Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2016.

Neo Tokyo (disambiguation)[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nom (but no longer a redirect) (non-admin closure) Pppery 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(Withdrawn update see below). Redirect doesn't target a dab page but an WP:SIA (now a WP:BROADCONCEPT) so incorrect to have a dab redirect per WP:MOSDAB. (dab was converted to SIA, update now to a DC). No incoming links. No plausible target as a dab redirect. MOS:DABNOTINDEX "Set index articles are not disambiguation pages and do not have to follow the style outlined on this page." and WP:NOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page." (original emphasis). Take the example HMS Albatross it does not have a dab redirect [1] . Widefox; talk 19:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not convinced Neo-Tokyo isn't a DAB page. SIAs need to be about similarly named things of the same type, and I'm not seeing that here. There's stuff about an academic thought experiment in a school of Japanese architecture, two territories with that name in two Western board games, a Brazilian magazine, a Half-Life 2 mod (American), a level in a British video game, and the expected Japanese anime/manga/video game things. In fact, until a couple days ago when the nominator of this RfD changed the template at the bottom, it was a DAB page. In any case, in the 14 months before the nominator edited the target page, it got 164 hits or just under a hit every other day. So even if it is technically an SIA, it would be a disservice to readers and casual editors to delete the redirect.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, OK now I understand what you're contesting. It's the SIA. This redirect isn't the SIA, so it would have been helpful to take that up in the right place at the SIA. Anyhow, to answer, all items are fictional places. That's a clear SIA IMHO, with all items in the scope of the intro. There is one borderline, the architectural one, which is now a hatnote. It would be WP:TWODABS (an SIA WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and one item) to create a dab for that. Either way, the redirect can get deleted. As said, dab/SIA discussion is for the dab/SIA not this redirect. Can you elaborate on the hits argument, as the redirect isn't used in any pages, and is incorrectly targeting an SIA (which, as explicitly stated above in bold is not a dab) is only to be used to target a dab. You realise this looks much more like an SIA than a dab, if we do convert back to a dab most of the value for readers will get removed (the intro)?! Widefox; talk 08:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current situation works fine. The hits argument is one of utility. Actual users found and used the redirect, and (hopefully) found it useful. Deleting the redirect for the technical reason that the target is not a DAB page does a disservice to those readers and casual users, since DABs and SIAs are visually similar and serve similar functions (maybe 100 people in the world even know what the difference between the two is). While I wouldn't go out of way to make them, getting rid of them only hurts readers and casual editors.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A similar redirect, ČSR (disambiguation), was deleted as G6 by Diannaa. Pppery 02:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, normally they're deleted CSD G6. I've had that one, and at least two/three others deleted as G6 in the last couple of weeks alone. Widefox; talk 08:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-dabify the target per Patar knight. Pppery 14:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a DAB. Assuming Neo Tokyo remains as an index, at least three pages (said index, Neo Tokyo (film), and NeoTokyo (video game)) have ambiguous titles. Cnilep (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on what happens at the target. As it is, Neo Tokyo is not a set-index article. Your argument that the entries are all fictional places doesn't hold water. NeoTokyo (video game) is not a fictional place; it's a video game. Neo Tokyo (film) is not a fictional place; it's an anthology film. And films are not video games. So the criterion that the entries be a set of items of a specific type is not met.
However, it could be argued that Neo Tokyo could be expanded into a broad-concept article. As I searched on Wikipedia, I was struck by how many references are made to this term. It would be a service to readers to have a good article about this concept. If this is what happens, of course, we would dabify Neo Tokyo (disambiguation).
If Neo Tokyo is restored as a regular dab page, of course we would keep the redirect. And I have some music pieces ready to add to the target.
If the consensus is to keep the target as a SIA, we should also keep the redirect. — Gorthian (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Gorthian is right that a broad concept fits the current items better than an SIA. Fixed. NeoTokyo (video game) is within the scope - eponymous title set in this fictional futuristic Tokyo place (per lede), but also it is WP:RELATED. It's not verified that Neo Tokyo (film) fits within the scope without more details on the location of the films (or reasoning for titling as such), so in the absence of that in the article or sources it should go in the hatnote. Done. It is clear though, that all items (including the film) have connection to the scope of the broad concept as covered in the lede. As such, they're secondary consideration to having the broad concept at the primary topic. The futuristic architectural topic is included in the see also, and be worked into the body later. As a broad concept with only RELATED other titles (with the exception of the borderline unknown film).
    • Alternatively, if returned to a dab, we lose the lede which IMHO is the main benefit here (which is why I originally didn't clean up the dab, but attempted to preserve this non-dab). For certain, SIAs never have dab directs, and broad concepts too. Widefox; talk 09:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom Update - dabify here there's a couple of music items which could go at a new dab at this location, although the last two of the four User:Gorthian/sandbox4 are WP:PTM so go in the dab See also section. Widefox; talk 11:47, 26 September 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.

3x+1@Home[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable BOINC project aimed at solving the Collatz conjecture, not mentioned in the target article. SSTflyer 16:30, 24 September 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.

