Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2017.

Three-fifths compromise),[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a parenthesis and comma at the end of the article title. Those elements are unnecessary and the correct redirect currently exists without those elements in the title. Mitchumch (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nom and AngusWOOF, as the letter "e" (the last letter in the article name) is on the opposite side of the keyboard from the parentheses and comma. PCN02WPS 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many spelling errors to be a plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 4 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.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naomi Newell[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very strange and implausible redirect, which was apparently created with its current target. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am unable to find out from Google who Naomi Newell is, which leads to the possibility that it is something made up in school one day, or an attempt to impress a person by that name. In any case, the redirect is very awkward. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trout smack country, no doubt. No luck at all with Naomi Newell + nitrogen as a search term. Ravenswing 14:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It looks like someone wanted to put their friend's name on an article. I'm not seeing Newell in the research papers and books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and AngusWOOF. PCN02WPS 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 4 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.

Big walnut middle school[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. The alternative proposal to retarget to Big Walnut Middle School seems to be a non-sequitur since that is already also a redirect to the same actual target....  Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unnecessary, since Big Walnut Middle School exists, and anyone who types any capitalization of that into the search box will get to our present target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Bweenig_Walnut_Middle_Dchool Richard Cavell (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Let wikipedia search do its job. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Big Walnut Middle School; there's no reason to delete something with a plausible capitalisation variant (no capitalisation at all is quite easy to do), and you just might consider that not everybody goes to pages with the search box. Given the existence of Category:Redirects from other capitalisations, the second half of your statement is an attack on, or the result of ignorance of, the way we do things here; if I learn that this has been closed as "delete", a deletion review will be filed immediately. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I'm not sure I follow you: can you point to some WP policy/guidance? Are you suggesting that Every Capitalised Article needs a redirect from Every capitalised article? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Perhaps Nyttend should review the relevant guideline, which holds "It is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations, unless editors are likely to link from a differently capitalized form. For example, National Park should be created as a redirect to National park, but it is unnecessary to create Isle of wight as a redirect to Isle of Wight," before making allegations of the nom's "ignorance," or threatening a deletion review if he doesn't get his way. Ravenswing 07:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a huge difference between creating tons of stuff and retaining what's already created. Once again, the existence of {{R from other capitalisation}}, with instructions to use it in a situation identical to this one, and its use more than four hundred thousand times, demonstrates that the community has thoroughly rejected your position. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case the community can come here and say so, but I'm afraid something I've heard four hundred thousand times myself is people claiming that this or that (absent any actual guideline or policy saying so) Proves Consensus. Ravenswing 13:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The redirect is unnecessary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Nyttend. Not everyone will use the search box for navigation. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The addition of clutter is probably the most tangible effect of capitalisation variants like this. If a reader types this exact phrase in the search box then they will immediately be taken to the target because of the existence of the correctly capitalised redirect. And if the reader happens to use one of the few case-sensitive ways of getting to articles, then they will simply have to follow the search link from the "wikipedia does no have an article with this exact name" screen. Saving two mouse clicks to a tiny minority of users isn't what we should be using redirects for. – Uanfala 20:25, 7 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.

Template:Riley family tree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 25#Template:Riley family tree

Dànzica[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 Dànzica and Gdaņska, keep Gedanum. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED as I have found no strong affinity between this Polish (previously German) city and Sicillian, Latvian or Latin respectively. There is a notable and sizeable Polish community in Latvia, particularly south eastern Latvia near the border with Belarus, which would argue towards the inclusion of Polish language redirects to Latvian topics, but not vice versa. Poland is not mentioned at Latvian diaspora, where Latvians in Poland redirects. I've not been able to find any connection with Sicilian at all. Thryduulf (talk)

  • Keep Gedanum. I just created another redirect at the adjectival form Gedanensis. Latin is a special case. It was used as a learned language throughout Europe and likely to be used in monumental inscriptions, in archival sources, and in the titles or publication details of many older publications (e.g. this search). --Hegvald (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:23, 20 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) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Latin one per Hegvald. The other two look, at least at first sight, deletable. – Uanfala 09:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gedanum; delete the other two (per Hegvald and Uanfala). Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sicilian, rather pointless, and keep Latin per the others. Given the proximity of Latvian to the area, and given the language's speakers' ties to the same Baltic Sea that's made Danzig a major city, keeping the Latvian name seems reasonable, but I acknowledge that it's not as strong a case as for Latin. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 29 June 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:RAY[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. 14:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No clear connection to target Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 28 June 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.

Akos Agardy[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:XY; multiple potential targets; previous precedent set for deleting these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating new redirects (for creating hundreds of suspect ones to burnish his page creation count), this follows the pattern of many of them: a desperately obscure NN hockey player redirected to a single tournament in which he played. Fails XY, in that this is no more likely a target than the multiple amateur teams for which he played. Ravenswing 12:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even without multiple targets wouldn't be a good redirect. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 29 June 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.

Akil Adams[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:XY; multiple potential targets; previous precedent set for deleting these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating new redirects (for creating hundreds of suspect ones to burnish his page creation count), this follows the pattern of many of them: a desperately obscure NN hockey player redirected to a single team for which he played (in this case, a Tier II amateur team for which he played a single season). Fails XY, in that this is no more likely a target than the college team for which he played two seasons, the two teams he played for in major junior, or the six teams he played for professionally. Ravenswing 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ravenswing. PCN02WPS 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even without multiple targets wouldn't be a good redirect. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:13, 29 June 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:Prefixindex[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 Template:PrefixIndex. Deryck C. 14:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this point to Template:PrefixIndex instead? (Note: this currently has no transclusions.) feminist 01:13, 28 June 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.

Dried citrus peel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 19#Dried citrus peel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_28&oldid=1138581775"