Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2016.

Feeling blue party[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 R3 by Feezo. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know Democratic is blue but I'm not sure what this is about. Adam9007 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Obviously made up by the article creator and an implausible search term.- MrX 00:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#R3. An attempt to call this the "Sad party" while playing on the party color.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:23, 1 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.

Seeing red party[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 R3 by Feezo. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to suggest these are related. I know Republican is red but I have no idea what this is about. Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Obviously made up by the article creator and an implausible search term.- MrX 00:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#R3. An attempt to call this the "Angry party" while playing on the party color.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:23, 1 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.

Modern porn[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 as vandalism. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this redirect doesn't seem to make any sense. A search found nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Don't delet Anime is so lecherous and disgusting that it might as well be pornography. 23:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telling it like it is (the cold truth) (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, just vandalism and POV-pushing. GABHello! 23:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while porngraphic anime does exist the suggesting that all anime is so lecherous that it porn is not even worth consideration.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to tag for speedy deletion as vandalism since it appears to be quite blatant.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I refrained from that earlier because I thought there might be a plausible retarget.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 1 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.

Blue-Eyes White Dragon[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 to retarget each character name to whatever Yu-Gi-Oh article that mentions it and delete those that aren't mentioned in any article. That means retarget Blue-Eyes White Dragon to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets#Yu-Gi-Oh!, keep Dark Magician (Yu-Gi-Oh!) (referred to as "retarget" to existing target), delete the rest. Deryck C. 17:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, unplausible redirects that lead to an article that does not even mention any of these cards. Even though they are some of the game's most popular cards, there is a Yu-Gi-Oh! where people can get all the information they need about them 173.3.77.108 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Blue-Eyes White Dragon to Yu-Gi-Oh franchise article as it is like a trademark name for the franchise. Delete Dark magician as it and the other magicians are not even mentioned in the Yu-Gi-Oh! article, and does not carry that trademark-like connotation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Blue-Eyes White Dragon to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets#Yu-Gi-Oh!. Weak Retarget Dark Magician (Yu-Gi-Oh!) to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game where it is mentioned. Dark Magician is just about equal to Blue-Eyes White Dragon in the "trademark-like connotation" sense. Delete the rest.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Those would also be acceptable retargets as they actually mention the cards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Blue-Eyes White Dragon to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets#Yu-Gi-Oh!, Retarget Dark Magician (Yu-Gi-Oh!) to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game, per Godsy. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:43, 1 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.

Butt Rock[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) 20:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Butt Rock was deleted in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_3#Butt_Rock). In 2012, Butt Rock was recreated as a redirect to glam metal. Since then, it was repeatedly bounced back and forth between glam metal and post-grunge, with a brief stop at cock rock. It seems to have started as a pejorative term for glam metal in the 1990's (see this 1995 Usenet post), but more recently is applied to post-grunge as well, as this blog post notes. Delete? Make a dab page? I'm not sure what to do here. Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 30 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.

Slash (upcoming 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 no consensus, default to keep. There is disagreement on whether we should keep this {{R from move}} because the film is no longer "upcoming" but the move was very recent. Comments below suggested that there will be a stronger consensus to delete if we revisit this redirect in half a year's time; and should there be another "Slash" film in the future, the redirect can simply be retargeted or overwritten by a new article. Deryck C. 21:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect will go out of date in case if there will ever be another "Slash" film in a future year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the film has premiered, so is no longer upcoming -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.51.46.195. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the result of a very recent pagemove. The article existed at this title until it was moved three days ago and listed here for deletion only hours later. Authors who contributed to the article at the original title need to be able to find their work. If some future "Slash" film is produced, the redirect can be overwritten with article content about the next "upcoming" film but there is no good reason to delete this page now. Rossami (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, it is no longer an upcoming film. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. If this gets renominated in say 6 months I would be happy to delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 8 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.

