Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 17, 2016.

Wikipedia:Triple redirects[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Champion: Yeah, who knows. With that being said, I just wanted to point out that the subject of the redirect could exist, the current target is probably the best target for it ... but, I'm honestly neutral if it remains or not. Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see User:Champion/Triple redirects. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel, a more extreme form of double redirect, and they clearly exist in article space, since I hit them sometimes. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd say delete if it were in mainspace, but don't mind setting a higher bar for non-user-facing pages. A triple redirect is essentially just a double-double redirect and doesn't really need special treatment beyond what a regular double redirect gets, though I think some or all double-redirect bots can't fix them? See, it would really help if someone spelled that out. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 31 March 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.

Double redirects[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) 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate, neither is an XNR to this non-reader content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – this is an actual encyclopedic topic. sst✈ 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And the current target is a disambiguation page, so unless everything on there can also be called a "double redirect", the redirect could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 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.

Action potential threshold[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 Threshold potential. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which target is better? Action potential or Threshold potential? Or something else? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to set index? which lists both? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Threshold potential, for which it is a synonym. Action potential is the more general topic, of which a threshold of electric potential is a particular aspect, so redirecting to the direct synonym is the better choice. --Mark viking (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Threshold potential, exactly per Mark viking. There actually is a section of Action potential, Action potential#Stimulation and rising phase, which paradoxically deals directly with the subtopic where the threshold potential applies, but which does not even link to it, because it is discussed earlier at Action potential#Process in a typical neuron. Thus, redirecting to AP is unhelpful to readers, whereas redirecting to TP is exactly appropriate, as an alternative name for the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY per the votes above to "retarget". Both cases above me to "retarget" actually validate why this redirect has a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment makes me realize that what I said was not as clear as I intended it to be. My exposition about the action potential page was not intended as an argument that targeting there would be just as good. Rather, I was attempting to convey the reasons it would be both complicated and potentially unhelpful to readers. Sorry if that wasn't clear. So let me say very clearly that Threshold potential is the ideal target. And furthermore, some readers probably will start looking under the redirect name, so WP:Redirects are cheap and it would be helpful to those readers not to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 17 March 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.

Black gold (liquid)[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 Black gold. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know black gold refers to petroleum, but is this the best target? I associate the term with the Beverly Hillbillies more than with oil. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It could refer to coffee as well. It is probably best to delete this redirect and have reader searches just go to the Black gold disambiguation page. --Mark viking (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Black Gold or possibly Black Gold#Commodities. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to black gold disambiguation page, which lists liquids -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We redirect incomplete disambiguations such as "(film)" or "(footballer)" to the disambiguation page because it's highly likely that someone would either a) create a duplicate article at at that title or b) search using the disambiguator because they know there's a footballer or film by that name. In this case, "(liquid)" is not an intuitive disambiguator, so we don't have to worry about that problem here. I don't think it's plausible that someone would search using this specific disambiguator, so there's no value in keeping it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 17 March 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.

Intergalactic Proton-Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droid[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) 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-noteworthy Family Guy reference, I doubt airdancers are actually called that in real life. -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 17 March 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.

I Don't Wanna Go[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:XY. sst✈ 09:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Lana Del Rey recorded a song by this name. I created the redirect for people who may be searching for information about the song. (YouTube). ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @SSTflyer: Can you explain why this redirect needs to be deleted per WP:XY? With a title like this, a disambiguation page is probably preferable. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a dab. Right now, the Lana Del Rey song fails MOS:DABMENTION. At a glance, the Joey Travolta song might be independently notable. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pages serves a purpose. No reason to delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 17 March 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.

Graduate Programs in Archaeology[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) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Wikipedia is not a directory, someone searching for certain graduate programs in religion or archaeology is not going to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to think that Graduate programs in religion should be reverted to the article version and moved to Graduate education in religion and then expanded.--Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (agree with initial proposal, disagree with Jahaza's proposal) - The article covered no more than Seminary, but neither seminary nor theology are good redirects (though either is better than the stub that had been there). Jahaza's proposed new article (which would not resemble to the pre-redirect version if it is to have a chance at meeting WP:N) doesn't strike me as a topic suitable for a WP article. Novaseminary (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:20, 17 March 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.

Airbus Middle East[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) 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. sst✈ 09:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It's a subsidiary with its own website http://www.airbus.com/company/airbus-middle-east/ WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there is no mention of it in the article. sst✈ 09:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added it. Anyway keep this hypothetical situation in mind: guy A writes the redirect and mentions the subdsidiary, but Guy B removes mention of the subsidiary, and now Guy C nominates the redirect for deletion but is unaware of the history. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Refine to Airbus#Corporate affairs, where information about it now resides, per the developments in the above discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:17, 17 March 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.

Illness and death[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) 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:XY. A textbook case of where a redirect could equally point to multiple targets. We have an article on both death and disease (the latter being where illness redirects). —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 17 March 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_March_17&oldid=1138581129"