Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 1[edit]

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

Alkali lake[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 retargetto Alkali Lake. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page [1], which also has soda lake listed. End RD and point to name searched for. Smarkflea (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what happened, but on my first search 'soda lake' came up, now it's Alkali Lake. I did see the redirect page. Did I accidentally delete it?Smarkflea (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I now see both words have to be capitalized not to redirect. Still think redirect should be deleted.Smarkflea (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is I see no problem. A hatnote now exists to indicate other lakes -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ofcourse, someone may just delete the hatenote again, during the course of this discussion -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Alkali Lake. We have a disambiguation page there, so the obvious choice here is to redirect the alternative capitalization to the disambiguation page. Alternatively, we could discuss whether Soda lake is a primary topic, but I don't think it is. ~ RobTalk 08:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the capitalization variant disambiguation page per Rob. Rossami (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarget to Alkali lake as {{R from other capitalization}}, as above. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarget to Alkali Lake per Rob. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:26, 5 May 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.

Rete tranviaria di Lugano[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. Deryck C. 15:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any other redirect pages like this one. Indeed, very few pages even show up when the term "Rete tranviaria" is searched for (see here). <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are certainly some a bit like this, such as Tramway du Havre (-> Le Havre tramway), but that is (or should be if it ain't it will be) an {{R from original language}} (in this case fr) generally about a specific network and company, which I think is somewhat different from a general article on trams in some place. However, this in the lede has the Italian right in the lede, and says that the company/operator has gone through several name changes, so I see no harm in keeping this. I'll mark it as {{R from original language|it}} if not already done. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have been the main contributor or translator on a few French-language tramway/tram articles such as Old Rouen Tramway and Casablanca Tramway so this just seems fine to me by the standards of other articles on trams/tramways. (Although I didn't bother to create Tramway de Casablanca as it seemed near enough the search engine would find it.) So I don't exactly have a vested interest but it is normal if translating or referencing a native-language term to use {{R from original language}} or {{R from other language}}, that's what they're for. (Incidentally we don't have {{R from native language}} which I am tempted to create as an R to {{R from original language}} but not sure the language parameter would get passed along properly, it didn't in the days before Lua.) Si Trew (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious connection between the language and the target. Seems legit. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 9 May 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.

Mid-terms[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 Term (time), but there's also consensus to disambiguate, which can be done BOLDly. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. Other possible targets include Midterm exam and Term (time). ~ RobTalk 06:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per my comments below. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Term (time) per Feedback. --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from nominator). Term (time) has one-fifth the traffic of the three articles originally listed in the nomination, and so it doesn't seem appropriate to direct searches there, especially when the hatnote doesn't address other very plausible searches like half term. ~ RobTalk 14:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other feasible solution would be a disambiguation at Midterm or Midterms. I could support that. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support disambiguation. ~ RobTalk 19:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. I was surprised at Midterm redirecting to Term (time) and had expected it to go to the election page. Peter James (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:44, 1 May 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.

Caspian Tredwell-Owen[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) 09:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Caspian Tredwell-Owen wrote both The Island (2005 film) and Beyond Borders (film), so it makes no sense to redirect to only one of his films when he's written multiple films. He's also mentioned in several other articles, so search results would give our readers a wider understanding of what Tredwell-Owen has done, instead of pigeon-holing our readers towards only one of his works. -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither of the two films stands out as his pet project. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per the AfD decision. That conclusion found insufficient notability to support a stand-alone article, however if the facts have changed and he now does meet WP:BIO the right answer is to revert to a pre-redirect version of the page and resume editing. Either way, WP:REDLINK can not apply.
    The AfD discussion also found that The Island was slightly more relevant that Beyond Borders (though the discussion in that regard was scant). No alternate title suggests itself. A redirect to a single of his films is unsatisfying but deleting the redirect and all its history would be worse. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to make the conclusion that the AFD found he was more notable for The Island. SwisterTwister picked The Island as a redirect target even though he said that he was known for both, and it seems the other participant just went along with it. no alternate title suggests itself is patently false because Beyond Borders (film) is an alternate target. Finally, deleting is better than the status quo, per WP:R#D1: the redirect makes it unreasonably difficult to find the other places he's mentioned on Wikipedia. Deleting the redirect would send our readers to search results where they can see all of his credits and decide which article they want to go to. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 2 May 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.

