Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2015.

Contradiction in terms[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 procedural close. This is a move request. You're probably right, but use WP:RM. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse the redirect. WP:NOTENGLISH. A bit of a reductio ad absurdem on my part. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we can't even get that right. It is -em, not -um, for reduction. Sheesh. I only did metalwork. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 1 July 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.

Spaceballs 3[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceballs will probably never have a sequel. It's fine to have Spaceballs 2 redirect to Spaceballs#Sequel and animated series, but this just doesn't work. BDD (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rick Moranis has publicly stated a proposed sequel to Spaceballs would have been called "Spaceballs 3: The Search for Spaceballs 2" [1]; which is already in the sequel section as "Spaceballs III", so why a textual search you performed may not have found it. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Ok, withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 2 July 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.

List of PG-12 (Japan)-rated movies[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. If anyone wants to restore the page history to be histmerged into another page, please ask me or any other admin. Deryck C. 09:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine we'd ever have such an article. There's no such list, or anything like it, at the target article. BDD (talk) 17:53, 1 July 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.

Tector[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 dabify. I'm the nominator, of course, but this seems unanimous, and I was more asking for deletion anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of things named Tector, but none seem notable enough for a standalone article. I drafted a dab at Draft:Tector, and it already looks pretty dumb even though I only made it through the first two pages of search results. This had 9 hits last month, so it's probably not a very likely search term anyway, but when it is searched, I'm kind of thinking search results may be the best option. BDD (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create {disambig|surname|given name} page per BDD's draft, which contains many possible search targets which meet MOS:DABMENTION. Nothing to be gained for readers by not making it easy for them. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I agree that it might be "dumb", but it's certainly useful for someone searching for it. That draft is better than search results because every usage of the term is on one page, instead of scattered through pages of search results. I've seen a few disambiguations that don't have any entries notable enough for a standalone article pass through an AfD, so this one should too if challenged. Examples include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Collins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move with You (2nd nomination), etc. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB it per Tavix' draft. Don't seem dumb to me at all. I was thinking also it is an aphrasis for protector as in e.g. Toe-tectors, steel toecapped boots, and also little nylon ones used in cleanrooms but that is hard to reference (easy to search with Your Favourite Search Engine but none seems very RS). (I'm not suggesting Cromwell was Lord Tector, although he was Lord Protector: but I think it is a fairly common aphrasis.) There again, we are WP:NOTDIC. Sector and Tensor also sprang to my mind, but that is just because I am weird. Wiktionary has never heard of it. Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 3 July 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.

🏯[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. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This emoji seems ambiguous, considering that at least for me, this icon looks like a pagoda. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think of pagodas as less pyramidal than this, though there are counterexamples on that article. As long as we mostly use Unicode redirects, I don't find this one particularly objectionable, but I'd be open to just getting rid of all of them. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I want to soft redirect it per my rationale at WP:RFD#👯, but I had to wade through a gambit of Wiktionary policy to get there. (Fair warning: I've never used Wiktionary, so I might not know what I'm talking about.) wikt:🏯 was actually deleted last week by Kephir with the deletion rationale "Unattested character with no definition other than its Unicode name." That seems weird to me because I feel like a unicode definition would pass wikt:WT:ATTEST because it's verified through Unicode, and unicode is in widespread use. So I went to their deletion area, wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (which is ironically abbreviated RFD), and couldn't find any emoji related requests for deletion. Next, I went to wikt:WT:DELETE, which lists reasons why a page might be speedy deleted (which I'm assuming to mean without an RFD), and I'm not seeing any reasons there why that page might be deleted. So, I decided to be bold and recreate it using the same format as wikt:🔞 under the rationale that it contains more than just a unicode definition and requested an RFD there if someone still thinks it should be deleted. (It looks like you can just create a page again if it gets deleted per WT:DELETE#Undeletion.) -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a criteria where it would qualify for speedy deletion: as an implausible type (or other type of redirect that no one is actually likely to search for)(See WP:CSD R3). Compassionate727 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Compassionate727: My comment above regarding speedy deletion had to do with Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. If you're referring to this redirect, CSD R3 doesn't apply as it isn't recently created (it was created in November 2010). -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a criterion, or "there are criteria". Criteria is plural, Or do I have to take my big clunking fist to persuade you so? Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we not, perhaps, redirect all of our emoji to Emoji? bd2412 T 19:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It'd be more helpful, IMO, to take them somewhere that defines the emoji, whether that is through a redirect to Japanese castle in this case, or a soft redirect to a wiktionary page that defines it. I'm assuming most people already know that they are emojis, so a redirect there probably wouldn't be helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Who's actually going to try to type an emoji into the search engine anyway? Compassionate727 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering that. Perhaps some smartphones suggest them to you? I don't know, but my cheapo Lenovo smartphone with Android displayed the few before. Some idiot at Google adding them, I suspect. Fonts (rather typefaces but that is the common word nowadays) don't have colours, as I pointed out earlier. 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. It is a castle, not a pagoda. See [2], where “城(日本)” means ‘castle (Japanese)’. Gorobay (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorobay. If you go [3], you will see “城(日本)” translates to "castle." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic678 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to graphema.com U+01F3EF is "JAPANESE CASTLE" (http://graphemica.com/%F0%9F%8F%AF) and U+01F3EE is "izakaya lantern". However I am strongly against putting emoji into Wikipedia at all as it is confusing, especially because not everyone (myself included) has a browser capable of displaying them.
As a general point of order, I regard emoji as a foreign language (I don't mean Japanese, but its own language) and thus WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:RFOREIGN. We don't have 城, for example. (Years ago I learned katakana and hiragana but didn't do so well on kanji.) Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike some other recent emoji redirect discussions, this one seems to render fairly similarly on all systems ([4]) and is intended to depict what it currently targets. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources define it as a Japanese castle. Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 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.

