Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2016.

Frohlinde[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 to give readers search results. Deryck C. 11:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PTM since Julius Schulte-Frohlinde is never known simply as "Frohlinde." (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is evidence that there are multiple notable Frohlindes (in which case, still keep but convert to disambiguation). Redirects for surnames aid in accidental linking. Encyclopedia article frequently refer to a person by their full name only on first instance within an article and use surname-only for all subsequent mentions. Some of those subsequent mentions are linked. If there are no other notable Frohlindes (and a cursory search suggests that there are not), then there is no potential for confusion or harm. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that there are zero notable Frohlindes, since Frohlinde isn't Julius' surname, unlike what you are arguing. Julius has a compound surname of "Schulte-Frohlinde" and that's what he used as his surname. It would be incorrect to call him Schulte and it would be incorrect to call him Frohlinde. The exception would be if there's evidence of him going by just that name, then it could be a {{R from alternative name}} (but I haven't found anything along those lines). -- Tavix (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Frohlinde" seems to be a district at Castrop-Rauxel#Urban Area. This may be a candidate for WP:REDLINK deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The argument that isn't a likely search term isn't horrible, but I'm more persuaded by the WP:REDLINK argument given by Tavix. ~ RobTalk 18:24, 26 April 2016 (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.

Christian (professional wrestler)[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Feedback 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague at best. I'm thinking that this can be made into a set index of wrestlers that are named/surnamed "Christian" but I'm not sure that's the best way to use this redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the mononymous title "Christian" in wrestling is strongly associated with just the one man as stated above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2016 (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.

Changed Man[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. In carrying this out, I was unable to find the other songs Peter mentioned, but I did find enough other content to make the page. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. A quick search verifies that this is a song by this artist, but there is nothing to say so, I can only assume that it is a non-notable song; certainly Wikipedia has nothing to say of it. Incidentally, Changed man, Changed Woman and Changed woman are red. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The song is connected to Brown at the article Chris Brown discography, where it's listed alongside his other non-album singles. I thought the track hadn't achieved any success whatsoever, but I guess apparently it did at least somewhat, reaching #64 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart (as noted here and elsewhere). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate There are other songs with this title. Peter James (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab per Peter James. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:59, 29 April 2016 (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 British colonies[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 Territorial evolution of the British Empire#List as best fit. Deryck C. 21:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears relevant, but potentially misleading. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It should redirect instead to British Overseas Territories, with a link made there to the list for anyone looking for former colonies.--MASHAUNIX 15:31, 23 April 2016 (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.
  • Comment the list of current british colonies or British Overseas Territories is enumerated in my passport. I am free to travel to the Pitcairn Islands it seems, but I have to defend under the Crown any damyanks who follow me. But that is no good for Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

divisor theory[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this redirect is right. Sure, there are close connections but they are ultimately distinct. At minimum, the topic (divisor theory) is not discussed in the target at all and so a redirect is not useful for the readers. Taku (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2016 (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:US passport.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 delete, unopposed. Deryck C. 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons file could be linked directly, and this redirect is otherwise unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2016 (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.

Mid-terms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 1#Mid-terms

Black-yellow[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 Speedily deleted per WP:G6 Neelix concession, by User:Sphilbrick at my request via CSD. (non-admin closure), Si Trew (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC). Actually I çouldn't find any more similar.[reply]

Could just as easily redirect to Black and Yellow. ~ RobTalk 04:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate to all black/yellow and yellow/black topics -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedily delete per WP:G6 Neelix concession. I bet there are many more. Will take these three to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2016 (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.
  • My first expectation at this title would've been the German "black-yellow coalition", i.e. the second Merkel cabinet of CDU/CSU (black) and FDP (yellow). Anyway this shows further that we have WP:XY so deletion was the right outcome. Deryck C. 21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a sensible place to put it because certainly that is a common term in English for that coalition. I think we wait, if someone wants to create it they will. The others and there are many more like greenisholives is the classic example, are just nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed person[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could just as easily redirect to Born again or any number of other articles regarding people who change in some way. ~ RobTalk 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete in-universe fictional use for AD&D with many other uses available -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shouldn't redirect from such a (potentially) common term to a fictional sense when many possible non-fictional meanings. Doing a Google search for "changed person", the first page of results appear to have nothing to do with AD&D (most common uses seem to be religious or psychological). SJK (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This could refer to any number of things. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:01, 29 April 2016 (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.

Changed people[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could just as easily redirect to Born again or any number of other articles regarding people who change in some way. ~ RobTalk 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete in-universe fictional use for AD&D with many other uses available -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search for "changed people" shows most uses have nothing to do with current redirect target. SJK (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which uses? Could any articles exist for them? Peter James (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Google search for "changed people" in quotes finds stuff like 10 Habits That Have Changed People’s Lives, http://www.thuggbishop.com/home.aspx "Changed People Today" (a religious website – I can't link to it directly because it seems to be on the spam backlist), etc. I just see a lot of disparate uses of those two words in conjunction, nothing sticks out as significant enough as an article. Many of the hits, "changed people" is not actually a noun phrase, e.g. "Habits That Have Changed People's Lives". SJK (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2016 (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.

Faithlessly[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly obvious this redirect could go to many different places, such as Trust (emotion), Adultery, or Irreligion. ~ RobTalk 04:09, 23 April 2016 (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.

Carrhotus malayanus[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target, genus Carrhotus is almost the only page that links here, only to redirect back to where the reader started. I suggest redlinking until we have an article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:REDLINK. This is a textbook situation where a red link encourages content creation. ~ RobTalk 04:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like an obvious situation to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redlink is better than a redirect in this case. VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – redirecting species to the genus is very unhelpful: anyone looking for information on the species won't find it, and the blue link fools editors into thinking that an article doesn't need creating. (Unfortunately there are many more such examples among spiders: as far as I have checked, all the blue species links at Dolichognatha are just redirects to the genus page, i.e. back to the article.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenttaking WP:CSD#G6 as WP:SNOW. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redlink would be better. Plantdrew (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:03, 29 April 2016 (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.

Divegrass[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous, but clearly mockingly and that seems to be its only purpose. Term appears to be virtually unmentioned save in one or two memetic sources that jokingly refer to it. Best deleted per reason #8: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Page had no views whatsoever in the last month either, and isn't linked to from anywhere else. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – agree with deletion on grounds of reason #8. SJK (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2016 (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/2016_April_23&oldid=1142587052"