Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2016.

Newyork[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 New York. Deryck C. 18:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this should go to the disambiguation page instead of the primary topic, but is it really likely? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I vote that the redirect page be deleted. It does not seem to meet purpose of redirects guideline regarding "likely misspellings"--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to New York. The redirect is definitely likely, receiving 15+ hits/day. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to New York for now, although that title is not without inherent ambiguity. bd2412 T 14:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to New York - this is clearly intended to make it easier for people to get to the New York page, even if they mistype. What page that should be is a separate, unrelated discussion; however, to the degree that this question applies to this page, it equally appleis to the New York page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Revolution Radio (single (single)[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. Deryck C. 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, incomplete disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The New York Times (New York)[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. Although "someone finds it useful", the rough consensus is that the superfluous disambiguator in the redirect is too over-the-top to be worth keeping. Deryck C. 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, we do not need such a marker in the title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it was in use in the article Wedding Band but piped to the proper text, I'm not sure why but possibly something to do with a newbie not correctly formatting italics, or an accursed VisualEditor artifact. I've corrected that link now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was added last year by a logged-out editor, who presumably would have been using the 2010 wikitext editor rather than the visual editor. (If s/he'd been using the visual editor, then the link tool would have labeled it as a redirect and suggested linking directly to the article instead.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The disambiguation is redundant here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because WP:Redirects are cheap, because none of the items in WP:RFC#DELETE apply, because multiple criteria in WP:RFC#KEEP do apply (especially #4), and because the second item (of two) in WP:RFD#HARMFUL applies. The argument given by the nom is probably a valid argument against creating such a redirect (reasonable people could debate the validity of that advice), but it is not a valid argument against deleting a six-year-old redirect that is known to be used in old revisions of multiple articles (that's why I created it, although it's no longer used in that article, either) and may be used in an unknown number of incoming links from external websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. As would be the more exact The New York Times (New York, New York). Redirects are cheap, but should only be retained if they're likely to be useful to someone. This one isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5, someone finds it useful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New York Times/Associated Press[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. Deryck C. 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

USA Today Available Around The World[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 28#USA Today Available Around The World

/New York Post[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, WP:SNOW and WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search term. We don't want five million redirects covering /AnyArticleTitle. Alsee (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought titles starting with a slash were blacklisted for technical reasons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't worth keeping at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At one time this error was quite common, hence the creation of the redirect. Seems that it's all cleaned up now. So delete. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Lua/Modules[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 27#Wikipedia:Lua/Modules

Trump 45[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 as to Bush 41 and Bush 43; delete as to all others. bd2412 T 22:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a likely search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Obama 44, Bush 43, Clinton 42, Bush 41 and Reagan 40 exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they are probably not plausible either for the same reason. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I at least disagree with that statement for Bush 43 and Bush 41. Right now, I'm neutral on the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I accepted the redirect request on the basis that we had the pages for prior presidents. I am indifferent as to whether or not the redirect remains. -- Dane2007 talk 01:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like Dane2007, I accepted Reagan 40 pursuant to a request at WP:AFC/R given the others. I don't have any opinion about whether we should keep it or delete it. /wiae /tlk 11:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Bush 41 and Bush 43, not plausible search terms. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trump 45 - If we see significant evidence of this being in use, then we can re-create it. Otherwise, deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more neutral on the other ones, which have received sporadic coverage by reliable sources. I'd prefer deletion over retention for all, I suppose, if I must choose. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like a bunch of football calls or athletic jerseys. No notable usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to include all related redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: Bush 41 and Bush 43 are clearly in parlance, and having the others does no harm. (FWIW, I created Clinton 42 in expectation that Clinton 45 would be a thing) pbp 03:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a reader and occasional editor, I just came across Bush 43. These redirects may be less commonly used than the name of their article destinations, but they're terms that are certainly in use. One who's not familiar with exactly what "Trump 45" might mean may search that exact phrase. Whether or not the search feature could get them to the same place is another thing, of course, but these redirects will serve their purpose in getting people to the article they're looking for. 50.32.213.47 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bush 41, 43, delete others. I say this as the creator of Obama 44 in my youthful optimism of 2008, but I don't see much the point today. Those kinds of redirects do make sense though when the number disambiguates which president, such as in the Bush cases. In common parlance, I do use the term "Bush 41", but not "Obama 44" so much; I do appreciate that there's a redirect in place. Clinton 42 and Clinton 45 should have been allowed only at the moment it was clear we would have another Clinton president. – Bert Macklin (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all George W. Bush isn't Bush the 43rd, which is the standard meaning of a name followed by a number. Diddo for the others. Pppery 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Referring to presidents by their ordinal number is a valid way to refer to people, but especially for the Bushes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need these any more than we need Gretzky 99 or Robinson 42. These are not search terms with merit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bush 41 and Bush 43 as their usage in mainstream sources isn't uncommon (e.g. Bush 41 says he will vote for Clinton). Neutral on the others, though they are unambiguous, a costly argument could be made.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bush 41, 43, delete others, per arguments of Bert Macklin who is spot on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lukita Maxwell[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 delete due to the lack of participation in this RfD. Deryck C. 18:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose. The show article has no information on the actress. JDDJS (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of facts[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, G7. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how this redirect makes any sense? "List of facts" redirecting to "Factory Records discography" heather walls (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Records catalog numbers start with FACT or FAC. But I've never heard of the catalog referred to as FACTs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Chemical compounds[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 28#Wikipedia:Chemical compounds

Polish mythology 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. My understanding of the Polish mythology AfD and the discussion below indicates that deletion is the most appropriate outcome. Deryck C. 18:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, these were standalone articles about various myths and legends in Polish folklore. In approximately 2006, they were all turned into redirects, but the current target says nothing about them. One option would be to delete these redirects to encourage potential article creation and to avoid the potential for WP:SURPRISE when readers are directed to the current target. My preference is to retarget them all to Polish mythology, which includes a list of these terms (but no explanation of their meaning or significance), though I figured its best to open a discussion about these at this forum. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the idea of retargeting the lot to Polish mythology, where they are mentioned. Plausible search terms. If some editor knows enough to turn any of them into articles - great! Narky Blert (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the (moreover, messy and unsourced) article "Polish mythology" should be deleted, or at least radically changed/written anew. There is not such a thing like "Polish mythology". This notion may be used metaphorically, or in some (for example, neopagan) circles, but it is not a real scientific term. The current article "Polish mythology" is a stange mix of the (real, but porly known) Slavic mythology, medieval legends, folk customs and believes, and espescially medieval and modern forgeries. Henryk Tannhäuser (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it, dear Henryk, dear Henryk, dear Henryk, then take it, dear Henryk to WP:AFD. In the meantime, we're discussing the redirects. I'll list at AfD with your comments. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_mythology#Polish_mythology with cut 'n' paste comments from above. Si Trew (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until sections or articles can be written for individual notable fables. Spoiling, Divination, and Crossroads is rather vague. Is that a common topic among Polish mythology? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish mythology time to resolve
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_20&oldid=1138581249"