Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 21, 2016.

如皋中学[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) 18:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this school at the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There appears to be an article on the Chinese Wikipedia about this school. I don't see adequate sourcing there, however, and it may be that the school itself isn't notable. I'm not sure about this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeWithMarkets:I don't think it is worth an article here. I have tagged the article on zhwiki for notability. Over on zhwiki, if the notability tag remains for 30 days, it will automatically get AfDd. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That's like adding "school" to every region article as a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems like the best move is to just go ahead and be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:51, 22 October 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.

9th Grade Annex[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) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target, it is mentioned in several articles about specific schools, but we don't have a general article and I doubt it is worthy of one. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Annex appears to be just a general term for buildings or structures that are added on to the institution. [1] [2] So it can be a school annex, hospital annex, but it's a bit of an WP:XY like staff parking lot. There's no particular 9th grade annex that serves as a primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of at least one school in the US that serves ninth graders alone; I don't know if it was the first, or if others have emulated the practice. The idea of dedicated educational institutions for ninth graders probably merits an article, though "annex" here does seem to imply an area for ninth graders that's part of a larger school. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 24 October 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.

Template:PotentialVanity[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) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so Potential Vanity is COI? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 18:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I notice this template was deleted way back in 2007, which explains the current transclusions. Anyway, with the original template having been deleting almost ten years ago, the plausibility for someone to end up using this redirect is low to the extent that I see little use for maintaining this it. Dustin (talk) 22:23, 23 October 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.

St. Hans[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. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Not a valid WP:FORRED. SSTflyer 10:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. WP:FORRED is an essay, and not law. In most of Northern Europe, particularly in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries but also elsewhere, the traditional midsummer celebrations on "midsummer eve", the day before St. John the Baptists day in the calendar (see Saint John's Eve and Midsummer), are next to Christmas the most important celebrations of the year, and a decidedly non-religious holiday, having long since lost their connection to St. John and returned to their pagan roots as a night/weekend of partying and fun. The only connection to religion now being the fact that it in some countries (primarily Denmark and Norway) is still commonly known as Sankthans or St. Hans, a disconnection from religion that is so complete that most people probably don't even know where it got its name from (St. John the Baptist is known as Johannes Döparen/Johannes Døberen in Scandinavia, a name that was shortened to St. Hans since Hans is a common short form of Johannes), making a redirect from St. Hans to John the Baptist totally logical. In my opinion at least... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (sorry for the longwinded comment, but I felt there was a need for a thorough explanation for why I feel the redirect is logical...)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. This is the English Wikipedia. You didn't even tail your <small> properly, and made a (edit conflict) while doing it, so why should I beleive you have WP:COMPETENCE? Did you follow the instructions at right at the top of RfD "before listing here. Right at the top. Do your homework. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Que? Who you talking to? If it was me I want to point out that I didn't list the redirect for deletion, or create the redirect for that matter, I only !voted here. And neither the link to WP:COMPETENCE nor the comment about "do your homework" was called for, no matter who your comment was directed at. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (And what on earth has an edit conflict got to do with competence?)[reply]
I wasn't talking to you, or really to anyone, I was just grumbling generally. Sorry if it seemed that way. I am going through a bit of a hard time for various personal reasons and let my anger vent. I shouoldn't have, because I should have kept it all in. I can only apologise. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Midsummer. "St. Hans Day" is a common name for Midsummer, especially in Norway, but also in other Scandinavian countries. On Wikipedia, it seems the most common usage. There are four article links to the redirect; I've fixed one of them, but the other three are all references to Midsummer's Day. — Gorthian (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Midsummer. Jonathunder (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete, but do not retarget because that makes even less sense. St. Hans Day may be a common name for midsummer, but this redirect is about the saint after which the day was named. That saint is John the Baptist, who is also known as Hans (short for Johannes, i.e. John) in Germanic languages. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:01, 27 October 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.

Digital Highway[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 Information superhighway. -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to New Jersey Digital Highway, perhaps, not sure what else it can refer to, if not delete per WP:R#DELETE 10 (vague synonym). - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do you remember the Information Superhighway we were all promised? I think it is rather WP:XY as Champion says. Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original redirect was based on a 2008 AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Highway; my bad for not logging the AfD on the talk page. I have no strong feelings about the redirect. However, it is a somewhat vague term, so retargeting to the NJDH doesn't strike me as the best option.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Information Superhighway and add hatnote for the New Jersey one. Term is still widely used for Internet infrastructure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:49, 21 October 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.

