Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2017.

Ramp (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 speedy deleted, G6, by Amortias. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An error with no affinity, WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Because of the erroneous capitalization, this is never going to get used as a deliberate link to the dab page. And any search will find the target page without this redirect's help. — Gorthian (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-useful anomalous capitalization. If this exact title were typed in somehow, the search result would still provide the target page. Alsee (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this on accident. It falls under G6 and G7 for speedy deletion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:56, 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:Featured portal candidates/2nd nomination[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. 00:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously malformed, and could potentially make someone think that the redirect stands for something else, such as the page Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates being nominated for WP:MFD. (The redirect has 0 incoming links, it is a {{R from move}}, but the page was moved to its current title [the target] shortly after creation.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Strange, confusing, not useful. Alsee (talk) 06:04, 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.

Very bad trip[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 8#Very bad trip

WIKI/KCAfricanAmericanArtists[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 good to delete now that the relevant event has finished. Deryck C. 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNR created from page move, no need for it to remain as there are no incoming links. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete slowly. There have been no views of the redirect since the day after it was moved so it seems unlikely that there has been any publicity linking to the original location. If we want to be really sure though, the event is scheduled for 25 February so holding off deletion until a couple of days after that would not harm anything (I would certainly advocate that if the redirect was showing evidence of use). Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on Feb. 26 per Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting in case any discussion needs to take place after the event
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any real disagreement about deleting this after the event. The fact that we're not deleting it further suggests we're doing so for the benefit of people attending the event, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the RfD tag in the meantime, without closing this discussion in case anyone has anything else to say. For the rest of its life, this can at least be more helpful; the RfD tag is likely to confuse new users. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 22 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.

Simec[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Local currency article does not discuss specific local currencies, and it does not discuss this one, if it is a local currency. In the Local currency article, Simec is simply listed with a link back to the Simec article, which is thus circular and red. It is not apparent that Simec even is an actual local currency, and is not somebody messing around, since Googling "Simec" doesn't produce any useful information. Person54 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Giacinto Auriti#The experiment of SIMeC. Though poorly written, this section discusses the currency. — Gorthian (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate I only found a few things that rise to a MOS:DABMENTION level. I've drafted a dab, but I can't really say this is going to be a great deal more helpful than search results. Neither do I see a case for steering readers to the currency over one of the other topics, though. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 22 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.

Professional interrogation technique[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 refine to Enhanced interrogation techniques#Public positions and reactions. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article or at Torture, where the redirect originally pointed. The latter does make one passing reference to professional torturers, but it's not clear what this phrase would specifically refer to, even if it were taken as a likely search term. BDD (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the redirect, 2006, information regarding the CIA using the enhanced interrogation techniques at the black sites had just begun entering the public domain. Neither "enhanced interrogation techniques" nor "black sites" was included in public discourse. However, at the time, there were scattered references to new CIA techniques, "professional interrogation techniques." The term was used by Porter J. Goss, the director of central intelligence in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee March 17, 2005, see "Questions Are Left by C.I.A. Chief on the Use of Torture". However, as time has passed, the term has fallen somewhat out of use, though it remains as a redirect in some dictionaries. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When Mr. McCain asked Mr. Goss about the C.I.A.'s previously reported use of a technique known as waterboarding, in which a prisoner is made to believe that he will drown, Mr. Goss replied only that the approach fell into "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques."

I think the best thing would be to include a note on the term in the article Enhanced interrogation techniques and place the term in its historical context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that in the section Enhanced interrogation techniques#Public positions and reactions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I still suspect this isn't a very likely search term, but this is definitely an improvement. I appreciate that readers will be able to see the phrase in context. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 22 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.