Khergarh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 9#Khergarh

Hestia (Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?)[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. The clear consensus is that we should keep a redirect with a correct disambiguator, even if that means the resulting title is unlikely to be used as a search term. Deryck C. 21:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hestia (Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?) redirects to Hestia (character), I think it is unlikely that a reader would do a search on Wikipedia using such a lengthy search phrase. When you search for Hestia in the search bar, Hestia (character) appears as an option but not Hestia (Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?). There was an article at this latter term from April 4th to April 17th when it was moved to Hestia (character). Since then, the Dungeon redirect has only gotten a few views a day. Between its unwieldy title and the paucity of page views since its move, I think this redirect can be safely deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This can be revisited should there ever be a need to have a second notable Hestia character that isn't the mythology goddess. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: But redirects are WP:CHEAP, so they're usually kept unless they are misleading, harmful, or have inappropriate titles. Not only does "Hestia (Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?)" comply fully with Wikipedia MOS, it's actually the most correct title - the page was only moved to "Hestia (character)" after complaints were raised over its length. To provide you with some examples of characters being disambiguated by their series of origin: Kasumi (Dead or Alive), Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Ayane (Dead or Alive), Rachel (Ninja Gaiden), Taki (Soulcalibur), Jade (Mortal Kombat), Anna Williams (Tekken), Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter), Link (The Legend of Zelda), Piccolo (Dragon Ball), Sora (Kingdom Hearts), Saitō Hajime (Rurouni Kenshin), Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle), John Palmer (Home and Away), Bianca (Othello), Kirito (Sword Art Online). Disambiguators based on series are most certainly valid. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with leaving this alone. It was carefully constructed so as to not create all the capitalization varying aliases that the work's title would have generated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I have raised this specific issue with the nominator before on their talkpage after they outright deleted it under CSD R3. Not only did they never respond to my concerns, after I recreated it (due to them not responding) this was henceforth RfD'd without me being notified, despite Twinkle notifying the creator by default. Not gonna assume bad faith here, but I will call this a series of rather strange events.See below
Now onto the issue at hand. Justifying deletion based on pageview statistics alone is generally not recommended as redirects are WP:CHEAP anyway, so unless they're actively causing harm or misleading, they are generally kept. Hell, I know of articles with less daily hits than this. The original disambiguator (Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?) was the anime/manga series in which the character appears in. The majority of fictional characters articles are disambiguated by their primary series, and Hestia's was only moved because complaints were raised over its length. So I feel it's definitely a plausible search term here, due to Hestia's current title being an exception and not the norm, and a reader used to Wikipedia title MOS may not know of the "(character)" disambiguator. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was your notification about this redirect discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, somehow neither that nor the DYK message activated the new messages banner. Ah well, guess I was just an idiot I guess, sorry Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satellizer eloquently described how the redirect can be useful, and it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria for deleting a redirect. Sure, it's a long title, but since plenty of other characters are disambiguated by series title, it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to try searching that way. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the latter half of the second paragraph of the rationale given by Satellizer el Bridget. (edit conflict) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Hestia is a character in the disambiguator term, which is the title of the fiction she appears in. Thus it is a highly useful search term and likely. Disambiguation by base topic is a usual and expected way to disambiguate things. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From what I gather, this seems to be a valid redirect, and the issue has really just been confused due to the long, unconventional title for the series from which the character comes from. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 6 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.

9-24[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 now a strong-enough consensus to delete because the advertisement leading to the creation of this soramimi keyword redirect has been taken off-air for some time, and nowhere on Wikipedia has written about this misheard keyword, so the redirect has overstayed its welcome. Deryck C. 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Very unlikely search term created in response to an advertisement that has almost definitely long since ceased airing. The redirect also mmeans that a very confusing hatnote is displayed at the target article. I'm nominating this due to a request by Hordaland; see the relevant section on the target article's talk page. This redirect has previously been discussed here, and the resultwas no consensus; see the link above. Graham87 10:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have heard the radio commercial many times and if I looked for "9-24" to find out more, I would expect to be able to find this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to September 24. Apparently this is due to non-24 kind of sounding like "9-24" in a radio commercial? That seems a lot less helpful years after the commercial aired, especially when we have an article where the title can be formatted as 9-24. In my mind, we should prioritize legitimate uses over error. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's been there long enough, IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears implausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't decide either way. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unlikely search term and redirect --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fifteen months after the previous discussion, neither the term nor any encyclopaedic content about it being a mishearing has been added to the target. (It could have been added by anyone during or immediately after the discussion, but it wasn't, which seems to me those saying keep at that discussion did not have such a strong feeling about it.) Si Trew (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No such product called 9-24. If it were marketed as that name as with "5-hour energy" then it should be considered. Google search results mostly in Bible and other book verse lookups, dates, and times, with one hit to this wikipedia article because of this redirect. Filtering by News has even less hits that are not time or date related. There's a coach Earl Watson who had a 9-24 record. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no suggestion of a product called 9-24. The disorder is called Non-24 and someone's accent in a 2014 commercial made it sound like 9-24. I note that at the beginning and the end of a YouTube video about the disorder by the same firm that ran those commercials, "non" is very clearly spelled out: "that's NON-24, N - O - N 24". If one writes Non-24, or indeed Non 24 without the hyphen, in Wikipedia's search box, this disorder is the only possibility that comes up. --Hordaland (talk) 04:01, 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.

Though[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) 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much too vague for a redirect DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: Redirects to wikt: tend to be done when there is a concept we don't have any information on or a good target for, not for dictionary definitions of common parts of the English language, at least from my experience here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:18, 1 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.

Bubblegum bass[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) 20:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct links to a genre called Wonky, which makes no mention of the genre. A quick google search does not provide any notable sources suggesting this should link to Wonky. I suggest deleting this genre unless someone can create an article for itself, or explain it's relation to "wonky". Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:56, 30 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_30&oldid=1138580824"