Strictly[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. There's been a wide array of opinions, ranging from keep, delete, disambiguate, and retargets to Strictly Come Dancing and Strict (disambiguation). While there may be a slight plurality advocating for a retarget to Strictly Come Dancing, I don't believe it's enough to establish consensus at this time, especially with so many other well-formed arguments pulling against this. I will, however, add a hatnote from the current target to Strictly Come Dancing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primary use for this, at least in the UK, much to my chagrin, is Strictly Come Dancing. This is not as it claims {{R from longer title}} it should be if anything {{R from adverb}}. But I don't imagine most people searching for "Strictly" want to be told about "Strict" in a mathematical sense (and I know what it means in a mathematical sense, i.e. it means vague, because a strict set in one branch of maths is not the same as a strict set in another branch of maths). No mathematician or semi-competent mathematician is likely to search for "strictly" or even "strict" to find out what it means in a mathematical sense, like most adverbs, it qualifies, so we have a strictly ordered set, for example, a strict union, a strictly ordered sequence and so on. Oh, we don't? Hmmm. I better have a strictly ordered glass of champagne, then. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, Wikipedia is also for non-mathematicians. Siuenti (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a hell of a lot of things starting "Strictly", User:Siuenti. I think it's better off Deleted so that the search engine can find them; WP:RFD#D2 as WP:PTM. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly Come Dancing is not a partial title match, it's often known just as Strictly. Siuenti (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I was wondering if it was known as that outside of its primary audience, the UK. A bit WP:WORLDWIDE, essentially. If you think it is theprimary topic for this redirect then you should say so, but as it stands you have !voted for "disambiguate". I would go for retargeting it to Strictly Come Dancing but I was worried about whether that was just a UK thing and not worldwide. I would really hav expected this to be boldly retargeted earlier, but it hasn't been, so I imagine users looking up "Strictly" on WP are quite delighted to find defintions of strict weak orderings and so forth. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Strictly Come Dancing. Most mathematicians are likely to find definitions on MathCad, anwyay. As User:Siuenti says, Wikipedia is not only for mathematicians. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Strict (disambiguation) but I'm leaning somewhat towards Weak delete as well if there is no primary topic. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Strictly Come Dancing as shown in news articles. [3] [4] [5] Add redirects here and hatnote to strict. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnote. Don't care which way this targets, both have merits, but it should hatnote to the other regardless.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • After consideration, my !vote is Keep as {{R from adjective}}/{{R from adverb}} and hatnote to the show. The scientific concepts are more precisely linked to this title, which would be shortform for the show, and likely not primary usage in general compared to how prevalent "strict" things are in the sciences. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Just to point out, this does have incoming links which will need to be bypassed if this is retargeted. SpinningSpark 17:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hatnote is also fine. Siuenti (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:DICDEF; people shouldn't be linking to it at all. If a specific meaning is important, the link to that article can be piped. — Gorthian (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep concepts are more important than television shows. Pppery 23:40, 23 October 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.

Template:Myth box[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) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete what a myth box, besides some random product name? Infobox myth? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There is no need to branch out with unlikely-to-be-used redirects. Dustin (talk) 22:24, 23 October 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.

Maggie Rogers[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 Move Margaret Rogers over the redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete The redirect name isn't mentioned anywhere in the target article. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete she's one of the students from Pharrell Williams' Masterclass that he specially acknowledged, but needs her own notability so redlinking this should encourage article creation if she charts. [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move Margaret Rogers over Maggie Rogers per Tavix's findings as Maggie is the common name for the news and history articles. [7] [8] [9] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move Margaret Rogers over redirect per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 31 October 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.

AZX (company)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 31#AZX (company)

Double Dragon Ex[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) 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this redirect may need to be deleted per WP:REDLINK, but I'm not sure just how plausible this title may be for its own article. Per the following link, this is a version of the target released for mobile devices, but it's currently not mentioned in the target article: 1. Also, the subject's possibly actual name, Double Dragon EX, doesn't exist on Wikipedia Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a Double Dragon EX in Japan? Media Arts Database doesn't seem to have the game for ダブルドラゴン EX. I see wikia articles saying it's a cell phone game, but nothing formal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 21 October 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.

Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious[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) 08:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in the template namespace have to at least be somewhat related to their target by spelling, abbreviation, meaning, or historical use. This redirect, created a few days ago, meets none of those. I cannot see anyone searching for "hoax" or anything related to a hoax via this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This doesn't seem useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There is no need to branch out with improbable redirects. This redirect is unlikely to be of use to anyone. Dustin (talk) 22:26, 23 October 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.

Template:Corrupt (organization)[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. Bold, but improper close reverted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#Template:Corrupt (organization). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt and conflict of interest are not one and the same... Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This appears to be misleading in an unhelpful kind of way, and there's really no good reason to keep it. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 21 October 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.

Template:Bush family tree[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) 08:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the target is not a template, using this template as a template will transclude an article, which is bad and harmful. 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete anyone transcluding this would end up transcluding the entire article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is Template:Bush family navbox but why do we need one with "tree" in it? With regards to transcluding the tree itself, would there be a use for this outside of the immediate article? If so then the stuff for transclusion should be put in to help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Bush family, which is divided by generation, like a family tree is, as the best option. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There is no need for a template space redirect that points to mainspace, and transclusions of it should be avoided. Deleting the redirect would prevent the entire Bush family article from being transcluded by mistake. While under certain conditions, I might have agreed with the rationale provided by Patar knight above, considering the page's past history and the lack of currently-existing links to it, it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to delete the page to encourage people to directly transclude {{Bush family}}. Dustin (talk) 19:54, 23 October 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.

One KM Mall[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) 08:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this seemingly-ordinary, undistinguishably non-notable shopping centre redirect to a very broad-concept article with no particular need to be linked to? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:27, 21 October 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_October_21&oldid=1088108589"