Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2018.

Yuuki Yunna[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo: it's either 1) two u's for both names 2) one u for both names. The macron version Yūki Yūna already exists which was what the original redirect was for. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a likely typo and potentially misleading. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2018 (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.

Leadership versus management[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Leadership versus management

Action Centered Leadership[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 John Adair (author). Restoring the original destination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what this redirect is meant to represent. Also, this redirect formerly targeted John Adair (author). Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2018 (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.

Good leader[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. Poor 2009-era Beeblebrox ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "good" in reference to the redirect's target is vague and unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. So if you led a team of evildoers would you still be a good leader? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 12 April 2018 (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 delete. From its inception, this redirect seems confused. As a reminder for the "delete" participants below, redirects do not need to adhere to our neutrality principles. That being said, I think this one ends up as delete — usage is slim-to-none, and where it is, it appears to be used as an attempt to disparage rather than a legitimated name. I'm not convinced a dab would be useful.

This should not be construed to prevent recreation toward The Satanic Bible, although I'm likewise not convinced there's any support for that outside the idea that Satan=Hell. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:NPOV / WP:ATTACK redirect. Appears to be based on [3]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a disparaging nickname that is not sourced at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as Headbomb mentioned, this term can refer to multiple topics. feminist (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate seems to most appropriate given the presented evidence/information above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a disambiguation page personally, although with some explanation for the term as it relates to the NYT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With MOS:DABMENTION it would have to be described in the NYT article somewhere. Same if it refers to KJV or the Encyclopedia Metallum. There isn't a Wikipedia article for Jason Lee Javsen. For Satanic Bible, not really. So unless there are other candidates, only the last one would make sense as a primary topic. Retarget to The Satanic Bible or Delete AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:56, 13 April 2018 (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.

Burns and Scalds[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) 19:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY per the current situation: Scalding, the subject most likely referred to by the "Scalds" word in this redirect, is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification/B3 for the reason this was created. The purpose of the exercise was to have meaningful intercepts from every title in the 1911 encyclopaedia. The XY problem originates from the devisors of the 1911 article. By deleting it a red-link will be created; however I don't suppose this is now of much significance. S a g a C i t y (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment phrase is fairly common, along with "cuts and bruises". Maybe refine to Burns#Cause as that section is where it starts mentioning scalds as a type of burn. I just don't know about putting Scalds in caps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The XY nature doesn't bother me given the context of the phrase; I think it likely people will be pleased with the target. I suppose Thermal burn isn't terrible, as it covers both more evenly, but, eh. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (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.

Head circumference[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's wording is not specific enough to assume that it refers to the circumference of the Human head, considering that Head is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, that's a reasonable search term. While it could apply to say, snake heads, most people who wonder about head circumferences will wonder about the dimensions of a human head. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (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.

Lead (music)[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 Lead (disambiguation)#Music. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the lead in music isn't exclusive to singing. It could also refer to playing an instrument. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2018 (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.

Upper arm[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems misleading. This redirect probably best refers to the area of the arm between the axilla and the elbow, but I cannot find such an article. In addition, retargeting this redirect to Upper limb could be misleading since that article's subject seems to refer to the arm, in addition to other body parts connected to the arm. So, in lieu of finding a specific and clear article to retarget this redirect, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, short of a dedicated article, arm is the best place on Wikipedia to find information about the upper arm. The lead covers this: "[The arm] can be divided into the upper arm, which extends from the shoulder to the elbow, the forearm which extends from the elbow to the hand, and the hand." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb, and necessary because of the archaic use of brachium. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2018 (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.

Leg muscle[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 Human leg#Muscles. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't go into detail about muscles. That, and different animals have different muscles. In addition, Leg netves and Leg skin do not exist (See Leg#Components), so I don't see why this redirect has to be the exception. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intended target will 90% of the time be Human_leg#Muscles. I'd be open to a re-target to that.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah retarget to human leg#muscles. Leg muscle is far more commonly used phrase than leg skin which iss presumely why it has a redirect (ngrams too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:31, 20 April 2018 (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.

Non-human leg[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though the article Human leg exists, this redirect's target is about legs in general, which also vaguely goes into detail about human legs. Thus, this redirect could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as the best place to find information on non-human legs on Wikipedia, even if some of it covers human legs as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm convinced by Tom (LT)'s argument below. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think this is a likely search term. We also have a clearly title article "Leg" which readers are likely to search for if they want this term, and another article "Human leg" which is for humans. This also sets a precedent for creation of 8.7 million redirects ([www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161]) per anatomical structure (Cow leg, chicken leg, bird leg, hamster leg, ...). --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as leg is a WP:COMMONWORD and this term was searched only 37 times since July 2015. Compare to 152 thousand times for Leg or 3 thousand times for Legg [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:41, 13 April 2018 (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.

