Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2015.

(alternate (leaf)[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) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paren at the beginning of the title makes this redirect too unlikely of a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. What type of "alternate" is grouped as "leaf" exactly? --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D5. "(alternate" disambiguated by "(leaf)" doesn't make any sense. Generally improper redirect, so no good place to retarget.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fully enclosed but hanging parens, highly unlikely -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing and as an implausible search term. Rubbish computer 18:32, 1 September 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.

2015 explosion[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) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been many explosions in 2015, and no single explosion is sufficiently more notable than others to warrant having "2015 explosion" redirect to its article. Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. BMK (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the 2015 Tianjin explosions would probably be the most notable explosion so far this year. I'm actually surprised we don't have an article for explosions by year/decade, seeing as we have Category:Explosions in 2015. I might look into creating one, but until then, I'm fine with whatever consensus develops. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jax's second link is kind of what I was looking for, although it is nowhere near complete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 Tianjin explosions is the only explosion in 2015 listed in those articles. While that is arguably the most notable explosion in 2015, there were other notable explosions in 2015 as well, and as such I feel that those articles would be inappropriate targets. If the redirect is to be kept, its target page should be a page that lists all notable explosions in 2015.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ambiguous.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:BIAS this is not the New York City Wikipedia. There is a world outside of NYC, despite what New Yorkers may believe. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak retarget to Category:Explosions in 2015 which is where anyone searching for this term will find the explosion they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not valid as a redirect to a particular explosion. Disambiguation might be better, but as per Ivanvector, agree disambiguation is not good enough. There have been too many explosions in any given year to be worth disambiguating. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 2 September 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.

I just met you. And this is crazy. So here's my number. Call me maybe.[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) 20:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know what the hell all that was, but since there's been a comment on these two that came in the middle of me trying to merge the discussion into another thread, and a weird half-edit-conflict came with it, I've reverted the whole damn thing and am keeping this one separate instead. Apologies for the confusion. Crow recommended listing these two redirects on my talk page which fall afoul of WP:NOTLYRICS and are likely copyright violations; delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 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.

NHL Draft redirects[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) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOCKEY's consensus that it is not helpful to have individual players redirected to their draft article. See also: WP:RFD#Pier-Oliver Pelletier -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are proper and useful redirects for NHL drafted, but otherwise nn ice hockey players. Subjects are unlikely to warrant stand-alone articles under GNG or NHOCKEY, therefore meets the purpose of a redirect as sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. Dolovis (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are we to guess what someone would be looking for when searching with these terms? Every list that contains a player's name would show up in search results so if anything, these redirects are hindering search, which is the main premise of WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would presuppose -- based on God knows what speculation -- that the only thing anyone would know or think of these people is that they were selected in the NHL draft. That is, of course, nonsense -- wouldn't it be at least as likely for them to be associated with the teams for which they starred, and by which they'd be better remembered? Ravenswing 14:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, per WP:XY and per the numerous previous times redirects of this type have been deleted. Note also there will be many more pointing to single-season team articles, to team draft lists, to award articles for age groups as young as 15-17, etc... Resolute 19:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per XY, and as Resolute states, for the many, many times such implausible redirects that Dolovis has created has been deleted at RfD. Ravenswing 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:46, 3 September 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.

Untitled Mike Tyson Biopic[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) 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "the untitled problem." There should only be redirects of this fashion if it's an official or common name. The target says nothing about the fact that the biopic of Mike Tyson is untitled, and once it gains a title, this will become outdated anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mike Tyson. HENDAWG229 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 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.

Oscar winner, Martin Scorsese[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) 20:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible. This reads like this is an official title or something, which it's not. No other Oscar winners have a redirect of this type. There's a note under the redirect that says "about damn time too". -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 31 August 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.

The Silence (2014 film)[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) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another example of a failed crystal ball. This redirect refers to Silence (2016 film), which is two years off. Silence (disambiguation) lists a lot of films, but none for the year 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - insufficient history to warrant keeping as a redirect to the revised production date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The target article notes that there have been several putative release dates for this film, which may make useful search terms (depending how widely known/used they were) but none were in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 18:26, 1 September 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.

Untitled ( Hodgy Beats EP)[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 speedy delete per [[WP:CSD#G6. See also longer comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the implausible spacing error. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - this one appears to be an actual EP called "untitled"; the typo is unambiguous and probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The spacing in the disambiguator isn't implausible, but it is odd. If we get rid of this, we can prevent WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "keep" rationales for similar redirects later. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely redirect -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The page history of the target clearly shows that this was a typo made when moving the article to it's present title that was corrected less than a minute later. It clearly meets the "pages unambiguously created in error" criterion of CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 1 September 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.

