Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2016.

Bluish-slate[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 G6: Wikipedia:Neelix mass deletions. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Neelix color variation im not 100% sure of. The article says slate gray has a "tinge of azure". Azure is a variation of blue, and i'm not sure if this redirect would work because it might be confusing. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, this is definitely nonsense. I'll take care of it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 11 June 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.

Future lorenz[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) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and possibly misleading since the redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 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.

Future funk[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 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Also, this redirect formerly targeted Neurofunk which also doesn't have this redirect mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although there's a Reddit that tries to define this term, it needs to be clarified in the article itself to be useful. Not much in news and book sources for notability of this genre. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm also seeing that it tends to mean "anything with the word 'funk' which might be 'future'". And since George Clinton seems to be involved, wouldn't that make it the "once and future funk"? At any rate, if there is a definite genre, then this should be an article, not a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 10:55, 14 June 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.

Future beats[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) 18:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Thus, the connection between the two terms is unclear. Also, most searches on search engines for "future beats" seem to return results for Reddit boards and an unrelated company. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search under books show the term applied to a beat that is coming in the future, and not to a specific kind of music. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 13 June 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.

Gladiators (2000)[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 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is more confusing than it's worth. It's ambiguous between Gladiator (2000 film) and Gladiators 2000. 4 page views in the last 90 days shows that this is not getting any significant use, so it's best to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 11 June 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.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite[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 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfish is not the only film that Gabriela Cowperthwaite has ever made. See imdb. The link Gabriela Cowperthwaite should be left as red link to encourage others to write an article about the subject. Quest for Truth (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RELINK and WP:XY: she has made or is making other notable films so it makes no sense to pigeon-hole our readers into just one of her works. She is mentioned at several other articles, so it would be more useful to give our readers search results and they can decide which article to read. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 13:05, 12 June 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.

Fastest orbit[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. According to the discussion below, the redirect title is ambiguous (so delete), but the current target is the most plausible we've got (so keep). Deryck C. 12:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unclear how or why the target of the redirect is declared "fastest orbit". Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the article, "the star [of the target article's system] is the fastest moving star ever seen in an X-ray binary system, which would seem to be the reason that this is the target. Although I suppose there could be other celestial bodies that have a fast orbit than this star. Rlendog (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand later to other orbits as a disambiguation page. We can have fastest orbit in our solar system, fastest cometary orbit, fastest exoplanet orbit, fastest human orbit, and fastest artificial satellite orbit. These are questions people typically ask Siri and Google Now and this where those AIs get their answers from. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see sources using this term to refer both to satellite orbital speed and to atomic orbital speed. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Neutral Hmm, if this was an exoplanet article I would say retarget to list of exoplanet extremes but since it's a star-black hole system it somewhat baffles me on what should be done with this redirect. I don't think there is something like list of stellar extremes is there? Because maybe that would be an appropriate retarget... Davidbuddy9 Talk  01:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don't think there's a good target for this as RAN alludes to. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:47, 11 June 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.

Greatest movie villains[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. According to the discussion below, the redirect title is ambiguous (so delete), but the current target is the most plausible we've got (so keep). Deryck C. 12:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to have WP:NPOV issues simply because it redirects to an article which it 1) is not the official name and 2) is based on only one entity's opinion: the American Film Institute. If this target was a list based in some sort of ranking system by several sources (such as an article with the name List of greatest movie villains by rankings), then this would be a bit of a different story since the target article wouldn't be reliant on one source. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target article relies on one source, but as long as that article doesn't get deleted, and as long as there isn't an alternative list of greatest movie villains by some other source (or combination of sources), in which case this title should be converted to a dab page, or some other appropriate redirect target, this seems like the most likely article someone typing in "Greatest movie villains" would be looking for. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems spot on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV and probably WP:WORLDVIEW. The American Film Institute's list does not constitute the greatest movie villians—simply their opinion up until 2003 (so great movie villians like Heath Ledger's Joker isn't on the list). Futhermore, the list is an American one, and doesn't include Bollywood, Tollywood, etc., which probably have some great movie villians as well. -- Tavix (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:38, 11 June 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.

