Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1
May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2016.

Pink people[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 majority favours delete. Arguments for deletion include the fact that there isn't any particularly good fit between the redirect title and any current target, the derogatory nature of the previous target, and the multiple possible population groups this title may refer to. Deryck C. 19:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the term is used for any of the target's subjects; the most common use of the term seems to be the derogatory term for white people. Was this target chosen for political correctness? ANDROS1337TALK 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. My first impression was that this appeared to be overlooked vandalism from 2009. On a deeper review of the pagehistories, it may have been a poorly-structured attempt to redirect to what is now Chickenhawk (gay slang) based on some association between gays and the color pink. Even if plausible, that connection seems too tenuous so revert to the version that redirected to white people since there is some (though very thin) controversy over whether "pink people" really would be a better description of that skin tone. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the 2007 target per Rossami -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is currently no reference to this term in any of proposed targets. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the term can apply equally to white people, LGBT people, a specific group of LGBT people, and fictional races of strongly pink color (see Guardians of the Galaxy). Even a disambiguation page could be problematic as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both older ≠ wiser and CWM, who make excellent points. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 4 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.

AGBL[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 18#AGBL

Call of Duty (working title)[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) 11:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, old outdated redirect. "Call of Duty" isn't a working title for anything, but the actual title of several games. -- Tavix (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep because it helps trace the history of a disputed pagemove early in the life of the article. Tag it with {{unprintworthy}} if you like but it is not in the way of anything and does no harm. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It vaguely suggests it would be the working title of something other than the target, but it isn't, and it preserves history and gets readers to where the information is, if slightly WP:SURPRISEd thinking there may be a difference. It would be correct but redundant to say at the target, "The working title of Call of duty was Call of duty", and I imagine the content would be swiftly removed, so there is little better we can do. @Rossami: It has on the other hand redirected to various sections of the target during its long life, I presume as new titles came out or were announced, so in that sense it has been a bit kinda WP:CRYSTAL in the past (in the way British weatherforecasters tell you what the weather was like yesterday), and has been retargeted to several sections presumably to whatever was the Next release of Call of Duty (red, I know). Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a term used by reliable sources, not a likely search term, one of many redirects that get created every year as speculation of the next CoD game begins in Feb-Apr time frame. (Another is below this request) I don't see anything of real importance in the history. There was two double redirect fixes, then after the game in question had a main article, it was redirected to a Future section of the main series, which no longer exists. Based on the first edit summary, important history has already been merged long ago into the main article for MW2. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page history is easy enough to trace from existing titles. Deleting this will have a link to this discussion, so it should still be pretty straightforward. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 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.

Call of Duty: Blood Lines[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) 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax reported by an unreliable source. The1337gamer (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's too speculative to be sure it's a hoax but it definitely is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Delete. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This year's title is clearly known to be Infinite Warfare now. Blood Lines was one of several hoax/rumor/speculation titles. No official announcement of any game by this name. -- ferret (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.

Fig jam[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 Common fig#Culinary use. Deryck C. 13:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also refers to the food product 'fig jam'. Dschslava (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this another look, I think BDD's retarget idea is better for Fig jam. I still think there should be a hatnote between the two places. -- Tavix (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: Figs are not mentioned anywhere at Fruit preserves. Query: How likely is the song "Figjam" to be rendered as two words? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt the song would be rendered as two words. Fig jam is very briefly mentioned at Common fig#Culinary use, so this could be retargeted there. OTOH maybe delete per Wp:REDLINK, since it seems like reasonable articles can be written about various flavours of jam (c.f. tomato jam, coconut jam). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many food items without a current article often deserve one, and I think this is such a case. I don't have any of it, personally, but now I want some. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You made me spit water all over my screen from that comment. You owe me a computer screen. Moving on, Retarget per User:BDD. --Saltedcake (talk) 19:59, 12 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.

File:Andorra la Vella police station building.jpg[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) 20:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect created after move from incorrect name. LukeSurl t c 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Used in historical revisions of Police Corps of Andorra. There is no reason to create red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The old title is incorrect. I think the harm of preserving an incorrect file name outweighs the benefits of reducing linkrot in old versions of articles. Deryck C. 10:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that preserving an incorrect name that could be confusing for people is an issue. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:38, 18 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.

File:TheWedge.jpg[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Potential for confusion with media relating to other "The Wedge" works LukeSurl t c 12:41, 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.

File:TheBigFellow.png[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Potential for confusion with File:Thebigfellow.png LukeSurl t c 12:37, 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.

Jamie Curry[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) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTubers has a notability criteria to it. Logically, that means there shouldn't be redirects of this nature to the list: either Jamie Curry and/or the channel is notable, and there should be an article written about it, or it's not notable, and there shouldn't be an entry on the subject at the list. Either way, the redirects should be deleted: if the subject is notable, this makes a perfect WP:REDLINK case to encourage creation of a proper article. If not, there shouldn't be an entry on this list, making the redirects misleading. There is not currently an entry at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It has a notability criterion attached to it. Tut, tut. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for WP:REDLINK Ollieinc (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also for WP:TOOSOON. Article that demonstrates notability should be developed first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jamie Curry and Jamie's World until and unless notability is demonstrated. This old AfD decision suggests that he is not notable and that WP:REDLINK would be inappropriate. As the evidence behind some of these very pages show, making a title into a redirect can serve to discourage users from re-creating articles that we've already decided we don't want. Yes, we could protect the title instead but SALTing a title is an extreme step that should not be taken when a redirect is sufficient. The fact that the subject is not currently on the "List of..." page is not a problem.
    The capitalization and spacing variants have no such history of deterrent effect - but they're also harmless. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have it backwards. When something gets deleted over and over again, salting is the appropriate action to prevent something from being recreated. A redirect would work when there's content to redirect to, but in this case there is none. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually the standard is in favor of redirects. The logic behind that rule is that notability can change with time. Someone who didn't qualify for an article last year might easily qualify today. If the title has been turned into a redirect, any ordinary editor can boldly overwrite the redirect with content. Other editors who watchlisted the title will evaluate the new content and either confirm that notability has changed (by not reverting) or simply turn back the clock. No special admin powers are required. On the other hand, if we SALT a page, the only way to create the content is to first find an admin, then petition to have the page unprotected, prove your point in one or more different forums and finally actually get to start writing. This adds bureaucracy and delay - features contrary to the very nature and aspirations of a wiki. SALTing a title is sometimes necessary but should never be the first choice. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the proper solution is to redirect this to a random list that makes no reference to Jamie Curry or Jamie's World? Tell me how that makes any sense at all... If the notability for Jamie Curry were to substantially change, all someone would need to do is make a post to WP:DRV and explain why recreation should be allowed. It's not pointless bureaucracy but an important process that keeps non-notable stuff from being reverted by fanboys. That's one of the purposes of Deletion review: deletion review may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, delete, but I note for posterity that she is very likely to meet GNG at least, so an article will probably be written in the future. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It makes no sense to redirect to an article that makes no mention of the name. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 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.

Andrés önd[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) 08:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be gone from this site for the most part. But I am making an exception since this is a redirect that needs to go. The only times redirects from other languages are acceptable is if it's the original language, that's not the case here, Donald Duck is originally from the United States, therefore his name in Icelandic shouldn't redirect on the English Wikipedia. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:34, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_2&oldid=1089516506"