or something. It was actually connected, in my mind, to a ship. If you want me to go off in a whirl, there is a pub, just being rebulilt, called "Ye Olde Friggate"" just round the corner from Budapest Eastern Station. Take tram 79 and get off one stop before the terminus. My mind connects things in different ways from yours. Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't recall there being a seafaring component to any of the Ultima games, thus no ships, at least none named for or owned/captained by Lord British. Thus it's not particularly confusing. Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Except when someone who is familiar with the Ultima series, such as myself, sees this redirect appear in the search bar when I try to look up "Lord British", and then arrive at the Salamander video game article and assume that the Salamander video game has some sort of connection with Lord British or Ultima. Also, ships are used quite often in several Ultima titles, and since the phrase "Lord British" has strong notable ties with the Lord British character as well as Richard Garriott, the redirect could be considered misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the Ultima series doesn't have a monopoly on all possible uses of the term, just like Star Trek doesn't have a monopoly on Enterprise. There can be other uses without them being automatically misleading. Ivanvector (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison presented here isn't as strong. The word "enterprise" has several meanings that do not relate to Star Trek, such as a car rental company, or any of the almost hundred other meanings on the disambiguation page. The only use I have ever seen of the term "Lord British" specifically refers to Ultima, Lord British (the character), or Richard Garriott. If there were any other possible notable subject or terms that could be referred to as "Lord British", then I probably would have never initiated this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steely probably has the best knowledge on this one then, and I'll follow whatever he says on it. Haven't voted I don't think but will likely recast in Steely's favour, whatever that decision is. Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I played a lot of The Stygian Abyss (a LOT) in the mid-'90s, but I'll bow to Steel's knowledge on this one. Also, we've had enough snow this winter. Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have had, I must brush my boots. But I think it is snowing on this one. Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, may I ask, what is an avatar? Not the whole of the world plays computer games. Some of us have better things to do. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Avatar is the character that the player controls in the Ultima series of computer games. Ivanvector (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
an avatar is the item which represents the player in any computer game, it is not restricted to Ultima. Your character you control in The Sims is your avatar, the car you control in Outrun is your avatar, Super Mario in Super Mario Brothers is your avatar. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in the Ultima series, the playable character is specifically called "The Avatar", even by the other NPCs in the games. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of off topic, but the Ultima usage seems to have been the origin of the computing term. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the massive discussion surrounding the renaming of Avatar articles established that many editors believe that the South Asian religious concept is the origin (and not Origin Systems Inc.) of the computer avatar. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so he is a fictional character in a fictional game. That does not make him notable. Delete, Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Since you asked, we have HMHS Britannic as article. Close enough? Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, not really, since I do not see where this ship is mentioned or named as "Lord British". Steel1943 (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, striking that one then.... You would think it would go kinda to some ship of the British Admiralty, but I can't think of one either.... HMS Victory would seem a long stretch out, although gets some search results as Nelson's flagship, but I don't think close enough, and First Sea Lord seems a stretch too. 07:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I was a bit ASTONISHed here because I'm familiar with Ultima and expected that the term was at least an homage. Garriott's house, Britannia Manor, is named for the character, so I would've expected something like a yacht belonging to him. But ultimately,(lol) there seems to be only one thing called "Lord British" which is a ship. If there's no other actual topic it could be confused with, I'm inclined to let the redirect stand. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch it, I do the bad puns around here... Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lord British. That seems far less astonishing. The parenthetical DAB is sorta unnecessary but to avoid breaking incoming links, etc. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is not ambiguous or incorrect. A spaceship is a ship, and there are no other ships with this name, so people will not be astonished if they are searching for this title. If they are astonished following an internal link, then that is the fault of the surrounding context not of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (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.

MLB Japan Opening Series 2012[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 2012 Major League Baseball season. There isn't a clear consensus in the discussion, although all participants agree that the current state of the redirect should be changed. Hence I'm taking the majority opinion of retargeting. Deryck C. 08:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK. This event seems to be notable but it only takes up approximately one sentence at Major League Baseball. Tavix |  Talk  23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A regular-season MLB series probably doesn't need its own article, even if the series was held in Japan. Retarget to 2012 Major League Baseball season, where it's mentioned in the opening sentence. - Eureka Lott 03:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2012 Major League Baseball season as per EurekaLott's rationale. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per EurekaLott/Snuggums. Ivanvector (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A reader searching for this term is clearly looking for some level of detail, and likely knows how to find the general article on the 2012 MLB season. Since that article says nothing but that a couple of games were played in Japan. Again, almost certainly already known to someone searching for this term. Whether or not this could ever be its own article, I'm presently convinced that the redirect is most likely to confuse and mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2015 (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.

Template:1r[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Template:1r

This Heart[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) 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not officially confirmed (yet) as the title for Hilary Duff's fifth album. The source used in Hilary Duff discography (which I removed) actually states it is the name of a song from her album about her son Luca. No prejudice against future recreation if Duff later confirms this to be the album's title, but these redirects should be deleted for now as a misinterpretation of a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anything, it would be better to retarget to other articles containing "This Heart" within the title. Not worth retargeting in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:50, 11 April 2015 (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.

Wiitarded[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) 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline attack redirect, but its been around a while, and I guess it's possible that this is a legitimate term somehow, so using RFD instead of CSD to see if there is any reason to save this. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible and potentially offensive redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to WP:RNEUTRAL, non-neutral redirects are allowed if they are "established terms." This is not the case, so we can safely delete this one. Tavix |  Talk  18:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2015 (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.

Адвентизм[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) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: Adventism doesn't have any particular affinity for any language or culture besides English. Tavix |  Talk  14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. These are originally English language topics originated in the U.S.A. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (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.

Mechanical hardware[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. Well, there's something I don't see every day. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a test; please disregard. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? this redirect should be deleted as it makes no sense. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As opposed to electronic hardware. I think this redirect is harmless, but if there's a desire to delete it, I won't object. Pageview traffic is almost nonexistent. I was just testing {{Rfd2/sandbox}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this not harmful? Mechanical hardware exists in places that are not houses -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX, per the moving admin's edit summaries here and here. Pinging Anthony Appleyard just in case. It does seem like an apples-to-oranges redirect in any case. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, if you look at my edit summary here, "This is just a test of the new sandbox template.", it was not my intention to pass off a hoax on anyone. I was intending to revert my request, and was surprised to see it honored a mere three minutes after I submitted it, which was one minute before I removed it from that page. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so a good-faith test, then, rather than a hoax. But I still think as a redirect it's misleading; there could be a lot of other definitions for "mechanical hardware". I thought that you meant that this Rfd was a test. Ivanvector (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This RfD is a test, per the request here. Typically, if the term "mechanical hardware" is ambiguous, and we have other articles about it, then we convert it to a disambiguation page. But, again, given the negligible pageview count, it's OK with me to delete it. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, I'm confused about the requested move being a test and the RfD also being a test, but it doesn't really matter. We're discussing the redirect as though nothing here was a test, yeah? ;) Ivanvector (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (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/2015_April_9&oldid=1142587282"