The smallest positive integer that does not have an entry on Wikipedia[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 Interesting number paradox. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect doesn't seem like an official name for the redirect's target, and the redirect seems to contradict itself since it targets the subject on Wikipedia which it refers. So ... delete. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING. Unlike the paradox described at the target article, there is an answer to this. Assuming "entry" means "article," the answer is (currently) 261. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete the page, it was just a joke. --Peskoj (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peskoj. I have placed a {{Db-g7}} tag on the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...And since Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now voted otherwise below, I have reverted my speedy deletion tag. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Interesting number paradox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Not a useful redirect, nor is it a paradox, because redirects aren't articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. This phrasing is used by an independent source in interesting number paradox which Ivanvector pointed out, so it is not in fact self-referential. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SELFREF. shoy (reactions) 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete circular? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Mr. Norton. Tricky one, though. Here's my logic: we keep redirects to notably significant information; the fact that there is a smallest positive integer without an entry on Wikipedia is noted with a source at the proposed target. The question is whether the source is reliable and/or confers notability on that factoid, and I think it does. Alex Bellos, the author of the source, is a noted mathematician and philospher, such that I think he can be considered a subject matter expert, and so the source can be considered authoritative. Therefore, the factoid falls under WP:PRESERVE, and the redirect to it is common sense. It is not WP:NAVELGAZING since although it's about Wikipedia, it was not originally published by Wikipedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:37, 11 June 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.

Arizona League Diamondbacks[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 create article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arizona League consists of fourteen teams; thirteen have their own articles, but the Diamondbacks are redirected to the parent league. Delete to encourage creation of an article, since it's rather silly to have one of the fourteen a redirect and the other thirteen articles. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now.. a redirect is better than a red link... though someone should create the article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. I agree that on {{Arizona League}}, 13/14 has articles, so it's reasonable to assume the last team also deserves an article. We should deliberately redlink this one to nudge people to create an article. Deryck C. 12:00, 19 June 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.

True world group[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) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed in the list. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep It wasn't listed because an IP in NJ (where TWG is based) deleted the listing. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't be on the list. the church has filed lawsuit to gain control of the parent company that owns TWG. [1]case No. 14–CV–94 why sue for control when they already have it? forcing redirect TWG to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations doesn't make it true. While on the unification church related organization page [3] UCI, TWG are not mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinyoungc (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1721732.html
  • Delete since it shouldn't be on the list, per above. Deryck C. 12:11, 19 June 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.

Four Seasons Hotel Bangkok[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to a previous RFD, these individual properties are not mentioned at all at the target article. A WP:REDLINK could show that there isn't any information on these properties so someone won't end up confused or disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 07:19, 11 June 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.

Condilicious[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 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this does not appear to be a noteworthy nickname. -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 11 June 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.

Mars Won[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 14:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading, nothing on this page could be called "Mars Won." Has Mars ever won anything? -- Tavix (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing/WP:NONSENSE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; "one" and "won" are homonyms, and someone hearing /ˈmɑɹz wʌn/ or /ˈmɑ:z wʌn/ could conceivably not know how to spell it. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The difference in spelling equates to a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though they're homonymous, the word won and one do not mean the same thing even in the slightest. WP:SURPRISE. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. I thought Mars won an invasion or something --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 12 June 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.

Incomplete list of colors and shades[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 14:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an implausible search term, and there's nothing to suggest that Wikipedia's lists of colors is incomplete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be incomplete, since people (especially in marketing, décor, and other such fields) come up with new color names all the time. The issue is that most lists on WP are incomplete, and we don't need to label them as such.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that, but what I'm saying is that the Wikipedia list isn't labeled as incomplete (eg: with the {{expand list}} template). -- Tavix (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per this being an unlikely search phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No one is going to type this in the search box. shoy (reactions) 14:02, 14 June 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.

Maliciously[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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

(Neelix) These have been nominated before, but the question was one of which target would work best, not whether or not they were actually useful. I think they should be deleted as uncommon word forms, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:SNOWBALL keep the last time this came up. Nothing has changed in the interim, so this is not a case of WP:CCC but just rehash/shopping.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a lot has changed since last time this came up. Redirects from uncommon word forms have since been regularly deleted in recent months at RFD, so it's actually quite plausible that consensus can change this time around (and I'm one of those people who !voted keep last time, BTW). -- Tavix (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the first decision. Evidence was presented that these redirects were useful, and that's all we need for redirects. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maliciously per Black's Law Dictionary and maliciousness but Delete the "un" versions as they are antonyms like redirecting "not guilty" to "guilty" without explaining it at the article. News searches do not show the antonym in use, preferring "without malice" or "no malice". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per the previous discussion. I think the first two are particularly useful redirects, and I don't think there is any harm in keeping the other three. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:30, 17 June 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.

