Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2017.

2005 (May 5-8)[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't believe this was the only thing that happened that weekend, let alone the most notable, which makes it a very unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 10 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.

Murder of Miosotis Familia[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This murder happened in 2017 and has no relation to the 2014 killings, so the redirect is incorrect. epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wrong way to start the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Familia had no (known) connection with the 2014 killings; no credible sources have asserted that her shooting was related to them. There doesn't appear to be a suitable target at this time. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in the target article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unrelated, but I would support creation as its own article. JDDJS (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 14 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.

Jesus' Flock[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. It sounded like a generic Christian phrase to me, playing off of the idea of Jesus as Good Shepherd. And indeed, search results outside Wikipedia are showing churches and devotionals seemingly unrelated to the Branch Davidians. Unless we can pin down an actual meaning here, this is misleading and possibly defamatory. BDD (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Term is generic enough not to be branded or trademarked to the Branch Davidians. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirect of a generic term to a cult. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 14 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.

Specific Date 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2013 October 20 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#October 10, 2010 Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2011 February 11 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#October 10, 2010 Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to original version of the redirect per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#October 10, 2010 Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 13:41, 10 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.

Lego video game[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 the first two, keep the last, delete the rest; this amounts to AngusWOOF's proposal. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we do not need mass amounts of these kinds of redirects. Lordtobi (✉) 14:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: I don't think there's any good reason for deleting all of these redirect pages. Deleting these pages would contribute to the problem of link rot, and it would otherwise serve no useful purpose. Jarble (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Video games (Lego) and Lego video game. I express no opinion about the others. Could an admin please fix the capitalization of the redirects, please? - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richardcavell: The first item you want to keep does not seems to exist (You spelled out "Video games (Lego)", rather than "Video Games (LEGO)"), do you think the redirect with this capitalization is useful and should be kept? Lordtobi (✉) 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to capitalize the 'g' in "games", and although Lego is widely used in capitalized form, by the company itself and others, it is properly written as Lego. So I say fix the capitalization. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Said redirect only had 22 views, ever. You are considering a move without leaving a redirect, right? But do you think it is worth it for this certain redirect? Lordtobi (✉) 20:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the Bionicle ones to List_of_Bionicle_media#Games as some of the titles are not necessarily related to Lego. Keep Lego video games, delete the rest as vague and redundant. There isn't a separation between "computer and video games" from "video games" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AngusWOOF's proposal, as it seems reasonable to me. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relisting in an attempt to prevent a trainwreck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll add that Lego (TT Games video game series) could redirect to TT Games Publishing which has its own list of Lego video games in its article, but that almost all the Lego titles have eventually been assimilated into Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment. If desired, the original developer and publisher for each game could be listed in that master list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with no objection to someone recreating something they find useful. Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 14 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.

Belief-oriented[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not compute. If anything, this should target something related to religion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PCN02WPS 20:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Religious presently targets Religion, and I cannot see any difference between the terms "belief-oriented" and "religious" for Wikipedia purposes. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there isn't even experience oriented which is usually what the term is compared and contrasted with. Otherwise Faith might be a possible target. But it's really vague. The article does have a single statement mentioning belief-oriented though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target seems incorrect (maybe even opposite--faith or [religion]] seem plausible). But unless we have cited definition or evidence of actual usage of this term, I don't see a need. And it seems like it could be a euphemism with somewhat fluid definition, so I think it's a problem to declare a meaning even though redirects are cheap. DMacks (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the term is used occasionally (see this scholarly example), it's still deeply vague and without a proper target. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:21, 19 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.

Rfrom[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.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be a valid abbreviation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Searches show it as a typo of "from" or as some computer programming function called "rFrom". Nothing close to the video game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless Legacypac (talk) 09:52, 14 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.

Yeti Trunk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Yeti Trunk

Halfway (game)[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.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't need redirects for all of the games they published, as there is no more information on them. Only Wayward Tide, which is also developed by them, seems semi-reasonable to keep. Lordtobi (✉) 07:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this would be as bad as listing the thousands of those free trial games created by Big Fish Games, none of which have independent notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as not useful. We don't create redirects for every product a company ever made. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 14 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.

Finn Bruce[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 as G7. Author has requested deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The founder of the company is called Finn Brice, not Finn Bruce. It would be unreasonable to keep three typoed redirects, especially the latter two with unsourced nicknames. WP:VG's reliable sources search engine only has one single hit in an RPS article. Lordtobi (✉) 07:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Creator of the redirects here -- whoops, I totally had his name wrong. My mistake; please delete these. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:22, 10 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.

Elsman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 28#Elsman

List of Shippig Companies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 28#List of Shippig Companies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_10&oldid=1136448072"