Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2017.

Wikipedia:LZD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:LZD

Fusion (music)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Fusion (music)

List of jazz albums[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 restore article. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such list at target article. Also, the redirect was nominated for WP:AFD as an article in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jazz albums - closed to "no consensus") and was redirected to its current target in March 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's probably best to restore the list per WP:BLAR as there was never any consensus to delete the list in any form. I'll note that Category:Lists of albums by genre has several other genres. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget to Category:Jazz albums, or (if crossing namespace boundaries proves contrary to what is currently considered good practice) restore article and send to AfD. I'm extremely wary of restoring as is: the list is neither exhaustive nor selective, and I'm not sure how desirable it is to have such a list without clear inclusion criteria. – Uanfala (talk) 19:22, 5 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.

Classical blues[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. No prejudice against recreation if the term can be explained and sourced somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the redirect is related or synonymous with the target. The closed related target I could find is Classic female blues, but that may be a stretch of a WP:PTM. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably what a reader would be looking for would be found at Blues#History or Origins of the blues, but it would be good to get more definite than "probably". There is some fusion of classical and blues, but no clear destination for such a topic. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. I'd rather that we just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:44, 22 January 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.

Blues and soul jazz[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) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY between Blues and Soul jazz. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 18 January 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.

Brian Harmon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Brian Harmon

Template:Excessive citations[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 and retargeted, as there is something to point it at. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this was created, but since we have no inline template version of CITEKILL this has nothing to link to and thus serves no purpose. I should note that {{Overkill}} is a navbox for Overkill (band) Primefac (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off "implausible typos" as one thing, not implausible pages and implausible typos. If I'm misinterpreting the text, then I'll R3 it. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
R3 covers "misnomers" too. While it wouldn't be a typo, it's certainly arguable that it's a misnomer (in its current state). -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, guess we do have a CITEKILL template. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 18 January 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.

46 DC EA D3[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#46 DC EA D3

Template:Cquote (redirects)[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. This seems to be uncontroversial now as the history has been moved. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect because of "(redirects)" in the title. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This has been clearly created to retain editing history for attribution purposes ahead of some page move, but the history of renamings of this template is long and confusing and so I'm entirely unclear what present template (if any) it is the history of. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we can get a reading from creator Anthony Appleyard, and until then:
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:LAWYERS[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 both Deryck C. 23:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (shortcut LAWYER). Currently points to a failed proposal, although it has many links from content and deletion discussions which would need to be corrected. I created WP:NLAWYER as a typical notability guideline redirect to replace this. Suggest either retarget to the Wikilawyering essay or delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add any necessary hatnotes. If a shortcut "has many links from content and deletion discussions" then we need a very good reason to change it as new links will continue to be made. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  If anything should be changed, it is WP:LAWYER.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and add a hatnote to Wikipedia:Notability (law). It's preferable to have WP:LAWYER and Wikipedia:LAWYERS be consistent. I also consider this commonly referenced essay to have medium precedence over a failed proposal. Only approximately 35 existing links (which could easily be remedied). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and retarget WP:LAWYER per Unscintillating. I imagine that will require a separate discussion, though. Notability policies are much more important than pejorative jargon. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I would perhaps agree, except that WP:LAWYER already has over 1000 links. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Wikipedia:LAWYER to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as is and link with hatnotes. It's not ideal for them to point at different targets but both are established as they are and the problems caused by breaking old links significantly outweigh the benefits of standardisation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as is, as above. WP:LAWYER has seen wide use as it is, and there's little reason to think it won't continue being used.. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget so they're both at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I don't think it's wise to point to a failed proposal when there's a better target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it wouldn't result in breaking established usage and links from old discussions to the extent that retargetting either of these will I would agree with Tavix, however given that breakage will occur I continue to oppose retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to state continued opposition to something. Your comment from earlier is sufficient. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started to respond with: You don't have to remind editors of such things, because it probably won't stop them from adding stressful or overly stressful comments in the future; however, I realize that I don't have to state that. Happy New Year to all!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: it's true that I don't have to, but in this case you made a valid point after my comment that probably contributed to Deryck Chan seeking more input into the discussion. To aid whomever next comes to close this in a week or so to reach a decision, I felt that responding to your comment acknowleding it but noting that the recommendation I made before you commented still represents my view would be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine if everyone who already participated in a discussion did that after a relist or comment? It would quickly become unwieldy. I'm sure the closer can figure out that you still hold the same view unless you note otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnotes to both. –Davey2010Talk 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as they appear to be established as shortcuts. Although I sympathise with the desire for having them point to the same target, I don't think the use of these shortcuts in context is likely to lead to confusion. You can say that some editor is WP:WIKILAWYERING or that they're trying to be a WP:LAWYER, but I can't imagine a context where the plural could be called for. Confusion could arise in the case of the notability proposal as the use of either the singular or the plural seems plausible, but that would only be an argument for retargetting WP:LAWYER, and that's not going to happen as it's the shortcut more strongly established in current use. – Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion to close - I believe it would be inappropriate for me to close this as withdrawn given that other editors have supported the retargeting proposal, but it's clearly not gaining traction. Further discussion is unlikely to be productive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 9 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.

