Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2016.

Palestinian terrorists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 11#Palestinian terrorists

Gotta go to work[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) 16:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, because there is no sign of the redirect name in the target article. An IP-editor 70.59.72.188 with experience in the subject of the target article made a request ([1]) to remove the redirect. DVdm (talk) 20:55, 3 February 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.

Wikipedia:MOOT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 11#Wikipedia:MOOT

Santorum-Savage neologism campaign Google bomb problem controversy[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) 16:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely implausible search term. It reminds me of those tags that are sometimes put at the bottom of news articles... it's nothing more than a list of just about every term associated with the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - extremely unlikely as a human-typed search term or wikilinked redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody's Google-fu is that weak. Guy (Help!) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:02, 5 February 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.

Mud nest builders[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These birds aren't referred to by this term at the target article, nor are they the only ones who build mud nests, based on a quick Google search. Apparently alligators do too. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete many things build nests in/of mud -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. There's a lot of animals that build their nests out of mud --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 6 February 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 talk:Further/sandbox[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 both to Template talk:Further. Creating "Template talk:" redirects that end with "/sandbox" or "/testcases" to their respective root "Template talk:" page is an approved function of AnomieBOT that it carries out at least once a day. Even if these redirects were deleted, AnomieBOT would recreate them to point towards the target I mentioned above. So, this close is essentially "moot'. (BDD, I'm sort of WP:SUPERVOTE-WP:IAR'ing this discussion due to the "moot"-ness of this discussion's result. If you have any concerns, I would recommend bringing them up to the bot's operator Anomie.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:See was moved to Template talk:Further, making the latter page no longer redirect to Template talk:Further2, so the redirects should be retargeted to Template talk:Further. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can just retarget them, no need to come here, unless I'm not understanding what you are looking for. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Delete, so the subpages can be used as normal. Why would you have subpages of a talk page just redirect to the talk page? --BDD (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 3 February 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.
  • Thanks for clarifying, Steel. I don't like that, but I'll leave the template-makers to their work. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcs[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 to Marc. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people and things on Wikipedia referred to as Marc. MARC, Marc's. Can't see anything just Marcs, so maybe delete as nonsense. Target has nothing about Marcs. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 3 February 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.

אלבטרוס[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) 20:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Albatrosses have a broad distribution and an Arabic etymology, lacking any sort of close connection to Israel or Hebrew. This was first created as a misplaced, Hebrew-language article, presumably about albatross. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per BDD, no affinity to Hebrew; I don't think simply etymology would count anyway, or we'd have stacks of Latin, French, German and Greek redirects. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per abovementioned comments --Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 8 February 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.

Jiggle[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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced the target was the best choice for this Neelix redirect. Yes the target has the word Jiggle but so do a bunch of other articles. Jiggle could be a dab or even an article on it's own. [2] Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete or point to Wiktionary The entire first page of GHits for the word are dictionaries. I don't see DABbing a bunch of partial title hits. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jiggles probably wouldn't be a WP:PTM, but it would be a surprise since it's a strip club (is that place even notable?). -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. I don't like Wiktionary redirects, they hinder readers who actually want to search for articles containing the word, as Wiktionary does not link back here for search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Never mind; what I was going to do is already built in the template. There is a link at the top of the template that allows the reader to search Wikipedia for that term if they are not looking for the dictionary definition. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yeah, after your comment I went to check. I guess my comment here is invalid, then.
  • Target to Wiktionary per my previous comment being proven incorrect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 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.

Oku sama kitsune no go konrei[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) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC although the term is mentioned there, it would be a useless target as it is not what the reader likely in looking for, and an implausible search term anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't really see any reason why this should be deleted. A redirect from an episode title to a page about a TV series seems reasonable. While this redirect isn't likely to get a lot of traffic, that is more just because it is an old show and not because it is a useless redirect. If anyone did type this, I would expect the anime is what they are looking for (perhaps because they saw the episode somewhere and aren't sure what show it was a part of). I'm also not sure how WP:NOTDIC is relevant to this redirect. Calathan (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is an episode title and therefore not a "useless target" or "an implausible search term". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a romanisation, not the original title, if someone is likely to search for something, it is the native script, not a romanisation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it far more likely an English speaker would use the romanisation rather than the native script; beyond cut-and-paste, most English-language installations don't have the input method editors for Far Eastern scripts. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added the section to this nom, and added {{R from episode}} to the redirect and left a comment per WP:RSECT at the target, as usual without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator's stance of a non likely search term seems to be on target. Take a look at the view history for this redirect: [3], it really doesn't convince me that this redirect is helpful keeping in mind that this is an episode title, not a series title. Is there other data out there that shows a different picture? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heck with it since the consensus is leaning towards it, and redirects are cheap I vote Keep. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, as Si Trew pointed out, searching romanizations is more common in English-speaking anime fans than searching script. Romanizations are especially more popular for something which has no unique English equivalent. In this case (and similar for pretty much anything else based on previous works, like everything in this GFT anime) "The Marriage of Mrs. Fox" could easily lead someone to The Wedding of Mrs. Fox rather than the anime adaptation. Ranze (talk) 16:13, 7 February 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 Bowl 55[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) 16:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there isn't information about this specific Super Bowl yet, so someone searching for this is going to end up disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Creator is misguided: if the link to this page in the infobox at Super Bowl LIV links back to the general article, readers will be confused. It's better for it to be a dead end until there is actually notable info about this event. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL and per reasons stated on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 8#Super Bowl redirects. Pages should only be created once verifiable and reliable information for future Super Bowls becomes available. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Once information is available, an article can be sustained. This really also does not meet WP:NOTE guidelines. RES2773 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)RES2773[reply]
  • Delete - The article can be sustained once official reports are released. In other words, we do not know where that Super Bowl would take place.Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination and previous comments. Safiel (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless we are currently living in 2021. Steel1943 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 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_February_3&oldid=1086097159"