Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2017.

First Shadow Cabinet of Harold Wilson[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#First Shadow Cabinet of Harold Wilson

Married and Cheating[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 both. Deryck C. 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. IMDb shows this still in development, so this is presumably still in development hell. No sign of this entering production anytime soon. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFF not mentioned at target article where he is the writer and director. It had assembled a cast and was supposed to film in 2012, but no news as of 2013. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:44, 2 March 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.

15th Anniversary Music[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. 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vague search term. No mention of this at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:44, 19 February 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 Dance Dance Revolution lists[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 17:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can see this making sense is if it redirected to a "list of lists". There's only two DDR lists that I can find, the current target, and List of Dance Dance Revolution video games, so there's really not enough to make a list of lists. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 19 February 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.

Dee dee are[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 dee ee ... lete. Delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#En bee cee. Dance Dance Revolution isn't known with the letters spelled out like this. (note: DDR is a dab page) -- Tavix (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not worth retargeting to the dab either. czar 00:00, 23 February 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.

Wikipedia:Terminology dispute[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. I'll add that there are no extant uses of these shortcuts so I see no need to retarget anywhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a helpful redirect. Terminology is a vague word that doesn't necessarily refer to article titles. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 19 February 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.

The Caves of Steel (film)[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. Deryck C. 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading, the target is a novel, not a film. Television, radio, and a game adaptation are mentioned, but no films. -- Tavix (talk) 21:21, 19 February 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.

Killer Crow (2015 film)[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. 17:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target mentions an idea for a film called "Killer Crow", but it's still an idea, so it couldn't have been released two years ago. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 19 February 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.

Hijr-e-Ismaaeel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Hijr-e-Ismaaeel

Rango 2[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. 17:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable evidence that a sequel is even in development, much less production. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 19 February 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.

Smallfoot (2016 film)[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. 17:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 2016 films entitled 'Smallfoot'. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is supposedly a Smallfoot set for release in 2018, which was previously speculated for 2016 release. Since there's no article about it I think this falls under WP:CRYSTAL but at some point this could be a useful redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 2 March 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.

Gigglecream[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. 17:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created by troll IP user 12 years ago, has no context and seems pretty random, while the targeted article does not feature either of the two combined words even once. Lordtobi (✉) 16:31, 19 February 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.

Liposomal vitamin c[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. I can find nothing in the redirect's history which warrants selective deletion (it's free of copyright violations to the extent that I can check, and we don't revdelete spam) thus I reject the argument to purge the history, and there's consensus that with material added to the target the redirect becomes appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vitamin C page makes no specific mention of liposomal vitamin C. If WP has no information on a subject, it would be better for the search to come up empty. Alternatively, someone could add a liposomal section to the Vitamin C page. (I honestly don't know whether the latter action is warranted.) Krychek (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was previously an article, but Edgar181 redirected it with the edit summary "issues with WP:RS, promotion" in May last year without any apparent discussion. I'll ping WT:MED but I'm leaning towards reverting to the article without prejudice to a PROD or AfD if the article is that bad. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The liposomal vitamin C page should be deleted, as there is no such mechanism or cell location for making vitamin C in humans. It's possible the page was created to accommodate interest in liposomes as delivery vehicles for drugs, such as PMID 17979650, but this use is unnecessary for vitamin C which of course is ubiquitous in common foods and supplements. --Zefr (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In retrospect, I should have just deleted the page per WP:CSD#G11. It was just an advertisement ("cutting edge vitamin C") for goldmanlaboratories.com and scientifically the content was nonsense. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that content has been added to vitamin C mentioning the marketing of liposomal vitamin C, a redirect is appropriate, but I would recommend that the spam in the redirect's history be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Ed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but consider whether there should be Liposomal vitamin or Liposomal supplement to redirect to Liposome#Dietary_and_nutritional_supplements AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why are we deleting? This is a think [1] it is simply one formulation of vitamin C and therefore should be redirected there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added text to support. This is of course little more than a marketing technique. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the prior content was a bit spammy, a cursory google search found several sources that appeared more independent. That said, I'm not sure the topic is meaty enough to stand alone so expansion of the current target seems best for now. The redirect will encourage other readers/editors to focus their efforts there until/unless a breakout article becomes appropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have looked and there are no medical references really. It looks more like a marketing mechanism. Not really more than two sentences to say on the topic but people may still be looking for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content was added to the target article after most of the comments were left so this bears further discussion I think
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 19 February 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.