Jumpy castle[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 split decision: I find consensus to delete Joy Jump and to retarget Jumpy castle to Inflatable castle. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating: Joy Jump → Inflatable

Again never heard anyone say "Jumpy castle" or "Joy jump" Pointless redirects –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the comments I've realized my rationale should've been worded much better than what it is and so I apologize for that, It was never my intention to come across as "I've never heard of it so delete it", I just assumed no one actually used them so hence assumed they were useless, If people do indeed use them then I have no objections to keeping, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending actual evidence these terms are not in use. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The question is whether these terms show up in any RS; it is correct that we don't need redirects for every childish turn of phrase that exists.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joy jump. I'm finding essentially nothing relevant on Google: lots of entirely false positives (e.g. I gotta let the whole world know Jump for joy Jump for joy, plus Hexes & Willy Joy's "Jump" remix), irrelevant things (a video by this title, women who would appear in the phone book as "Jump, Joy"), and only one thing that sounds at all relevant, an Australian company named "Joy Jump" that operates bouncy castles. No reason to keep a title merely because it's used by a comparatively small company in New South Wales. If this is Australian slang, keeping would be in order, but you'd need to provide solid evidence of that. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget jumpy castle to Inflatable castle. Google searches find lots of results, beginning on the first page, in which the term is used to refer to bouncy castles. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joy Jump, keep Jumpy castle. I've heard many people say jumpy castle, but this isn't about that; it's a common term. As for Joy Jump, I can't find anything that uses it except the Australian company that Nyttend mentioned. As for it being Australian slang, it isn't. I'm using google.com.au and nothing else is coming up. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joy Jump, Retarget jumpy castle to Inflatable_castle. I've heard that term used often to refer to them. PaleAqua (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joy Jump, sounds like a particular brand, and it gets confused with Jump For Joy which is a dab page full of album and song titles. Jumpy castle search on News goes to a bunch of articles that use the term "bouncy castle". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 13 June 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.

Single Player[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 procedural close, to be reopened upon RM decision. Deryck C. 12:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A related RM is open at Talk:Multiplayer game#Requested move 13 June 2016

Follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 13#Singleplayer games. These aren't created by Neelix, but the rationale remains the same: a single-player game is not necessarily a single-player video game (eg: solitaire card games, pinball, puzzles). -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the nomination is to delete them all, not redirect them elsewhere, judging by the previous nomination of similar redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can see the rationale, but simply deleting these without cleanup will create a large number of undesirable redlinks, and would not deal with similar redirects like Multiplayer to Multiplayer video game. The most sensible solution is to renamed Multiplayer game to Multi- and single-player games, and massage the text there a little to better encompass the new title, then send all of these redirects there. We do not need to account for the silly case of "single-player instrument" since that describes nearly all musical instruments, and neither readers nor editors use the bare phrase "single-player" or "multi-player" (hyphenated or not) to refer to musical instruments, only to games (and sports, which are a subset of games). But, yes, it does not apply solely to video games by any means. At any rate, I think this should be resolved with WP:RM, not (or not entirely) RfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This RM is now open, here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here's a count of the incoming mainspace links to these redirects, almost all from video game articles. I expect this is primarily due to Single-player being one of the two accepted values in Template:Infobox video game's mode field:
Single Player – 193
Single player – 3392
Single-player – 4547
Single-player game – 32
Single-player games – 1
Singleplayer – 52
--The1337gamer (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Single player, Single-player and Single-player game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchyte: I don't understand your !vote, as it does not actually solve the issue at hand. Why would you keep some and delete the others? ~Mable (chat) 11:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maplestrip: I voted keep for those ones because they have a high number of wikilinks, and removal of a link in over 3000 articles wouldn't be that beneficial. I'd be willing to vote delete all if they were all unlinked or relinked to single-player video game, but I'm not sure if that's possible as I've never seen it done before. (there may be a bot that exists somewhere that I'm not familar with). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think "it's too much effort to delete those" is a very good argument for keeping them. Either the page they redirect to isn't logical and expected, or it is. ~Mable (chat) 12:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the "What links here" for the redirects, the majority come from video-game related articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that cleanup work has to be done isn't necessarily an objection to making a change, but it does indicate that work actually has to be done to make the deletion practical. As I suggested above, there is a better solution, anyway, which is to rename the article on multi- vs. single-player games (generally, not just video games), and redirect all such terms to that page. This produces no problems of any kind; in fact, even video games articles linking there will be fine, since it will still explain the difference between single- and multi-player games well enough that its applicability to the videogaming context will be entirely clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to wait for result of RM. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if "single-player" is ever even really used in non-video game context. I know "multiplayer" is a word almost always refers to video games, and as far as I know the term even originated from video game culture. In the case of single-player... Aren't board games for one person referred to as "one-player games" or something of that ilk? I would vastly prefer to keep these redirects (and even recreate the deleted ones), as single-player video game seems to be the expected target for these terms. We don't even have an article for one-player game! (<that redirect is much weirder than the ones we are discussing here) ~Mable (chat) 11:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's "singles player" for racquet sports, but that doesn't redirect anywhere. And "solo player" has plenty of non-video game context. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes, it's used. There are various single-player billiards games, card games, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single Player and Singleplayer. Add redirects here / hatnote for Single-player game for the solitaire games. What I don't get is why the bold term is "single-player video of game" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RM notice: A related RM has been opened at Talk:Multiplayer game#Requested move 13 June 2016.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see how the move pans out. All of these pages can redirect to "multi- and singleplayer game" if such an article comes into existence, with a hatnote present for people looking for the video game articles. ~Mable (chat) 07:00, 13 June 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.