Paul Gibbs (assault victim)[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) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at target. WP:BIO1E content about him was merged to the target after a 2009 AFD with two "merge" opinions and two "delete" opinions. It was then cut down over the years and the remaining three sentences about him were removed completely in April this year. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging relevant editors: @Headbomb: (AfD nominator), @Edison, Rickproser, Matt Deres, David Eppstein, and Fences and windows: (AFD participants), @Sephiroth storm: (who carried out the merge), @Woovee: (who removed the content). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content may belong in the section "Prejudice and violence directed at goths", Woovee's removal was odd as 1) an attack that severed a man's ear and left the attackers in jail is not "trivia" and 2) he could have easily found other sources but preferred to instead remove content. It's not the most well-known of attacks on goths, but there are few mentioned in that section and the trial established that a hatred of goths was a motivating factor in the attack. Fences&Windows 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a site about news items with tales of murders. Woovee (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:42, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia:Open Threat Exchange[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong namespace for drafts, whether accepted or rejected. Pppery 11:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the page history is unclear as to how long this was there, so it might not be a long-term-in-existence title. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend: This title dates back to February when Newtonlee moved the page from draft to Wikipedia space, then copy-and-paste moved it back to draft space, the move the draft page to article space, leaving an article in article space without history and a redirect from draft space to it (and a duplicate copy with old history in Wikipedia space). About an hour ago, I requested histmerging of the Wikipedia space page into the article space one, which was done by Anthony Appleyard, leaving this redirect behind that I then nominated for rfd. Pppery 15:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:25, 26 September 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.

Category:Wikipeidans who play Pokémon 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 delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously wrong and almostly no one will type it. 333-blue 06:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This redirect... is pointing at itself? What's going on? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this double redirect consisting of a misspelling. Pppery 11:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unusual misspellings in category names virtually never need to be kept. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 19:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:R3 maybe? I've never seen that apply to category redirects, though. If not, there should be a SD criterion for typos in category redirects. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Prof. Willow (Delete) per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:R3. Delete Quite clearly an implausible typo, no one is going to use this. Omni Flames (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Omni Flames: R3 doesn't apply to redirects created from page moves. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typo. Debatable whether the correctly titled category is even worth keeping around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 26 September 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.

Stromboulopoulos, George[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 withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, we do not do "lastname, firstname"-type redirects. These were created as redirects from author's names in the reference section in Tzeporah Berman, and that was the only incoming link. I've fixed them both with pipes, and hence see no reason to retain the redirs. MSJapan (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. I confirm the redirects have no inbound links from article space, and I agree. --doncram 06:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: the nominator is offering to withdraw the nomination. Would you be willing to withdraw your !vote as well? -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged to revisit here, and seeing the other comments I gather that these kind of redirects are created/kept after all, even when they are not used at all. It's a bit puzzling, and quite in contrast to some past policy and practice with respect to disambiguation pages. Anyone reading here, please feel free to join and comment at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. It's a proposal to stop the practice of deleting many 2-item dab pages. But about redirects, I am not much involved and don't know about practices or reasons for them, so I've just stricken out my vote here. I defer to more informed others. --doncram 06:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind to keep since we appear to have a clear-cut case of "Redirects from sort names", even if it all looks clunky. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since these redirects are in fact widespread per Category:Redirects from sort names. Deleting a couple when tens of thousands more exist doesn't seem very helpful. I'm not really sure what the point of them is, however. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In printed reference works, people's names are presented this way. This is also done in some online publications; an article currently linked from the Russian Wikipedia's main page is entitled ru:Крамской, Иван Николаевич, not ru:Иван Николаевич Крамской. The point is that people familiar with seeing names presented this way in other media may well enter a name in this way here. It's definitely not hurting anything, and as Xezbeth notes, it would be silly to delete two of them merely because they're unusual if we have thousands more of them. If you want to get rid of all of them, make a big and public proposal at the Village Pump, or somewhere comparable; a successful proposal would result in deleting most or all of them, without making you come back here. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from sort name}}s. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - I quit. I'm tired people rationalizing reasons to keep things that don't make sense to keep. It's not a redirect from sort - it has nothing to do with sorting. When the MOS tells us not to link names like that, because somebody does this is not a reason to keep. Most other place write "X Y, Jr." We don't do this anymore per a vote. So because it happens somewhere else is also not a reason to keep. Wikipedia is now clearly a place where existence is notability, and it is an infodump - if a situation can be rationalized to keep something, it will be, no matter how nonsensical it seems. So good luck with that. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: It is how names are formatting for sorting purposes, since people's names are alphabetized by surname and not forename. Also, just because you don't find something useful, there are plenty of other people who do find these redirects useful, which is a reason for keeping redirects (see WP:R#K5). I'm not sure why this frustrates you, but please rest assured that these do make sense. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's not a sort - it's a redirect used in one article that, when piped as is done everywhere else, is linked to nowhere else in the entire encyclopedia. Again, I'm tired of this need to rationalize keeping absolutely everything everyone creates because it might matter someday despite policies that state otherwise. It's also great that one edit on one;s own article makes one worthy of an entry in the deceased Wikipedians cat, because clearly that edit was a stunning contribution, or how it takes ten times longer to remove garbage than it does to add it, because somebody's got to go rationalize a reason to keep it. Like I said, I'm tired of it, so do what you want, because I'm done with the whole thing. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's useful in Wikipedia (where there are 29,439 such redirects categorized, NOT including these two) and without-names are often ordered in this reverse way. I've been doing these type of redirects for a long time and don't recall any controversy. ;) DadaNeem (talk) 00:00, 25 September 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_September_24&oldid=1088108320"