Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2017.

Bp2[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 BP2. I agree with Uanfala's analysis, so I moved the disambiguation page to BP2. I've also removed the Amoco entry for lack of attestation. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BP2 is also an abbreviation for Bipolar II disorder (although BP-II is more common, at least in formal contexts). I'm split as to which article this should point to, but I lean toward retargeting. Since it's a 3-letter string, Google's not as helpful as it might be. However:

  1. A simple search for BP2 yields the disorder as the second result and the subject of the Knowledge Graph bar. The following results are a mishmash of topics, but the disorder commands a plurality.
  2. The first result is an acronym dictionary that lists both the album and the disorder (although only the album is in the search-results excerpt). However, as best as I can tell, the album is not mentioned again in any of the following 10 pages of results.
  3. BP2 mental has 290k GHits to BP2 album's 278k. But I concede this may be within the margin of error.

Thoughts? Ultimately, I'll be happy either way, as long as the end result has a hatnote pointing to the other page. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think we can safely redirect this to the dab page bp-II now -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreeing with the disambiguation done above, but it would seem that given what most of the entries look like Bp-II is a somewhat odd title for it. I think it's better to move it to the simpler and more common BP2 (or something similar). Also, I'm really weary of including the Amoco entry as web search results don't seem to return anything meaningful for the combination of "Amoco" and any variants of "BP2". – Uanfala 11:00, 22 July 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.

Cultural decay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 24#Cultural decay

Vikingane[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. I agree that R2 does not apply here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useless xwiki soft redirect without incoming links GZWDer (talk) 17:12, 1 July 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.

Draft:Gele Seckstein[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) 17:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This draft page has never been anything but a redirect to the same title. It was mistakenly submitted to AfC as well. It serves no purpose and should just be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, and the redirect was malformed until I fixed it. Let's create the redirect correctly and delete the draft page. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 1 July 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 from dates[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The AfC proposal was rejected as there is no general consensus on these redirects, per the no consensus closure at #October 10, 2010
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
April 10, 2011[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) 21:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page redirects to the year but the date mentioned in the redirect's name is not mentioned on the year page. 2601:584:100:E310:5C77:12BC:F26F:B4D (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:14, 1 July 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.
April 9, 2011[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) 21:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2011 April 9 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 13#October 10, 2010. Delete if redirects to portal pages from the article namespace is redundant. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as nominated. There is nothing wrong with going from article to portal, as both areas are intended for readers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:12, 1 July 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.
October 10, 2010[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting dates to portal pages is an unexpected XNR. Retarget to October 2010? – Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - I agree, redirecting into a portal page is not acceptable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - I believe that a calendar day is inherently notable and that to have an article on a day is completely acceptable. But a Portal current events page is not that article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:12, 1 July 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.

Easily confused words[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. Despite two relists, no clear consensus emerged what to do. There is consensus that the redirect should not go to Project-space but whether it should be retargeted or the target being moved back to mainspace is not clear and I doubt any further discussion will help. It seems wiser to take the 2012 AFD to DRV to see whether there is consensus to move it back to mainspace, then this redirect will have a proper target again anyway. SoWhy 14:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a header on the target stating that the page "is not meant to be an encyclopedic article about such errors.", so a redirect (and linking, for that matter) from mainspace does not seem appropriate. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to stub - We really have no good article for this, although we ought to. In the meantime, I prefer creating a short stub that lists all the targets mentioned in this discussion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less the point of Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words... -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relisting to allow the closing of the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:11, 1 July 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.

364 (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 all except for Spy vs. Spy (film), where I'll call that one no consensus. After being open for over a month, I'm going to go ahead and nuke all those that have not been objected to. (Someone else might call the Spy vs. Spy one as "delete", but I'll be conservative as it's my own nomination, keeping WP:INVOLVED in mind.) -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]

Here's my next batch of problematic film redirects. These redirects target a director, actor, etc. that was rumored to be a part of a potential film. The problem, however, is that there is zero mention of such a film at the target, so anybody who wants to know more about these potential films will end up confused or disappointed. Most of these films are in development hell. They may or may not progress to production, and the director, actors, production studio, etc. could all change before then. Therefore, these redirects need to be red for now. If any of these enter production, then an article on the film can be created. Until then, these redirects aren't helpful. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - deleting the Spy vs Spy one bothers me. There have been several shorts (usually broadcast on TV, of course) based on Spy vs Spy, which represent valid conversions of the Mad comic strip, which is a widely known reference point in comedy/youth culture/American publishing history/etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:TNT. Items can be re-created when films meet WP:NFF on their own. If they're the producer's pet project, then it would have a writeup on their article, but there's nothing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear outcome in sight, but I believe the opportunity should be given for more editors to weigh in before such a high number of redirects are deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I've looked at these batches before and the nom is doing a good job with them. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Legacypac! -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 2 July 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.

Daedelus catalog[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 Experience (Daedelus song) and keep the other ones.  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnotable WP:CATALOG item. Lordtobi (✉) 15:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least some. I don't think WP:CATALOG applies to redirects. If it did, we could feasibly delete every single redirect that has ever existed for something that is not an article. Redirects are WP:CHEAP and there is no valid reason to delete most of these. Ss112 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than WP:CATALOG, a redirect would require that a user looking for the item he is searching for finds valuable information on the subject, but in all of these cases, we would redirect the reader to a page where it is only included in a list, maybe sealed with a release year, but nothing the reader would actually want to know (development, release, length, genre, etc.), which makes these redirects rather confusing. This reasoning was with a lot of good deletions recently. Lordtobi (✉) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A user may actually create the article(s) in future, and I don't think the redirects are confusing anybody because it's directing readers to the artist who made it/them, i.e. a more general topic (the reason why Template:R from album exists to place on redirects, is it not?) There just seems to be no real point to deleting redirects when they only appear to help and not hinder. These redirects are like placeholders until/if somebody wishes to expand them beyond that. Ss112 16:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Keep those that are mentioned in the list. Generally, redirecting non-notable topics to a list in which they appear is encouraged (if there is no more in-depth coverage elsewhere) as it gives people some information and discourages the creation of articles on non-notable topics (see also {{R to list entry}}). It sounds to me that the best way to address your concerns is to add more information (e.g. length, genre) to the target list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my mix: Delete Experience (Daedelus song). It's not mentioned at the target article, nor at any of his album articles. Keep the rest. If you were to follow WP:CATALOG, it would inform you that Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. There's no pricing at play here, so WP:CATALOG does not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is moving towards a clear outcome, but I'm relisting it to enable the closing of the day's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:05, 1 July 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_July_1&oldid=1138581620"