Categorry:Suburbs of Waratah-Wynyard Council, Tasmania[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) 19:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects of namespace mispellings not useful Naraht (talk) 13:53, 1 May 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.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502​88419716939937510582097494459230781640628620​89986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095​505822317253594081284811174502841027019​8521105559644622948954930381964[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 Deleted by Sphilbrick (non-admin closure) --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another unfeasible redirect to pi.  ONR  (talk)  11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm wondering whether this can't be speedily deleted, to get it out of here and stop this horribly long title from messing up the horizontal layout. Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed this with a couple of word breaks. Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per R3: Implausible typo, uncommon search term, and no articles that use this level of precision as a title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:14, 1 May 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.

Draft:Untitled tenth Metallica studio album[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 deleted per WP:G7 (author requests deletion). Deryck C. 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved into the mainspace; could someone please remove the draft redirect? Thanks. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:09, 1 May 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.

2021 NBA draft[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) 20:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No specific information about these future drafts are at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all It's not CRYSTAL since these are regularly scheduled recurring events, and the redirects are useful as articles link to them (in cases where picks from these drafts have already been traded). Information about the draft in general is sufficient until these particular drafts get closer and a page can be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we have specific information, like you mention with draft trades, I think it would be helpful to have that described in an article about the event. It's not helpful, on the other hand, to create a redirect without any specific information. It's better to keep it a redlink so our readers know ahead of time that there isn't an article, and won't waste their time searching the main article and leaving disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTAL Olympics and presidential campaigns. A future draft pick traded isn't enough to indicate the event has started preparations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ RobTalk 20:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably revert to the non-redirect versions. I think it's utterly pointless that these were created and equally pointless to have turned them into redirects but it's even more pointless now to delete them. 2016 NBA draft and all the previous years exist and, short of the sun exploding, there will be more NBA drafts over the next few years. WP:CRYSTAL allows these stubs as long as there is verifiable content that could be written. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the non-redirect versions? All it said was that an NBA draft will occur in June 20xx, which doesn't say much of anything. A guy saved by Jesus quickly redirected it to the draft, which, admittedly, helps even less. At least if we redlink it, our readers will know we don't have any real information on the draft until the appropriate time comes. -- Tavix (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Events that are in the future but have information about them, such as perhaps the passage of Halley's Comet close to Earth in 2062, could have some information on them since it can be and indeed has been predicted (by Halley, if nobody else). Predicting that the NBA will even have the same form in four years' time is pure WP:CRYSTAL, one might say gambling were it not that that is largely illegal in the states where Wikipedia servers are hosted. Might be the Chinese B.A. or the North American B.A. by then, for all we know. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything, it would be CRYSTAL to suggest that anything will change with the NBA or NBA draft, not CRYSTAL to say it will occur as it has for over half a century. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I'm not mistaken, CRYSTAL refers to articles, not redirects. These redirects do not present any unverifiable speculation, like the above user suggesting the NBA will move to China or whatever they're suggesting. These redirects merely take into account future draft picks that have been traded, which is verifiable. Also, redirects are cheap. I believe the benefit of keeping them as redirects, not to be expanded into articles until more can be said about them, than there is in deleting them only to recreate later. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. Heck, the 2017 NBA draft article ought to be AfDed or redirected, on the ground that it doesn't say a damn thing pertinent to the 2017 draft, instead of NBA drafts generally. Ravenswing 20:32, 3 May 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_May_1&oldid=1142587002"