Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2017.

Template:Maintenance category[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:Wikipedia category. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Maintenance category" is a horrible synonym for the target. There's already an unacceptable level of confusion regarding the types of categories related to tracking/administration/maintenance of Wikipedia. The current target name is self-describing. Keeping "maintenance category" allows for many avenues of confusion. There is already some discussion about this on the target's talk page. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to me we have a very confusing naming scheme going on for category categorization. I hope we agree that a "Maintenance category" should contain items needing maintenance. Nothing about the Template:Wikipedia category suggests to me it exclusively contains items needing maintenance and there are to be sure Wikipedia-related categories grouping items where no maintenance is needed. The current default text at Template:Wikipedia category suggests that Template:Maintenance category may be best utilized as the main template, not as a redirect. Deletion is better right now because it doesn't compound the present confusion. If it is confirmed that Template:Wikipedia category is only for items with maintenance, then we should make that move now to free Template:Wikipedia category up for a more general class of categories. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current usage of "maintenance category" (perhaps largely due to the wording of Template:Wikipedia category) is in reference to any category that helps maintain functionality of the encyclopedia's "backside", not something that necessarily needs fixed. For example, redirect categories (see the nutshell of that guideline; e.g. Category:Redirects from alternative names), fall under that umbrella. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am more convinced that the proper thing to do is to use Template:Maintenance category for the template presently at Template:Wikipedia category. This is due to the close match between the template name and the template text there. The ramifications of just changing the text are not immediately obvious and we do not have a lot of flexibility in rewording anyway because the links in the text; so rewording is not an easy solution to this problem. My advice is that Template:Wikipedia category should be made a redirect (for now) to Template:Maintenance category and Template:Wikipedia category should be considered deprecated. A bot request should be made to transfer all existing usage of Template:Wikipedia category to Template:Maintenance category. Once Template:Wikipedia category is no longer used, it could then we deleted until an appropriate new use for it arises. Although better than the present situation, I dislike the idea of using Template:Maintenance category as a redirect to Template:Wikipedia category. I view that as a half-solution and just delaying important progress. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:13, 30 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.

Exit 9[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 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many highways all around the world have an Exit 9. Even if Exit 9 on the New Jersey Turnpike is extremely well known, it should still redirect to the article on the Turnpike, not the whole state. However, I would much rather have this completely deleted. HotdogPi 14:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are many Interstate Highways have an Exit 9, but it's not an likely search term. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not exclusive to NJ Turnpike. There was a non-notable television movie of that title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not just Interstates have exit numbers. Much too broad. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, though the article for The Heard claims that they made a single called "Exit 9" that was "an enduring piece in the musical genre of psychedelic rock." If the claim isn't hyperbole, then the single may be notable enough for its own article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; absolutely pointless. This is basically the WP:RFD#DELETE example of redirecting Apple to Orange. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XY Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:08, 24 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.

Coast Starlate[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. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-useful spelling mistake - not in target article Peter Rehse (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Late and light is a far enough deviation for WP:RTYPO. No such word called starlate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from author This was not created as a typo redirect, see the third paragraph of Coast Starlight#Operation — Train2104 (t • c) 18:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - "starlight" and "starlate" share the same soundex code, S364, which is the best gauge I can think of to estimate whether one might mis-hear the name of the train and search for it. But it has one hit in all of 2017. Probably not useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, "light" (L230) and "late" (L300) do not share the same soundex. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term is used by reliable sources. See, e.g., this L.A. Times article (noting that "[t]he train has such a sketchy on-time record that it's affectionately known, among foamers and other knowledgeable travelers, as the Coast Starlate") and this article from Wired ("Why does the Coast Starlight, also known as the Coast Starlate, continue to run if other viable options seem much easier?"). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good find. It's also mentioned in the article as a {{R from non-neutral name}}. Striking my vote and suggest these articles get added as references if they haven't already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's rationale is entirely reasonable, but with the stuff Notecardforfree found, it would be rather unhelpful to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 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.

