Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2017.

Visa policy of the Faroe Islands[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted. Faroe Isles are not in the Schengen area. Ultimately it needs its own article, but it needs to be a redlink until this article is written. See http://old.visitfaroeislands.com/en/about-the-faroe-islands/important-facts-for-travelers/passport-and-visa/ Gerrit CUTEDH 23:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually fine, because Faroe Islands are indeed not in the Schengen area, but my attempts to add them to the template were persistently reverted without explanation [1] (one reverter was even warned for the reverts when I brought them to 3RRN), and I though that at least such a redirect as a temporary measure should exist, otherwise the readers are completely misled. I will open an RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made a stub instead of a redirect, suggest procedural close.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the same situation is with Visa policy of Greenland.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2017 (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.

魁[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 2#美. GZWDer (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per the consensus of the previous discussion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the relevant unicode block per my comments on the previous discussion. Nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend not retargeting to the block. Knowing only what block a CJK ideograph is in is basically useless. They should be deleted, because Wikipedia has no information about these characters, or kept as is, because at least Wiktionary does. (BTW, WP:FORRED does not apply here.) Gorobay (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be happy with keeping them as is as well. Fundamentally my belief is that every single (printable) unicode character should be a blue link as they are likely search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GZWDer, Notecardforfree, and Thryduulf: I have merged the similar discussion together, considering that all participation in each discussion was the same at the point of this merge. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2017 (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 words mainly used in American English[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) 14:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be assumed that the redirect is meant to compare to American vs. British English when only one or the other is mentioned in the redirect? Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as very confusing. It's better for the reader to try to use Comparison of American and British English kind of phrases for search rather than assume focusing on British English means they want to do a comparison. But if these are useful, then I suppose glossary might have to do. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:23, 30 August 2017 (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 mountain peaks of Curaçao[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be seen as misleading, there is not a list of this nature at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually the current target, no retargeting would be necessary. A map isn't the same as a list, so the redirect is still misleading. Perhaps that would be a good source to begin a list, so WP:REDLINK deletion could apply here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak retarget per Hyrdronium. It's a reasonable search term and the target does have information about one peak. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2017 (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.

Urban Extreme[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These games don't appear as such in the article, and are generally unnotable. Lordtobi (✉) 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Action Girlz Racing and Action Girls Racing They are now in the game list per czar's findings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 29 August 2017 (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.

Neanderthal (band)[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 as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant relation. Only one member was in both bands (Eric Wood), apart from that Neanderthal isn't even mentioned in the Man Is The Bastard article. Grueslayer 14:56, 29 August 2017 (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.

Selston (surname)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect disambiguation, the target is not a surname. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?? It's not a Disambiguation - it's a Redirect. Please reconsider S a g a C i t y (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation" in this case doesn't refer to a disambiguation page, but the "(surname)" part of the redirect. WP:NCDAB gives examples of what a parenthetical disambiguation should be, including the class, subject, or other descriptor. Therefore, a redirect with a parenthetical disambiguation of "(surname)" would naturally target a surname article. That's not the case here, so the redirect is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your solution? There is only one notable person with this surname but there is a placename article using it as a plain name. S a g a C i t y (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The solution would be to delete the redirect, hence why we're here. If someone searched "Selston" wanting Sidney instead of the place, a hatnote has been employed to guide them to the correct article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the correct disambiguation. We need to ask ourselves two questions:
    1. What topics are available that has the title "Selston"? Answer: Selston the place (various articles about various places in Selston), and some people surnamed Selston.
    2. If "Selston" were a surname disambiguation page, what would be in it? Answer: Only Sidney Selston.
    So we have a 1DAB situation here. "Selston (surname)" (or "Selston (name)") is the minimal correct disambiguation that can separate the personal name from the place-name, and since it's 1DAB, it should simply be redirected to the only notable topic. Deryck C. 12:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is actively misleading since Sidney Selston contains no information about the surname, for obvious reasons. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Selston (surname) should be (or redirect to) an article like Smith (surname) describing the name. We don't have such an article. The natural word to disambiguate the person from the place is "Sidney", not "surname". Certes (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as downright confusing, even in light of the situation in Deryck C's imaginative attempt at justification. – Uanfala 21:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. An intitle: search yielded seven hits, including this one. Five relate to Selston; Sidney is the other one. I suggest a hatnote on Selston pointing to Sidney Selston, in case a searching reader only knows the surname. Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote is already in place. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2017 (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.

