Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2017.

8 rock[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) 21:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I note the presence of 8-rock.com on the web, which sells drawings of black men but is in no way disparaging. I see no Google-hits for an ethnic slur, but there are many geographic locations that could satisfy the search term. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was listed in the article in March 2006 when the redirect was created, with a reference to the Cassell Dictionary of Slang, which I don't have access to. It begs the question of when the term was removed from the list, but I don't know how to find that out without trawling through 11 years worth of history. Possibly a WP:RX request to determine whether the term is in the dictionary would be appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I can confirm that "eight rock" appears in Page 474 of Cassell dictionary of slang. Whether "8 rock" appears in the dictionary I'm not sure. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Eight rock" appears to be an analogy comparing skin color shades to mining that's only descriptive and not pejorative. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:48, 3 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.

CentreGold[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CentreGold was acquired by Eidos Interactive in April 1996, though most of it was stripped shortly after (U.S. Gold was dissolved immediately, CentreSoft was sold in July, Silicon Dreams Studio was sold in December, leaving only Core Design, which was kept until being sold in 2006). The holding company CentreGold itself only continues to functions as legal trademark holder, but is no longer active and was considered part of Eidos for not even a year. Apparently there formerly was a section titled "Beginnings and company growth", but that is no longer present, and term is not spelled out once in the article. If we were to redirect it to U.S. Gold or Silicon Dreams Studio, WP:XY would apply, pretty much, so I'd rather say delete to avoid further confusion on the topic. Lordtobi (✉) 18:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - if CentreGold was once notable (and I have no information on that), then it is still notable and Eidos is the best article that we have that we can present to the reader about it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    CentreGold was not really notable, actually, they were simply a company umbrella. But redirecting to Eidos, just becuase they were affiliated for a few months is wrong, especially since it is not mentioned there once. The most likely target would be U.S. Gold, of which the company was the parent for 12 years, but again, WP:XY. Lordtobi (✉) 10:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nom's reading of XY is severely off. As Richard said, we want to point the reader to our best information on the topic, hence the redirect. Across the encyclopedia, CentreGold is covered for its affiliation with Eidos. It would have taken less time to copy the details of that acquisition to the Eidos article than it took to make this RfD. If enough sources somehow reappeared to make U.S. Gold's article the best coverage of the topic, then it would redirect there. Not complicated, but either is better than no redirect at all. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that relevant content has been added at the target. – Uanfala 14:26, 11 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.

Rich Edson[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 move draft over redirect and add hanote. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this guy at Fox News AmaryllisGardener talk 16:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the subject has 4,000 followers on Twitter, his move to Fox News was reported by The Hill and Adweek, and his wedding was reported by the New York Times. To the people who would search for him, he's notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Draft:Rich Edson over redirect. I believe he's notable and I've found a bit more significant coverage of him I might add to the draft when I've got some time. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move draft per Tavix and add a hanote to Richard Edson. If there are notability issues, they should be resolved at AfD. – Uanfala 14:29, 11 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.

Catagory:Rooster Teeth[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) 18:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in namespace identifier; implausible. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:02, 31 May 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.

Daily Wail[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) feminist 00:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary due to lack of links, per previous RfDs and Daily Heil etc. WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Edit: Almost forgot, I had a discussion with the admin who deleted two redirects, and the admin said that re-creating them is okay. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 20:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's Green's Dictionary of Slang, not OED. Bromley86 (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. George Ho (talk) 04:36, 1 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.

健肺村[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) 18:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese-language nickname. Literally means "clean lung village" because "someone pronouncing the name of the village would need a high lung capacity". Probably not worth mentioning at the target article. feminist 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. No affinity to Chinese and not mentioned at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a joke redirect. I get the humor but it still has no use for our readers --Lenticel (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that the joke started with the creation of this redirect. (I don't read Chinese, but a superficial scan with Google Translate indicates that this term is being used). But it's not English and could not possibly become part of the English language. - Richard Cavell (talk) 18:38, 8 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.