Blizzard of '01[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 14:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this blizzard is not mentioned in the target article, and it's not a good candidate for retargeting due to its ambiguity. This could refer to a blizzard in 2001, 1901, 1801, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Can't find an XX01 blizzard in the Blizzard article either --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This probably refers to the Blizzard of 2001 in Buffalo NY which I believe dropped 7 ft or so of snow. PaleAqua (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, you would be correct. -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because it could also refer to any blizzard on such a date anywhere, not just Buffalo, NY. Its particularly confusing, because the "'01" date style is almost always used to refer to 1901, and most users will not think it refers to 2001.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:27, 11 June 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.

Clear liquids[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 14:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE! Clear liquids would not be a liquid diet. There is a section called "clear liquid diet," but redirecting clear liquid or its variants there would be a WP:PTM. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a confusing PTM case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, WP:SURPRISE all the way. Steel1943 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tabun is "a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid with a faint fruity odor" but you really don't want it as part of your diet. We don't seem to have any optics articles specifically devoted to transparency in liquids. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - too confusing. –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 14 June 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.

Childbed[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 Wiktionary redirect. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) I'm afraid this is confusing since it's not mentioned at the target article. Most search results I get are for either an infant bed or Puerperal infections (via "childbed fever"). -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Infant bed. "Childbed" is just a sloppy way to spell "child bed", and that's the article we have on the topic, though it could be broadened to include post-infancy beds for children, and renamed to Child bed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement above is not true. The closing admin should ignore it. Gorobay (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have you never heard the term "woman/women in childbed"? Examples of use; it refers to the condition of a woman who is heavily pregnant and has been put on bed rest, with the term sometimes extending to a woman who's in labor. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, and readers searching for the term won't be able to figure out what it means either since there isn't a mention at the target, hence the potential for confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:childbed. PaleAqua (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Childbirth. According to Merriam-Webster's online [4] It's the process of giving birth. Add wiktionary box in corner where helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary redirect to wikt:childbed. We've actually established in this discussion that "childbed" can refer to either the bed-rest often required in the later stages of pregnancy, and the process of labour. It's not used to refer to a cot. The Wiktionary entry agrees with these definitions and we should send a clueless reader there. Deryck C. 12:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wiktionary redirect per Deryck Chan. Gets three hits a day and no good target on-wiki. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:58, 19 June 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.

Abortion alternatives[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. The consensus is that it's not a good target from the reader's point of view. Deryck C. 12:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously not a good target; pregnancy isn't an alternative to abortion and I usually hear adoption being the main "alternative." I'm wondering if there is a good target that discusses this. If not, delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is simply a missing article, and one we should have, so a redlink will help encourage its creation. The topic is not covered at Abortion debate, Right to life, or anything else I see in Category:Abortion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Crisis pregnancy center, an article that's related to this concept, unless people agree with SMcCandlish's idea that we need to encourage creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pregnancy is, in point of fact, the usual and obvious alternative to an abortion. But I'll let y'all figure this out on your own, God willing. :) -- Kendrick7talk 18:48, 11 June 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.

With squirrel[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 14:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase seems to be a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. There is no mention of squirrels at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=1088282824"