Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2016.

政变[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 02:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL. No special affinity for Chinese in this French phrase. — Gorthian (talk) 21:49, 1 September 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.

Coup d'état with E[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 02:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this means. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The associated comment made when moving was "Trying to actually change "état" to "État"", this wasn't successful (obviously) so user:Alchaemist reverted their own move moments later. The page is not getting views (exactly 2 hits between 2 January and 30 August), so I think it is safe to delete it as a page created at the incorrect title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 2 September 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.

Jerreau[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 MnkeyWrench to Fly Union, The Greater Than Club to TGTC (The Greater Than Club). keep the others. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks the possibilities of WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:REDIRECTS and WP:RECORD LABELS. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget MnkeyWrench to Fly Union. Add hatnote for Jerreau as it is a likely variant of Jarreau, of which there is Al Jarreau and Jarreau, Louisiana. Redirect The Greater Than Club to the TGTC (The Greater Than Club) since that album article already exists and is the primary topic over the label which they seem to slap on all their work along with Fly Union Records. TGTC could be dabbed as there are multiple groups using that name or assumed to be the album as primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 1 September 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.

Template:Pid[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) 20:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just renamed the template to {{PeakBagger peak}}. The three-letter form is too useful to be devoted to a little-used template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or repurpose but there is no benefit to be accrued from deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does really seem like this nomination is a solution in search of a problem we don't yet have, but there is a situation where not having this redirect lying around could be beneficial: if someone creates a potentially widely used template (for example, for poet ids from the World Poet Biography Database), then it will be less hassle to usurp the short title. As I'm not going to take a stand, and as it probably will be less of an inconvenience for the closer to figure out what I meant, I'll !vote in bold, borrowing a phrase that was frequently employed by a series of socks that used to troll AfD discussions a few months back, with I abstain. Uanfala (talk) 10:01, 1 September 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.

Template:Rid[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) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just renamed the template to {{PeakBagger range}}. The three-letter form is too useful to be devoted to a little-used template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or repurpose but there is no benefit to be accrued from deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:37, 31 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.

Einstein Pals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 8#Einstein Pals

Sheriff Street (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 delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL, film has not started production. IMDB. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's not even mentioned in article. How would we know it is his production? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:21, 1 September 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.

Caught Stealing (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 delete both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This film is still in development. It still hasn't entered production three years after the creation of this redirect. It's best to leave this red until/unless production occurs per WP:CRYSTAL. It definitely wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not even mentioned as a working project on Stefan Ruzowitzky's page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can find no mention of this film anywhere on Wikipedia, so no place to retarget to. — Gorthian (talk) 23:51, 4 September 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.

Shanghai, I Love You[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 02:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this film anywhere on Wikipedia. It's best to keep this red until such a film starts production, per WP:CRYSTAL since the director can and does change before then. IMDB's status of this film is "unknown." -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now until more info about the film becomes available --Lenticel (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are absolutely no articles with this phrase on Wikipedia. Confusingly, "Shanghai, I Love You" is the name of an annual student short-film festival in Shanghai, and that dominates my Google search results. — Gorthian (talk) 23:57, 4 September 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.

Taiwanese pop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 9#Taiwanese pop

Trade and Industry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 13#Trade and Industry

Unicorn Freaks[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) 20:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable nickname. LM2000 (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator.LM2000 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creator is known for creating re-directs of non-notable nicknames. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One promo does not make a nickname. As Crash said, creator has a really bad habit of terrible judgement like this. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep firstly to evaluating admins, I suggest WP:HOUND Crash's support should be ignored, not a neutral party here, clearly stalking my talk page due to other arguments we've had, hasn't otherwise participated in Redirects for Discussion except one time in December, did not come here impartially.
@Oknazevad: please argue the topic, not the person, you are engaging in ad hominem against me and it is not appropriate. Please discuss your reasons for discussing JUST this redirect, not your overall opinion of my redirect-creation.
To follow up, yes it was mentioned recently as we can see in this source:
  • @WWE (August 30, 2016). ""Bring it on, you unicorn freaks!" - @DanaBrookeWWE "It's already been...BROUGHT!" - @itsBayleyWWE #RAW" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 1 September 2016 – via Twitter.
I would argue that a one-time nickname is notable enough for a redirect (remember WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP) if it was a comment notable enough to be observed by many sources. I'll cite these for you:
This clearly stood out to multiple sources covering the event as a notable nickname worth observing, something untrue of less notable nicknames which we may hear during commentary that journalists do not cover. Ranze (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE One promo does not make a nickname. As Crash said, creator has a really bad habit of this Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WarMachineWildThing: this isn't just one promo, it is something widely reported and singled out among other things said about the team. It is the fact that it is being reported on that stands out. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranze consensus is to Delete get over it. How many times have you pulled this stuff and this continues to happen? I don't care if God says it, ITS NOT A NICKNAME get over it already. Just there is no misunderstanding let me explain, There is no reason to redirect a name or nickname that no one will be looking for They will be searching NEW DAY. Your trying to claim nicknames for redirect which is insane. There doesn't need to be a bunch of redirects to one article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JTP (talk) 20:24, 5 September 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.

