Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2017.

Toll Roads and Free Roads[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. I must have missed that somehow. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, Imzadi1979. -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't see this being helpful. Toll roads are more widespread than the Interstate Highway System and free road is red. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is the title of a major government report. From the target article: "In 1939, Bureau of Public Roads Division of Information chief Herbert S. Fairbank wrote a report called Toll Roads and Free Roads, 'the first formal description of what became the interstate highway system'....[13]" As such, it's not a descriptor of two related concepts (and if it were, it would formatted "Toll roads and free roads"), but something else. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 20 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.

Red plains texas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#Red plains texas

Interstate 6[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and clear consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these are unused interstate route numbers. They should be red to prevent confusion in case someone were to think they've been used at one point in the past or future. There's no mention of these numbers at the target article, which is also confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Having these redirects is misleading if the numbers aren't actually used for any interstates. Having them around can lead someone to believe an interstate has, or has had that number. It leads to confusion. Fish567 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could see these as useful if they referenced plans that were never built, former names, future projects, or something similar but I can find no evidence that this is the case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't need redirects for nonexistent routes. Dough4872 22:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best not useful; at worst actively unhelpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful. Those with spelled out numbers are especially unnecessary. -- LJ ↗ 18:06, 25 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.

Theories of Population[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 30#Theories of Population

Fireteam Rogue[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target article includes no information on the topic other than a listing in a table, plus the redirect is not used anywhere in the article namespace on Wikipedia. Lordtobi (✉) 11:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it does attract some number of views, although no links. Question is whether that's good enough for video game keep. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a redirect working as it should, taking a legitimate search term of a topic that's not notable enough to have its own article, to the most appropriate article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:38, 25 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.

Blade weapon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#Blade weapon

Treatment of pool words in Australian English[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. Unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from an old defunct article. Not something anyone is going to search for. Fish567 (talk) 17:53, 19 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.

Biological role of nitrogen[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 between retargeting to Nitrogen cycle or Nitrogen#Occurrence. Nitrogen#Occurrence is the option closest to the status quo, and there seems to be momentum in favor of that option, so that's what I'll default to. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This targets the "Biological role" section of the main nitrogen article, but a section by that or any similar name doesn't currently exist. I'm not a subject-matter expert by any means but there is no section in the main article and no single article in Category:Nitrogen that appears to be about this broad topic. I'd rather target this somewhere useful than delete it, as it's a likely search term (80 hits last month, and c.f. Biological role of oxygen (a disambig) and Biological role of calcium a redirect to → Calcium in biology), but I'm not sure the Nitrogen article is a good target as that is about all aspects of the element not just it's role in biology. I will leave a note about this discussion for the Elements and Biology wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This problem arose because a few months ago an editor deleted, without discussion, the section on the biological role in Nitrogen. The section needs rewriting and proper sourcing, but in my view it belongs in the article. Accordingly I have reinstated it, so the redirection under issue here now has a proper target. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must object to this, being the editor who deleted this section. In my opinion, this section does not just need a rewrite, it needs complete deletion, because it is completely absurd to talk about the biological role of nitrogen when just about every biological process involves its compounds in some way or another, but the element itself (which I think the nitrogen article should be primarily about) is largely not involved. (Indeed, pretty much all organisms need to either convert N2 into more useful compounds, or rely on other organisms to do it for them and benefit from the products.) I salvaged the actually useful parts of the content into "Occurrence" (so reinstating this creates a silly redundancy). Essentially, that section is nothing more than a highly incomplete laundry list of how organisms use some examples of the huge class of N compounds (also highly incomplete), and if it were complete it would probably take up a whole thick book. Nitrogen cycle is a fair target, giving a brief overview of what N compounds are involved, so that the interested reader can read further on each of them. Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I should have looked with more care. The section you added on "Occurrence" does indeed cover some biological aspects. This still leaves the other option, which is to redirect Biological role of nitrogen to Nitrogen#Occurrence. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very sensible as well. I don't really have a strong opinion as to which one is better, but I would be okay with either. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nitrogen cycle or Nitrogen#Occurence?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nitrogen#Occurence which I think is more sensible since the redirect focuses on the element itself rather than its compounds. We can always hatnote to the Nitrogen cycle so that at least that base is covered as well. --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 22 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.

Dutchophobia[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. Deleted by Fastily per WP:G7, and per Fastily, the redirect's creator was FriyMan, the only editor who stated a "keep" vote below. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No warrant to associate to a serious topic this one of a lengthy list of made-up "phobias". The only reference formerly in the article to support such an association is this WordPress page by someone who thinks Hans Christian Andersen was Dutch : Noyster (talk), 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First of all, thank you for your points. If you think, that this redirect is a "made-up phobia", you can go on and delete
  1. Americanophobia
  2. Arabophobia
  3. Armenophobia
  4. Australophobia
  5. Chinophobia

And so on. You can apply your argument to all of these redirects! However, those phobias (and Dutchophobia, too) are not made up. Cheers, FriyMan talk 12:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Dutchphobia
 – Cheers, FriyMan talk 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Fastily: (admin who speedy deleted this redirect per WP:G7), unless FriyMan was the creator of this redirect (Dutchophobia), it should probably be restored pending the result of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, FriyMan is the creator of the redirect and has requested its deletion. -FASTILY 04:04, 20 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.

That one[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 That one; no consensus for This one (WP:NPASR). -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This overly generic redirect is likely to result in complete bafflement to anyone who sees or follows it. Yes, the phrase "that one" is discussed at the target. No, it isn't likely that a reader is looking for this incident by typing the phrase "that one" into the search box, because it is unlikely that most readers have heard of this obscure incident at all. I originally changed this redirect to a more applicable target, but as that appears to be controversial it would seem better to delete this altogether. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt as overly generic terms that confuse. Added this one to nomination. — Train2104 (t • c) 06:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that similar redirect. Yes, I support deletion for it as well. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Retarget - Former President Obama being known by some supporters semi-jokingly as "That One" is a matter of historical record. However, we're looking at what's basically a kind of trivia here, nothing more. I also support deletion. However, "This One" by Paul McCartney is a genuinely successful pop single (the man's an ex-Beatle, after all) that's attracted attention for years, and given how it's an exact title match I favor a retarget change over to that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That One per nom. Dab This One as it points to a Beatles song, Wu syndicate album, Utada song, and Roxette song. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_19&oldid=1138447370"