Hispânico[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. Though opinions appear to be almost evenly split between deleting and keeping, BDD's argument is enough to establish affinity per WP:RFOREIGN and hence makes this a "keep" rather than a "no consensus". (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(NOT Eubot.) Not sure. This is Portuguese, and I'll tag it such without prejudice, but does Portuguese (or Portugal) have enough affinity to Spanish (or Spain) to make this reasonable, or is it a WP:FORRED? Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Other than this redirect and a non-notable ballet school in New York (which doesn't use the diacritic anyway) the only uses I'm finding are in Portuguese language source. We should not be making the Portuguese Wikipedia article article harder to find. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Ballet Hispanico, in Manhattan, New York, it seems notable enough for Wikipedia, and I mentioned it in my nomination immediately below. Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be it. I only really glanced at their website to be honest and saw they didn't use the diacritic and so would not make a good target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's an argument that there's an affinity from Portuguese to "Hispanic" but it's a weak one. Hispanic originally meant "from Hispania", which was the Roman name for the Iberian peninsula. The modern country of Portugal is on the Iberian peninsula so it's "hispanic" in that regard. -- Tavix (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:14, 18 January 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.

Ayan 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 Speedy Deleted (G5) by Cyphoidbomb. [Additional comments.] –Davey2010Talk 17:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no mention of there being a sequel or indeed another film, Seems rather pointless at the moment, ofcourse if there is another film in the works then it can be recreated whenever filming begins, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Thanks for pinging. The behavior is funky and I'm certain it's the work of GBA Google Boys Arimalam GBA, Wikipedia's wack-est "gang". Speedy Delete as you see fit. I've got other cleanup to do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Cyphoidbomb, Had I checked the history I would've come to you first, Anyway thanks for dealing with the sock, I'll close this & tag as I'm not an admin, Sad times lol. –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 18 January 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.

Category:Jeet Visual Arts[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 delete per WP:CSD#G6 - redirect from moving a page unambiguously created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect —swpbT 14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • note I've fixed the nomination, the redirect was listed as it's own target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 18 January 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.

Sheepland[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. Consensus is clear that this redirect is baaad. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serves no useful purpose. Obviously a reference to the country's reputation for having a lot of sheep, but not an established term in itself. Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your comment is what I was responding to. My point is that unless someone's actually going to write an article about one or both of those places, we may as well just close this as delete and get rid of the joke redirect. If someone wants to create an article about Sheepland, Wales (or wherever), they are obviously welcome to do so. There's no need for a disambig page that points to an unsourced name on a list, with no details. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but don't salt. CMD (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I giggled, it's not a particularly notable enough name or nickname for anyplace to use here on Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article title, even as a redirect, serves no purpose at all. Certainly cannot be linked to New Zealand. Ajf773 (talk) 07:45, 20 January 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.

Naruto (season 6)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Naruto (season 6)

Naruto (season 10)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Naruto (season 10)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_18&oldid=1037914394"