Madame McMahon[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) 20:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that this is a real nickname. LM2000 (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator.LM2000 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creator is known for creating re-directs of non-notable nicknames. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of it and couldn't find anything notable online.*Treker (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One promo does not make a nickname. As Crash said, creator has a really bad habit of terrible judgement like this. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per @LM2000:'s objections here are some sources:
Aside from Paul Heyman using this phrase last night on Monday, it was used in the past to refer to Stephanie, so it was not a one-time thing as Oknazevad says.
LM and Crash are coordinating this and I believe the reason Crash is participating here is because he is following changes to my talk page, attempting to canvas against me wherever possible. Observe what happened:
Meanwhile, Crash hasn't participated in any "redirects for discussion" since December. So it's incredibly clear why Crash is here, to WP:HOUND me. Ranze (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've been told repeatedly that offhand comments aren't nicknames. There was a clear consensus against your listing "Captain Morgan" as a nickname for Seth Rollins even though he had been called that a couple of times as a joke, the consensus was formed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 96#Official nicknames. Iron Man of the WWE, which you created, was also similar to this and was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Iron Man of the WWE. This name is so obscure that nobody will ever search for "Madame McMahon", making this redirect is useless. The realities of coordination are also far less menacing as you make them out to be. Crash is an admitted talk page stalker and saw me post the RfD notice on your talk page for Raw Champion, Crash then !voted delete. When I saw this, I asked Crash for advice on what to do with this posting.LM2000 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ranze, how may times do I have to tell you, I don't give a damn about you. I've explained my position, time and time and time and time and time again, but you don't get it! If you would do things, other than add unofficial nicknames and create non-notable re-directs, you wouldn't see me as much. As long as you're being disruptive, I'm gonna do my best to remove the disruptive edits. Also regarding the Re-directs for discussion, you never discuss these, you just create them and then, here we are. Besides, you do realize there's a possibility the WWE Title and Universal titles could switch brands, right? Therefore the redirects would be pointless. Also, the reason it appears that LM an I are coordinating is because we're both part of the same project and he asked if I knew about something because he missed the show and I saw it. That's not against guidelines. Now stop trying to find any excuse to accuse someone of something because they don't agree with you. God forbid someone criticizes you, oh yeah that's "harassment" just like when you blank your talk page, "clearing harassment". (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 00:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE One promo does not make a nickname. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WMWT we are not discussing whether or not to put these under the 'nicknames' section. If you'll notice, in all 3 cases I didn't. The question is whether or not the redirect makes sense, which it does. Something can be valid to redirect to a page without actually having to mention on a page. We use redirects for plausible typos, for example. Please consult WP:R#DELETE, does your reasoning fulfill any of these 10 reasons? Everybody: RFD isn't just a "let's vote to delete redirects we dislike" club, you should actually back with policy why you want to delete them. I would point out that my rationale fulfills number 3 under "reasons for not deleting" in that it aids searches on certain terms, and 5, that I find them useful. Ranze (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why in the hell would you have it for a Redirect?? Cause your trying to say it's a nickname that should Redirect to where ever, this crap is getting ridiculous. If it's not a nickname then there is no reason to redirect. You are presenting these as nicknames for redirect, we don't need useless redirects on every article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:47, 2 September 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.

Raw Champ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 12#Raw Champ

Business and Industry[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) 20:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic, textbook WP:XY problem. This can equally refer to business and industry, two distinct topics. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no good target for these. The way the phrases are used in most articles is almost a mindless cliche. I'd rather turn those links red than have editors think they link to something meaningful. — Gorthian (talk) 23:36, 4 September 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_31&oldid=1138580858"