Template:R from 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to {{R from name with title}}, if you look at the incoming links, they clearly intend that rather than a more general topic,, e.g. Defense Secretary Carter, Governor Rick Snyder, Secretary Rice etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I'm seeing a lot of uses where all sorts of alternative name redirects are tagged with this (I can't say whether properly or not). – Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "from title" is a bit tricky because Wikipedia page names have also been called "article titles" or "page titles" or just "titles" since early Wikipedia days. It looks like about half of the redirects that use {{R from title}} could be more specifically {{R from name with title}}, and the other half are just {{R from alternative name}} generally (and are things that have nothing to do with personal honorary titles). If I had to go one way or another, I'd say keep it at {{R from alternative name}} because it's more general; an honorary title could be considered an alternative name, but not all alternative names are honorary titles, and I suspect {{R from title}} will continue to get used for both as long as it exists because it "feels" like the shortest way to express both of those concepts. --Closeapple (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Thank you for the ping, Uanfala!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or deprecate. Current uses of {{R from title}} are split between those that are better tagged {{R from name with title}} and those that don't fit the proposed retarget. Deryck C. 11:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm weakly leaning towards retarget to {{R from name with title}}, which makes the most sense to me. There's currently 186 transclusions, and there's a good number of them where "title" doesn't make any sense. They'd need to be cleaned up anyway so I might volunteer to do so unless there's any objections. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate as ambiguous. It seems that wherever this points it will generate a continued need for clean-up as it will continue to attract wrong uses, so deprecation with pointers to all the targets suggested here will make this maintenance task easier to identify and possibly reduce the volume. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 7 March 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.

DILLIGAD[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 on the first two, delete the last. There can't really be a clean, slam-dunk decision here, but it's been long enough, and I think this is as good as we can get at this time. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary list-entry redirects when no other acronyms redirect to this page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as precursors to stubs, especially DILLIGAF, which Kevin Bloody Wilson has embraced by using it to title his biography, album, tour, and merchandise. I would like to see the deleted article Dilligaf, as well.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943: the only links that exist for acronyms in these lists are for those acronyms notable enough to have either articles or disambiguation pages at their titles. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilligaf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only non-vandalism, non-spam versions of Diligaf have been a dictionary definition and a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Tone deleted the latter and replaced it with the current salted page, without discussion I can find. A 2005 AfD closed as redirect to List of internet slang, a page that has evolved into the prose article Internet slang. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Any content at this title (any capitalisation) needs to be semi-protected because it will attract vandalism otherwise (based on the history), but this is not a reason for or against any course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now - Added two sources to the list near the entries. However, before this discussion, statistics say that both are the least searched acronyms. If kept, protection might be needed. If deleted, the pages might be re-created over and over. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft-redirect both to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I see no hope that those two entries will ever be more than what you would expect in an unabridged dictionary. Failing that, keep as is because at least the redirects to the acronym lists minimizes the damage. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jeff G., what do you want to see at Dilligaf? When nominated for deletion, the contents were DILLIGAF is acronym for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" or "Does It Look Like I Give A Fuck?". A phrase too often used by people in the cyberspace. Because of it being so long, this acronym is used. Usage Eg.: Harry: "Do you think Moon has water on its surface?" John: "Oh.. Dilligaf!" There is also a 50 odd foot Boat on the St Johns River, Florida with the name Dilligaf. He def. does not give a fuck. After being redirected to the List of Internet slang, it was soft-redirected to Wiktionary via {{wi|Appendix:Internet slang}} after the relevant content was removed from the list. Aside from the addition and then the expansion of {{Short pages monitor}}, it got no positive changes for a long time (lots of edits, but they were all vandalism or vandal-reversions) until finally it was deleted because it wasn't as useful as create-protecting the page. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that research. When I or someone else feels the need to create a stub or article for this subject, this conversation should suffice. Note that the only remaining mention on Wiktionary is the slight expansion wikt:DILLIGAFF, which inserts "flying" before "fuck" (not an easy task unless you have an airplane to yourselves).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:DILLIGAF as the acronym has nothing to do with the interworkings of this project. I'm neutral on the other two as I understand the arguments for deletion and keeping and I'm unsure which is better. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 19 February 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.

The Soviet[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete this Redirect, which I created. After discussion with fellow Editors, I reached the compromise of adding a "Modern Russia" Section to Soviet (council), concerning the Soviet Federatsii (Federal Council, the Upper House of Parliament in the Russian Federation). The same goes for The Soviet (disambiguation). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Wouldn't these be speedily deletable under WP:G7? The only substantive content was added by the nominator. Everything else involved either a technical move (WP:MALPLACED) or adding or changing the RfD templates. — Gorthian (talk) 20:35, 23 February 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.

History of Bush Family[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term without "the". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 19 February 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.

Edmund Reade[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 Edmund Reade, no consensus to delete Elizabeth Bush. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target, search results do not show any connection to the Bush family. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Edmund Reade – he apparently was a distant ancestor of both the Bush and the Kerry families. Redirecting to either would be inappropriate. Keep or retarget Elizabeth Bush. The article history makes it clear that she was married to Prescott Bush, Jr.. Both had articles that were later redirected to the Bush family article. Prescott Bush Jr. may be notable enough to have his article restarted – if so, Elizabeth Bush can be pointed there as an {{r from spouse}}. In any case, she should probably be mentioned at Bush family, like the other spouses. - Eureka Lott
  • Delete - I agree that 'Edmund Reade' shouldn't exist. I've no opinion on the other one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:22, 19 February 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_February_19&oldid=1088107583"