Georgia (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 delete. While a few editors claim this redirect is harmless, others from the WP:DPL project explain that it is problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; not useful. The valid version Georgia (disambiguation) exists. Certes (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We don't want to accept (Disambiguation) until it becomes a title of some franchise or something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this? Certes (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, or Disambiguation (Pandelis Karayorgis album) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless. Note that Georgia (disambiguation) is also a redirect to this target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    X (disambiguation) and X (Disambiguation) are very different. The lowercase version is a standard specified in WP:AT, WP:Disambiguation and elsewhere as a target for deliberately ambiguous links such as in George#See also. The uppercase version is simply an error. Certes (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. This is a fine example of a harmless redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does no harm. Also, WP:CHEAP. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't harmless. If it is linked, User:DPL bot will report an error. I speedy this sort of redirect as WP:G6 (after fixing any incoming links). Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Narky Blert: This discussion shows that you really shouldn't be deleting them as G6 as they are not uncontroversial - speedy deletion is only appropriate for cases where essentially nobody would recommend keeping it. Here it's about 50/50 so very clearly not suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: I brought the first (Disambiguation) page I found to RFD. IIRC every vote was for delete, and one editor suggested that I should have G6ed it. This type of redirect is a well-known problem in WP:DPL. Narky Blert (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without knowing what that previous redirect was I can't comment, but evidently they are not all uncontroversial. You will have to explain why these are a "problem" for DPL as that page doesn't elucidate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Redirects are costly lists this very thing as unneeded. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not I can put my finger on the immediate problem, this is a bad idea. At the least, an editor accidentally capitalizing "disambiguation" when making the string will not know that the fix will not show up in the system, and will not get any kind of signal spurring them to actually fix it. bd2412 T 00:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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.

Mesaia Milia[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. An article has been created at this title, it's no longer a redirect. Any concerns regarding the article should be handled at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An implausible redirect. Kato Milia is the correct name of the village next to Petra. ToThAc (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question: Does that mean that "Mesaia Milia" is an alternative name for Kato Milia? Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned on that article at all. ToThAc (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/Mesaia Milia should have been checked first, BTW. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An IP user has created an article at Mesaia Milia after the start of this RfD. @ToThAc, Steel1943, and Hydronium Hydroxide: Please discuss this proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:42, 29 August 2017 (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 30 Rock crew[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 List of 30 Rock characters. (non-admin closure) feminist 13:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target page does not contain a list of its subject's television crew. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of 30 Rock characters. AIUI from reading the article, the setting for this is behind the scenes of a fictional TV series and some (most?) of the characters are the crew of this fictional TV series. These people will be found at the list of characters, even though it is not organised by role. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf's suggestion as the characters article has a large section listing the fictional station's employees. If you're concerned they're looking for the real crew then you can add a redirects here and hatnote if such a section exists for the production of the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:28, 30 August 2017 (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.

Redirects titled "List of 'YEAR in' articles"[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about these redirects, mainly because the information requested by these redirects is in their respective articles ... sort of. The information requested by these redirects is dependent on the transclusion of Template:C20 year in topic ({{C20 year in topic}}) in each respective article. If somehow that template changes, then these redirects would no longer be accurate. I suppose I'm saying that these redirects are WP:COSTLY unless their requested information is put directly into their respective articles, but at the same time, I'm not sure if that should be done. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentKeep. My recollection is that these appeared as bluelinks in Broken redirects under the special pages tools link. At the time I chose not to tag them for speedy (since redirects are cheap); instead I gave them a target. I would not take issue with a decision to delete them now. Thanks for your efforts. BusterD (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC) User:Thryduulf makes a reasonable case below that my initial choices seven years ago were correct. BusterD (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The information is, by the nominator's own admission, to be found at the target. If we decided which redirects are useful based on what might or might not be in the target article at some vague future time we would delete basically every redirect that is not just an alternative capitalisation. Iff the template changes so that the information is no longer available to the 50-100 people per year who use these redirects then we can reconsider at that time, but they are useful at present. It's also worth noting that at least some of these have incomming links from the article namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. If the situation changes, we can revisit the issue. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:36, 29 August 2017 (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.

Black and ethnic minority[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 17#Black and ethnic minority

Data-Design Interactive[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The dash does not appear to make a necessary redirect. Lordtobi (✉) 08:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems completely harmless, and got 13 hits from humans last year which suggests that some people at least found it useful. "Unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. I can't find whether this is actually used in the real world because even Google's "verbatim" search doesn't distinguish between "Data-Design" and "Data Design". Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless, per above. Similarly cannot verify whether the name was ever officially hyphenated due to search limitations czar 16:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. Most likely those hits were mis-clicks on the search results and not on purpose. Has no reason to exist as it's not a realistic typo anyone would make using automatic search.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Czar. Per Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility."

    When I type "Data Design" into the search bar, "Data-Design Interactive" is the third result. While it's possible that some of the hits were misclicks, it's also possible that some were not. It's harmless to keep it.

    Cunard (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2017 (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.

Untitled Woody Allen Project[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) 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what these redirects are referring to. There are no untitled projects involving Woody Allen at the moment. His latest work has a title, Wonder Wheel (film). 173.3.78.206 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's a redirect that would be useful periodically (see this search). In a perfect world, mentions of casting/production mentions would use such a redirect ("...film" or "...project"), and such use would trigger an update of pages using it once the film became titled. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Woody Allen does not have any untitled projects. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:HAMMER. Not a useful redirect. shoy (reactions) 15:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were left over from a histmerge, but no edit history is left to preserve, so not a big deal if they're deleted. This said, I do agree that the redirect is suitable as a "catch all" for any unfinished Woody Allen project, so even if there is no film directly known by this name, the concept is still a valid search term. No strong feelings, though I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 16:21, 29 August 2017 (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/2017_August_29&oldid=1142586898"