Concrete Island (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. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is a novel. There are no films by this name, certainly not a 2014 film. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 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.

Daredevil (2014 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. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another faulty crystal ball. A Daredevil film was not released in 2014 nor 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 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.

Doc Savage (2014 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. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Doc Savage film wasn't released in 2014, 2015, or 2016; it's still forthcoming. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete failed crystal. Tavix, can you add 2015 to this RFD as well? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Thanks for catching that! I've also added 2016. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars[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. I don't see there being consensus for deletion unless the incoming links are fixed, and it doesn't appear that the links are going to be cleaned up anytime soon. However, feel free to bring this back if/when this does happen. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double "Wikipeda:" namespace, but per its edit history, looks as though its creation was intentional ... since it has over 500 incoming links, mostly in the "User talk:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a related note, I think that all incoming links to this redirect should be replaced with a link to its target, probably through a WP:BOTREQ request ... since there actually seems to be over 1000 2500 incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per general housekeeping. The incoming links should be addressed first, it should be easy with AWB but I don't have it where I am now. I'll try later if nobody beats me to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I'd do that myself, but I can't ... since I mainly edit with a mobile device, and AWB is not compatible with mobiles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDelete as above AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace existing occurrences with Wikipedia:Five pillars and then delete this redirect per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Keep unless all incoming links have been dealt with and after the passage of a period of time it has become clear that no new such links have sprung up. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to a strong "keep" per Nyttend's argument below and the overall absence of any tangible benefits from deleting. – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but deprecate. Fix the links, monitor for about six months, and if it has gained no new links and the page views have decreased to near zero then it can be deleted. It has many incoming links demonstrating that it is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: See Train2104's comment above. This redirect was the product of, what seems to be, someone trying to fix a bad link in a welcome templates by ... rather than correcting the bad link in the templates ... creating this redirect. From the look of this situation, it is only "useful" because it was essentially created in error, sort of like curing a symptom rather than fixing the root cause. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it was created in error does not mean that it has not since gained uses that are not due to that error. I see nothing in Train's comment that changes my mind. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep and deprecate per Thryduulf or fix existing links and delete. Either is fine for a clearly erroneous redirect as long as no links to the 5P are being broken. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but have a bot fix those links first --Temp87 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get a bot to do it - yeah, I started doing this with AWB and got up to about 800 replacements, then realized I'm probably effectively running an unauthorized bot. There's about 2800 replacements left, nearly all of them substitutions of whatever badly coded template led to this mess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That and a flagged bot won't set off the "new messages" notifications/emails for all these users. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When it has all those links, people are going to visit them, whether in current versions of talk pages or old versions of talk pages. No good reason's been given for breaking links in the thousands and thousands of old revisions that link to this redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 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.

Korea North[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 by nom. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly surprised these were created, given that I can find exactly zero sources that actually use the terms "Korea North" or "Korea South". I'd R3 them but since they're almost ten years old I figured RFD might be a better venue. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as they are unambiguous and helpful for those who use them. Korea South received an average of 2 page views/day over the last year, with peaks of over 20 views/day. -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, Tavix, would you support similar redirects such as Carolina South or Dakota South? Primefac (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't create them, but I also wouldn't have a problem with them were they to be created. They're in no way harmful, confusing, ambiguous, or otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, until Primefac and me fixed them earlier today, there were three incoming links to Korea South, indicating at least some confusion regarding the word order. Sources aren't necessarily required for redirects. Huon (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible search term. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Readers browse Wikipedia in all sorts of ways, and like Huon said, there's some evidence of utility. Keep[reply]
  • Keep per the above. In addition to places where the countries are listed alphabetically under "K" (c.f. Korea, North), I imagine these links are useful for non-native speakers as there are many languages where the direction comes last (e.g. fr:Corée du Nord, es:Corea del Norte). Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these are helpful links --Temp87 (talk) 20:55, 21 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_20&oldid=1088106708"