Grand Cote (disambiguation)[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) feminist 00:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target has been moved to Grande Côte (disambiguation) (with an "e"). This redirect serves no useful purpose, is an unlikely search term, and has no incoming links. "Grand Cote" itself is not ambiguous and Grand Cote redirects correctly to Grand Cote National Wildlife Refuge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:DIACRITICS. Lack of internal links is not a reason to delete any redirect, particularly ones like this which should be unlinked. The point is so that people searching for this do not need to use the diacritic (which is not necessarily available in every environment, and even when they are not everybody knows how to get input it) - and yes, people do search directly for disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thyrduulf is right - people might search for this term, and not know how to type the diacritic. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: and @Richardcavell: OK, but the target has moved. "Keep" would create a double redirect to a target that is both with a diacritic and a different spelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the new final target, which is Grande with an 'e'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update and keep per WP:DIACRITICS. Entirely valid search term for people unfamiliar with typing diacritics. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm' I think the thing is that if you type "Grand Cote (disambiguation)" or even "Grand Cote (d" the system will get you to Grande Côte (disambiguation) without any fuss, so even though people like me do type things like that, the redirect itself is redundant. Is there an example we can try out? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search suggestions only work for people who are using the internal search engine and who have javascript enabled. There are many other ways people search and browse Wikipedia that will not lead directly to the target if this redirect is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm if we are going to keep Grand Cote (disambiguation) why delete Banco de Ponce (disambiguation), the reasons would appear to be exactly the same, just a different forum (AFD vs RFD) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) is completely different. It was deleted at AfD because consensus said a disambiguation page is not necessary, and the redirect was deleted because the target was not a disambiguation page. I happen to disagree that such redirects should be deleted, but it is not relevant to this discussion where the target is a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL "completely" different, anyway I change my "ummm" to keep because of potential linkrot you reminded me of. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 15:11, 5 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.

PRESENT[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 move PRESENT (cipher) over redirect. Deryck C. 17:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XNR shortcut that doesn't match WP:PRESENT. Either this should retarget to Present, or its target should match that of WP:PRESENT. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's embarrassing. My intention was for WP:PRESENT. But I see it's being used. Requesting the page be moved to WP:TVPRESENT or something similar. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:45, 31 May 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.

Bernadette Austin-Bower[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) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Non notable (perhaps her daughter?) redirect set up by a sock in order to funnel searches to an attack page that he set up (which has since been edited into line with WP:BLP). Bromley86 (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, found connection. She is Gamboa's daughter according to the wedding announcement. [4] however she is still low-profile as Wikipedia notability is not inherited. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 1 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.

October 10, 2010[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 13#October 10, 2010

Template:Löschen[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) 18:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED...we don't have other languages' equivalents of CSD redirecting here. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:14, 31 May 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.

First photograph of the whole illuminated Earth taken from space, Apollo 17, resulting in the famous "Blue Marble" photograph, said to have been at least partly responsible for launching the modern environmental movement.[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) 18:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no reason to have such an absurdly long redirect. AmaryllisGardener talk 01:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentDelete Is this the official caption of the photograph? Otherwise it's original research to call that an official article title for a redirect. At least for Tank Man there was a caption at [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC) updated 00:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the caption [6] "View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew traveling toward the moon" This redirect should be renamed to that. But this version doesn't serve anyone. Changed vote to delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created by a new user in an attempt to fix incorrect information in a timeline article. I presume the original incorrect paragraph was functioning as a wikilink to the same article. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must add, the sentence is a mess anyway. Photograph that resulted in the famous photograph? Wat? --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing due to the grammar/sentence structure --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 7 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.

After Prom[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 05:15, 10 June 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) 00:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely search term and innappropriate to these targets. If some are a valid redirecrt to se other topic, let them be recreated as needed. Better to have redlinks . Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical to redirect to articles that provide no mention to the redirect subject. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as the usual WP:TNT. It would be a different story if it were the creator or original screenplay writer, but this is not the case. Links can be re-created when they meet WP:NFF AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 1 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.

Top Gun 2(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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful redirects because there are spaces missing before "(", Top Gun 2 (film) already exists as a redirect to the same target, and Draft:Top Gun 2 (film) already exists as a redirect to a different target, Draft:Top Gun 2. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:20, 31 May 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.

Hell's Bible[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 default to keep. Editors arguing for "delete" said this redirect title is not discussed at the target article, whereas editors arguing for "keep" said this is an attested nickname of the newspaper. Deryck C. 17:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or re-target to The Satanic Bible. I can find no reason why this redirects to The New York Times. Eddie891 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per this Google.search, it does have some usage as a derogatory term for the NYT in the conservative and religious blogospheres. Since the point of a redirect is to get people to the desired topic, this one is doing its job. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blog posts seem to be unofficial ones with the word Catholic in it, none of which show up when I click the "news" tab in that Google search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:12, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_31&oldid=1088106398"