Transport delay[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. Various plausible targets or disambiguation options have been proposed but none have gained widespread support. With a plurality of editors supporting deletion and nobody supporting keep, I'm closing this as delete. Deryck C. 12:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No hint of this term once a searcher lands on the dab page. There must be some better target for this redirect. If we can't find one, let's just delete it. — Gorthian (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my nomination to propose retargeting to schedule delay, which would cover all the meanings discussed so far. @Thryduulf and Notecardforfree: would you accept this proposal instead?— Gorthian (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment books use the term transport delay in communication systems, computer simulation models like Verilog, flight simulators, power systems, control systems involving feedback, and networks so the engineering definitions are primary topic. I don't see much regarding flight delays. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be what some books use this term to mean, but I still think that it's at least as equally plausible as a search term for the transportation related uses and I'd be WP:SURPRISED to end up at an article about communication systems, so I continue to oppose anything other than disambiguation here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Delete Could be anything from actual transportation to logistics planning to network latency. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to delete per CoffeeWithMarkets below — Train2104 (t • c) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would someone who wants to disambiguate the term please list the specific articles that should be disambiguated? Remember, the term "transport delay" must be used and preferably defined in each article. I nominated this here because I could not find such articles. @Thryduulf, Notecardforfree, AngusWOOF, and Train2104: Pinging those who already commented. — Gorthian (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement for the term to be used, let alone defined, in the target articles. If the title of a listed article is not obviously linked to the title of the disambiguation page then the entry on the disambiguation page should make things clear. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf, it need not be defined (though that would be ideal), but it must be mentioned, per WP:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. Dab pages are meant to be for navigation only, not for explaining anything. — Gorthian (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • We must use common sense here. Nobody searching for "transport delay" and landing on a dab page for that term will fail to understand why articles dealing with delays to a form of transport is included on the dab page, even if their search term is not explicitly mentioned. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct users using ambiguous search terms to the articles they might be looking for, not to list articles that include an exact form of words. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, I always appreciate casting a critical eye on policies and guidelines in the interests of better serving readers, but I think you're advocating for something disambiguation pages simply aren't meant for. MOS:DABMENTION need not be followed slavishly—I think phrases like "transportation delay" or "delays in transport" would suffice here—but the resulting dab would have to function as navigation for readers regarding that particular phrase. It's not a matter of word association: if all we can do is list things that have to do with delays in transport, we're essentially just curating a list of search results. I can't imagine many cases where that is going to result in a superior reader experience than simply giving them the full search results. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Various forms of transportation get delayed all of the time, and the causes as well as the effects of such delays vary greatly. This is such a vague concept that I'd rather that we just get rid of the redirect. It seems like the most logical thing to do. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as first choice, retarget to Schedule delay as second choice. Per my concerns above, I don't support disambiguation at this time. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 22 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.

Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College

Wichitaflag[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. 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely elided search term. Originally created as a complete article which duplicated the current redirect target. Mabalu (talk) 12:13, 22 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.

T-Mobile USA 3G[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. 00:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:56, 22 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.

Terror attack[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 terrorism. -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks are not limited to non-state ones. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:57, 22 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.

January 20, 2004[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 8#January 20, 2004

Governor Veto[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) 22:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague phrase at best, not mentioned at target, the closest I could find was Veto session, but I'm still leaning delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - irrelevant redirect. DrStrauss talk 09:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a nickname that is used in the media. Less than a minute of searching turned up [3] and [4]. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tazerdadog. I've updated the categories to Rcats. — Gorthian (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I couldn't find any content covering gubernatorial veto in general, which would seemingly be the primary topic if it existed. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A widely-noted familiar form frequently mentioned in the press and other media, especially during his presidential campaigns. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm wary about retaining political nicknames in Wikipedia articles, even in terms of mere redirects, but this appears to have gotten lasting news coverage that's more than just a flash-in-the-plan moment of attention. Perhaps something like 'Tricky Dick', which we also have, is a good comparison. I lean to keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and hatnote to veto session per nom, since this could refer to a governor's use of the veto. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:56, 8 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.

Wikipedia:Toothpaste principle[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. 00:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toothpaste has nothing to do with the deletion policy. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 22 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.

Close Enough (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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This film is still in development four years after the redirect was created. -- Tavix (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for WP:NFF and there are multiple targets for directors or producers but none of which have mentioned the film. Paul Andrew Williams would be good if there were a writeup about it. Gerda Taro and Robert Capa are the subjects of the film in development. The title is based off Capa's quote that is mentioned in his article: "He was famed for saying, "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough." " AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:34, 24 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.

Inside the Machine[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) 11:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This film is listed as in development, so anything can change at this point, even the production company. No mention at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it got bought, but no film has been produced. No article for the creator to redirect to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - We absolutely should get rid of these redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:40, 25 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.

Lore (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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find a 2015 film by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete film was not released in 2015. But Lore (graphic novel), in which this film is based on, should go to Ashley Wood since it discusses the potential film there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:40, 24 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.

Escape from New York (2014 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. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This remake is still in development, so it couldn't have been released in 2014 or 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 22 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.

Very creepy, disturbing children's cartoon, banned from TV[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) 23:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV violation, possibly untrue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails NPOV, also the film has a 82% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes Atlantic306 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the title of an excerpt on youtube, but an interview with the director claims that (a) it wasn't a children's cartoon, (b) the film was never banned from TV and (c) this segment was not cut from TV broadcasts. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a notable meme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:16, 24 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.

Very cool illusion[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) 23:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague search term, bear in mind that WP:NPOV is irrelevant here due to WP:RNEUTRAL (i.e. non-neutral redirects are allowed in some circumstances). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Champion: In my opinion, looking at it, WP:RNEUTRAL is a redirect-specific guideline that is the equivalent of WP:NPOV... That, and since the redirect isn't an alternative name of the redirect's target, it probably isn't one of those exceptions. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I agree with Champion that NPOV is not relevant here, as non-neutral terms are fine as redirects in general - the only problem with this is its vagueness. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no visible reason why this redirect should exist pointing to this particular target. Completely arbitrary, with a heaping of personal opinion. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notable books or films with this specific title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 24 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_22&oldid=1142586884"