🔞[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. There is consensus that we shouldn't keep the redirect as is, but there is no consensus on best action, so default to delete. Deryck C. 09:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This emoji's current target is specific to the film age ratings system in Japan. (For those of you who cannot see this nominated character, it's the number 18 with a circle around it with a slash through the middle.) This current target is probably not the world-wide view of what this symbol represents, let alone what it represents to the majority of this Wikipedia's readers, given that the English Wikipedia is intended for English readers/speakers. The best alternative target that I can think of off the top of my head is Age of majority, but I would think there has to be a better target out there somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:🔞 per my analysis at WP:RFD#👯. This emoji actually has a pretty good entry because it contains a lot more than just a definition. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who's actually going to try to type an emoji into the search engine anyway? Compassionate727 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering that, but I guess some smartphone browsers (Android?) pop them up for you? Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We do have X rating. We don't have 18 rating. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 18 certificate. Found it in the end. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to motion picture rating system which explains the broad concept of age-based film restrictions, then lists in detail the restrictions in a wide variety of countries. This emoji renders as described for me but it seems it may not render at all for Android users. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe redirect to Minor (law)? I don't think this is about film age ratings, but age in general. Adam9007 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely search term that could refer to any sort of age restriction. --BDD (talk) 13:09, 8 July 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.

Snyder Avenue[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 10#Snyder Avenue

Locust Street (Philadelphia)[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) 13:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locust Street isn't very strongly related to the target of the redirect, Rittenhouse Square. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 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.

Open Letter (J-ay Z 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just retargeted Open Letter (song) over to Magna Carta Holy Grail but I think this one should be deleted. It's not a plausible version of his name, especially since it's embedded as unnecessary disambiguation in a song that only appears as a bonus track. Note that J-ay Z doesn't exist. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Tavix: The open letter should be Returned to sender, but that'S the USPS for you. (WP:RFD#D5). (Havge you noticed, by the way, the US post delivers the mail but the Royal Mail delivers the post.) Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 2 July 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.

Special distinctions of Nauru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 9#Special distinctions of Nauru

Current events/May 2002[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. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are disallowed in the article namespace. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. That applies only to articles, not to redirects. Further these are very old redirects (which we normally keep) resulting from page moves (which we normally keep) from when Wikipedia changed from using subpages to categories. They're doing no harm and will break potentially break incoming links if deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:20, 1 July 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.

Big Hero 7[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 09:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a sequel announced yet, officially or un-officially. They are saying "it is possible." And if it is possible then the title is not confirmed yet. Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom, until officially confirmed. I'm not convinced about it being a likely typo - that's like saying we should put a hatnote at Shrek 3 in case they meant to go to Shrek 2 etc. Mdann52 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no Big Hero 5 film though, so it isn't part of a series, it would just be a simple typo, instead of trying to find an entry in a film series by plugging in numbers. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is the exact same link CosmicEmperor posted on his talk page, I find it very likely that this is a sock. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the indef'd editor has been using their talk page to WP:EVADE their block, yes. I did not check the links they posted so that I would not be helping to circumvent the block, however I did my own search, and I find that there is a lot of speculation about an unconfirmed sequel for this film in the works, and it is almost universally referred to by this title. Since some of the speculation is reliably sourced in the first film's article, we should keep this, or refine target to Big Hero 6 (film)#Sequel. Ivanvector (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdann52. Not confirmed or announced officially yet. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether the user is blocked or not is irrelevant. It is whether the R is useful. But to redirect seven to six is WP:NONSENSE, redirecting apples to oranges. Not mentioned at target: Not even in Big Hero 6 (film)#Sequel. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. WP:CRYSTAL.Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't know when (or if) the sequel will be made, or what it will even be called, so we should keep this redirect until they announce whether or not the sequel will be made and then do one of two things: 1) keep the redirect (if the sequel will be made), or 2) delete it (if the sequel won't be made). SONIC678|Hang out with me! 01:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With respect to Sonic678, WP:CRYSTAL pretty much means we should do the opposite of what you're suggesting. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Big Hero 6's sequel is titled as Big Hero 7. 112.79.39.8 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC) — 112.79.39.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Says who? --BDD (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Says American websites.Darthvaderskywalker2011 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Striking vote by blocked sock/troll. --MelanieN (talk) 09:09, 11 July 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.

Poor, Sisters of the, of St. Francis[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) 13:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre word salad of a redirect. Nothing links here, and it is an extremely implausible thing to type into a searchbar. Reyk YO! 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: CSD R3 only applies to "recently created" redirects. This one has been around since 2008. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well then. I didn't check about that. (I mainly do the New Pages Patrol, where everything you encounter is recent enough for R3.) Compassionate727 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just letting you know! Cheers. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, are you suggesting keep then as useless but ancient? I don't mind if you do, I'm knocking mine down to a weak delete. But I do think it a little harmful in that it actually hinders those searching, but that kind of thing is always purely guesswork (we can't know what the search engine would do without it, that's kinda very Alice in Wonderland "The quickest way to explain it is to do it".) Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More a justification for why it was put in, it was part of the {{WP:CATH|Catholic Encyclopedia listing]]. There may be redirects from clone Wikipedia clones. JASpencer (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - JASpencer's point is taken, and thanks for the explanation, but this is not a {{R from page move}}, it's a very implausible search, and as for possible links from external websites, this is pulling roughly 1-2 hits per month, well below even bot noise levels. It's not being used. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 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_July_1&oldid=1138580195"