Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2015.

Pura Vida (football)[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 11:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pura Vida" is part of the culture of Costa Rica, but its application to football is unclear. It's not mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 10 December 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.

Billy Bentinck[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 Bill Bentinck to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, 9th Duke of Portland, no consensus, default to keep for others. Deryck C. 11:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence the people at the DAB were referred to as Willy or Bill or Billy. Neelix just dreamed these up and therefore they may be deemed suitable for G6 housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably significant enough to retarget Bill Bentinck to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, 9th Duke of Portland, as the article says he went by "Bill Bentinck" as his common name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two, redirect Bill Bentinck to the Duke of Portland article —МандичкаYO 😜 19:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he did similar treatment to other DAB pages for names like William, Fredrick, Ed. Just throw all the common nicknames at the name. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 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.

Brown Field[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 Brownfield (disambiguation). (Extra note: from my personal knowledge, brownfield [the planning concept] is usually one word in technical literature.) Deryck C. 10:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to an article that is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Brown Field should probably be a disambiguation page. Fbdave (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fbdave Thanks for the information you provided. (I'll be voicing my opinion below this comment at some point.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fbdave: In this case, I'm not sure since I am very unfamiliar with the subject at Brownfield land. In fact, that leads me to my next question: Ivanvector, do you have any evidence of a strong connection between this term (with a space versus without one) with the subject at Brownfield land? I wonder if the term specifically has a connection only with the compound version of the word and not as separate words. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In one of my many lives as an armchair urban planner, yes it's quite common as Legacypac says. It's less common to hear about in a major urban centre like Toronto since there is practically no greenfield left to develop, but yes greenfield and brownfield are definitely well-known urban development terms. I assume that brownfield land is so named for natural disambiguation. I can't say for sure that using the two words separately ("brown field") definitely refers to this, but I think it's likely enough. Or the usages for the two words separately don't seem to be prominent enough to challenge for primary topic. It's easy enough for both usages to be referred to the same disambiguation page anyway, we don't need to have a separate brownfield (disambiguation) and brown field (disambiguation). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 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.

File:Leary.jpg[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 deleted per criterion G6 by RHaworth. Commons file now exposed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and unused file redirect that Shadows a different Commons file. LukeSurl t c 14:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LukeSurl: Just tag such redirects with {{Db-redircom}}. Deletion of such redirects have been determined to be uncontroversial as routine housekeeping. Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Steel1943. I wasn't aware of that template but I'll use it in future. --LukeSurl t c 14:54, 10 December 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.

File:Map2.jpg[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 deleted per criterion G6 by RHaworth. Commons page (a redirect) now exposed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccessary and unused redirect from wholly ambiguous and non-useful name. LukeSurl t c 14:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and create & upload protect it. And on Commons, we should do the same thing that was done with commons:File:Name.jpg that is upload a warning image and fully protect the file.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Eta: I've repointed the redirect on Commons to their own "Too imprecise file name" page, so this one only needs a deletion and protection.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ...And with Jo-Jo Eumerus' edit on Commons, the redirect on Wikipedia nominated here is now eligible for {{Db-redircom}}, so I have tagged it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 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.

File:Napoleon.jpg[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 deleted per criterion G6 by RHaworth. Commons file now exposed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted to allow easy use of Napoleon.jpg on commons. All use of this redirect on the English Wikipedia has been removed. LukeSurl t c 14:17, 10 December 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:CFS[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 withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for explaining the purpose of this redirect. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 13:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. More precise target. sst✈(discuss) 14:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. The shortcut matches the template {{Cfs}} used on the regular nomination page. "CFS" stands for "Categories for splitting" as hinted by the template. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel. A hatnote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to nom's preferred target won't hurt though --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 11 December 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.

Parentboard[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 consensus is that the current target is inappropriate and the proposed alternative isn't good enough either. Deryck C. 11:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. What a joke. A motherboard is basically never referred to as a "parentboard"; in fact from a Google search most search results for "parentboard" are about school bulletin boards intended for parents. sst✈(discuss) 08:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SSTflyer: Yeah, and to be honest my first thought was something like "sigh, are there really people for whom this matters?" A search showed that the use of parentboard=motherboard is rare, but since we did not have a Parentboard I thought "what the heck". Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 08:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to bulletin board, which is the usage that comes up primarily in Google results. We don't have anything specific about school parent boards but they are just a narrow-purpose bulletin board. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to keep a silly inaccurate redirect just because we can redirect it to something almost as silly and obscure and completely un-mentioned on Wikipedia (and unlikely to ever be significantly mentioned). We don't need this and it should not remain on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While bulletin board appears to be a better choice than what we currently have I don't think it is good enough to be necessary.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Parentboard isn't attested at "bulletin board" and my searches always show it as two words, not one. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 17 December 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:Semantic-core boxes[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 all. Deryck C. 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved an essay (with text such as "Some set if articles, ..., are complementar ones, forming semanctic clustering or very closing nodes of a hypertext.") from Wikipedia namespace to user space (User:Krauss/Semantic-core boxes). That left these redirects from Wp namespace to User namespace. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:R2 as out-of-policy redirects. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but post a notice on the author's talk page about the move. Otherwise they may look for their essay at any of the old titles. R2 only applies to redirects from mainspace, and we keep redirects from WP space to User space all the time, but these don't seem to be otherwise useful at the moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 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_December_10&oldid=1079637904"