Untitled (Rebecca Black album)[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) 20:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing and outdated. Rebecca Black does not have an untitled album. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - aww, I just had my generic untitled redirect template G7'd. Redirects from "untitled" pages to things which have titles are unhelpful. Redirects from "untitled" pages to artists are a form of nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominator. Redirects from "untitled" to things which have titles may be useful in some circumstances (e.g. if the title is unofficial, or only used in some markets) but not in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:46, 3 September 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.

Other Idols in Tirumala[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) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unclear since it does not specify what idols it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 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.

Other Characters in Back to the Future[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7#Other Characters in Back to the Future

Other Blackadder family residences[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) 18:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is confusing since it is not clear what this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for. Nobody so dumb as to be confused would be capable of language anyways, so there's no need to worry about anyone getting confused. WilyD 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it is confusing, but because there is no list in the target of Blackadder family residences (main or other) and so the searcher will not find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is this meant to be a list of residences for Blackadder characters, or a query regarding alternative habitats of various species of the black adder family? Also, I don't see where in the article the residences of the various Blackadders is discussed at all, whether they be the main characters played by Atkinson, his contemporary relatives, nor other members of the Blackadder dynasty who have not appeared in their own series to date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blackadder, in the series, did not really have a residence (except in series III where presumably he resided with Prince George, but even then it was not established where that was, and certainly was not Clarence House), and black adders are not known for their assertion of property rights.WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 3 September 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.

Wikipedia/Meetup/Lexington/ArtandFeminism/University of Kentucky[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 as a page unambiguously created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to keep, no link in GZWDer (talk) 08:42, 31 August 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.

About watch[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. I love watch. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. GZWDer (talk) 08:39, 31 August 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.

About world war 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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. GZWDer (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have boldly merged these discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles are 'about' the topic -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you mean to !vote Keep? Because your argument only seems to support keeping the redirect. WilyD 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean Ultra strong DELETE this should be nuked, as the only thing Wikipedia is for is to be "about" things, and therefore everything is just about everything. Thus this is useless. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That argument, ultra strong or not, is essentially WP:NOTHOWTO. We've had loads of these and consens€s seems to be divided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 September 2015
  • Keep - per the IP, readers are sent to exactly what they're looking for. WilyD 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess my impartility wanes when an editor can't be bothered to refer to another editor except to say "The IP". At least when I disagree with user:WilyD I do so by name. Many IP editors actually have talk pages and stable IP addresses, but I suppose that would be too hard to check. 70.51 has a long history of comments here, but the back end of 70.51's addy does change occasionally. Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO, though I fully expect WilyD will chime in with "no rationale has been stated for deletion", even when a rationale has been stated for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 3 September 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.

About babies[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) 18:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. GZWDer (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - abouts are incapable of producing offspring. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles are 'about' the topic; babies already redirects there. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for. Since the article is not a question/answer, and NOTFAQ is about article layout and thus can't be applied to redirects anyways. WilyD 07:17, 1 September 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.

Famous web search engine[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. I'm not relisting because I really doubt there will be consensus to delete (cf. WP:SNOW). We're looking at a keep or no consensus outcome here, and they're functionally the same. I won't be adding any Rcats, but I wouldn't object to someone adding {{R unprintworthy}} here. May I suggest, however, that information about this phrase be added to Google (verb) and the term retargeted there? If it's explained there, I don't think another RfD would be necessary. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned. GZWDer (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target due to its vagueness. Rubbish computer 12:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: inherently non-neutral (WP:PEACOCK). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not mentioned where? How about in this news source? This book? 23 hits at Google Scholar? FWSE is a tongue-in-cheek nickname for Google Search that was popular for a couple of years when Google lawyers were trying to discourage people from using Google as a verb. If you wrote "I Googled this" in a news article, you would get a letter from their trademark lawyers telling you that you must never do that again. FWSE became a way to tell your readers what you did, without getting cease-and-desist letters and while thumbing your nose at them. Also, the redirect exists in part because of the dab page FWSE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing. This is one of those cases where a painfully promotional name is picked up by reliable sources, and as such it's useful here and points where it should. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing and Ivanvector. This term is used extensively within New Scientist Magazine Feedback pages Pahazzard (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google isn't the only famous web search engine. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a "New Scientist" glossary. WP:NEOLOGISM New Scientist internal neologism jargon should not be used to mislead readers as to having only a single famous web search engine. The search results used to "keep" this redirect only show that the superlative is used in conjunction with Google, when it is about Google, but it is merely used in conjunction as a superlative. "A famous web search engine", and "Google ... the famous web search engine" or "The famous web search engine ... Google". Indeed, one would think this should refer to Baidu, BING, Altavista, WorldWideWebWorm or Yahoo, depending on region, context or period. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 1 September 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.

Reading murder books tryin' to stay hip[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) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G1 GoldenRing (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've merged these discussions since nom's rationale is the same and three subsequent comments could have (maybe were) copy-pasted between the discussions (mine was). Feel free to revert of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8#Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_31&oldid=1142656097"