Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2016.

Mxpw[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bit tricky, but the redir is pointing at the wrong target, and we don't have an article for the real one. MXPW is a US-based indie wrestling promotion whose full name is "Maximum Xtreme Pro Wrestling" and was around as far back as 2003. We don't have an article for it, but here's a relevant Google search [1]. The redir target, MaxPro, is a Canadian promotion founded in 2010 by the merger of two other Canadian promotions, it has no relation to MXPW, and is not referred to as MXPW. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It can be recreated if Maximum Pro Wrestling uses those initials or if the other promotions become notable for an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 1 August 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.

Uryan[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 do what User:Gorthian suggested as most plausible outcome, due to lack of quorum. No prejudice against further edits or deletion proposals. Deryck C. 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Neelix redirect, presumably intended as a redirect from another name for the same person/character, but the text of the article says "Uriel has been equated or confused with [...] Uryan [...]", which implies they are not the same. The article, nor any other I can easily find on wikipedia, gives any other information about who/what Uryan is and this is well outside my subject area, so I am really uncertain what the best way to proceed here is? Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding Jeremiel and Vretil for the same reason, but I've run out of time to investigate them deeply. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:57, 1 August 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.

Short meter[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 all to Meter (hymn). Deryck C. 16:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These three redirects (all created independently) should probably point to the same place, but where? The three possible targets are Iambic trimeter, Hymn#Hymn meters and Meter (hymn). Long metre and Common metre both have their own articles. Short Meter doesn't exist, but should probably be pointed at wherever this discussion decides is best for the nominated two. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Short meter/metre" is a stanza, whereas "iambic trimeter" is a line type. And "Hymn#Hymn meters" directs us to "Meter (hymn)" as its main article. So given the choices, I say "Short meter" should redirect to "Meter (hymn)" which appears to be the de facto main article for hymn stanzas that don't already have their own article. Phil wink (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meter (hymn) for all of them, per Phil. A pity we don't have a more general title to which to send these titles (just like C.M., S.M. is poetic metre in general, not just for hymns; The Ballad of Gilligan's Isle is C.M., but nobody calls it a hymn), but lacking that, Meter (hymn) seemingly covers the subject best. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 2 August 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.

Silicone Wedding Rings[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of a subect not mentioned in the article. Apparently an attempt at a promotional redirect. See COI noticeboard here DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This was originally a promotional article that was converted into a redirect by established user OnionRing. I don't think the redirect is or is attempting to be promotional. The redirect targets the "Compositions and styles" section of the article where it is noted (with two references) that silicone is a material used. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since silicone wedding rings are discussed in the article itself --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect inserted for promotional purposes is still promotion. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except the redirect isn't and wasn't promotional. The article it replaced was, but that is not the same thing at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of its history, the only thing readers learn at Wedding ring about silicone wedding rings is that they exist. I can just barely conceive of someone throwing this into the search box just wondering if such a thing exists. I can much more easily conceive of someone looking for information—with any sort of detail—on the subject, which we don't provide. Note that there are no similar redirects of this type for more common wedding ring materials: not Silver Wedding Rings or Gold Wedding Rings, nor the more standard Silver wedding ring or Gold wedding ring. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above.This is not a generic search term for a Ring.Now Wedding rings are made of numerous materials ,we cannot have redirects for all of them like Wood ,Bone etc Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with consideration for redirect if the technology or the material becomes notable as with Synthetic diamond or Cubic zirconia but as of right now, it doesn't stand out as an important material compared to the others mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:45, 1 August 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.

Пећка патријаршија‎[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 conditional delete. If someone is able to answer Thryduulf's question that List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church is a useful target, then let me or WP:REFUND know, and I or another admin will restore and retarget there. -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Redirection uses alternative language in potentially confusing way: in Serbian and other regional languages, term "Pećka Patrijaršija‎" primarily designates the institution of Patriarchate (1346-1766), not just the Patriarchal Monastery (target page) Sorabino (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:13, 1 August 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.

Peć Church[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Redirection is misleading. There are several churches in Peć, but this redirection points to page that is dedicated only to the Patriarchal Monastery near Peć Sorabino (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or disambiguate. The existing target is the most notable church in Peć and the term is obviously a good search term for it. The question is whether it is the primary topic or not, and while I think it possibly is I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:12, 1 August 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.

Gardening wikiproject[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) 11:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:09, 1 August 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.

Super Mario All-Stars format[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Super Mario All-Stars format

White Star (car[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see this being useful. SSTflyer 09:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page history indicates that it was created so that a link on another article would work, however unbalanced parentheses are a clear case where the link needs to be fixed rather than go via a redirect. It got 4 human hits in the last 90 days, but I don't think that justifies keeping a redirect like this where the error is so obvious. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typo. The open parenthesis is not a stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY, "titles with punctuation or obscure errors that have no specific affinity to them e.g. a period at the end or a disambiguated title with one parenthesis missing".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:31, 1 August 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_August_1&oldid=1088110263"