Blude[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Blood is not a concept exclusive to the at least two non-English languages in which the redirect translates to the English word "blood". Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it interferes with Blud. It could be an old word for "blood", but it is also a common typo for Blue. News articles seem to point to some softball coach named Melanie Blude. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 13 April 2018 (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.

Bloed[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Blood is not a concept exclusive to the at least three non-English languages in which the redirect translates to the English word "blood". Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely misspelling. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do see some PTMs with Bloed so those can be revealed if this redirect is deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 13 April 2018 (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.

Fruit drink[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 Drink#Juice and juice drinks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all drinks with fruit or fruit flavoring are juice. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refine to Drink#Juice_and_juice_drinks as that has a table of what's considered a juice drink or fruit drink. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I agree with them. Xufanc (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2018 (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.

New York Times'[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. Wikiformatting aside, it's not incorrect. No need to go around creating possessives, but it's in use so perhaps it's useful ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo, would only appear in bad markup ''[[New York Times']]'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's in use in at least 2 articles, an article draft, and a Wikipedia namespace administrative page. (Doesn't anybody check "What links here" anymore?) It's the possessive form of New York Times and is grammatically correct: "featured in the New York Times' coverage of the event". Being able to put the apostrophe inside brackets actually makes the wiki markup less crazy instead of crazier. There's also a redirect for "The New York Times'", which is used in 9 articles and a draft. --Closeapple (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't create redirects for possessives. What's next. Christopher Columbus'? Google's? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They have been created in the past. Why shouldn't they be created anyway? They can be useful when linked, and they are more efficient than piping. In fact, Google's is already being linked to at Carlos Osuna.-- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that the possessive isn't part of the italicized newspaper's name, so the editor should really use {{'}} or {{'s}}. Compare New York Times's coverage using the bracket 's and New York Times's coverage which has the apostrophe inside. Subtle but different enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the possessive is not part of the paper's name, but that does not determine whether or not a redirect is useful. For example: using [[Example's]] is less expensive than [[Example|Example's]]. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Or just use [[Example]]'s. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Closeapple. No reason to delete a redirect that is in use. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A use of a misspelling of a title doesn't prove its usefulness as a redirect; rather, it provides a need for a link to be corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angus & Steel - It being used everywhere means naff all - These all could be used by newbies who aren't great English-wise, Anyway pointless and useless misspelling. –Davey2010Talk 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To what extent is bluelinking possessives (e.g. New York Times', or New York Times's) discouraged? It feels like something that would go against MOS, but on a quick look I couldn't find anything about it in MOS. I think this should probably be deleted if that kind of linking is discouraged (because it encourages bad linking), and kept otherwise (because it's used and linked to).
    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#The New York Times' was closed aa a keep, which is a bit strange since the same arguments apply in that discussion and this. Insofar as this discussion closes as "keep" or "no consensus" that won't be a problem, but if this is deleted then that one should probably be deleted too. Sideways713 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2018 (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.

County Law[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. And they say New Yorkers are full of themselves... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! The target article refers to what seems to be a very, very small part of a topic that pribably should not have a redirect targeting it. A proper subject for this redirect to refer would be laws at the county level in general, but I cannot find such an article at this time. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as County is a much wider concept than applied to one single state in the U.S. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:44, 12 April 2018 (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.

Lock up death[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 Lockup Death. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the use of the word "death", this redirect targeting where it does is is a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2018 (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.

Bighouse (brand)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Bighouse (brand)

National Geographic (Poland)[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A circular redirect with one incoming link (which User:DPL bot has flagged as a WP:INTDAB error) to a DAB page with no other relevant entry. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2018 (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.

Khushbu Thakkar[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 Close. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Khushbu Thakkar exists and it seems to pass WP:GNG. Dial911 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close This isn't the place to discuss whether the Draft is ready. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, this redirect needs to be deleted so that AfC can accept this Draft:Khushbu Thakkar. Sorry for the previous miscommunication. Dial911 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dial911: I'm fairly certain that AngusWOOF knows that per what they said. The proper venue for promoting drafts to the mainspace is WP:AFC. Or, if it is rather clear that a draft is ready for publishing, then the move can be requested via WP:RMTR. Either way, WP:RFD is the wrong venue for your request. Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it doesn't look like it's ready; there was a decline made on 12 April and nothing to indicate that the reviewer's concerns have been addressed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 13 April 2018 (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.

Aëry[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. Reluctantly due to age ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Air and/or atmosphere is not exclusive to Albanian. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If it were without the umlaut e then it could be a plausible variant of Aerie. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:11, 12 April 2018 (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.

Fresh Air Camp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Fresh Air Camp

Wikipedia:CHURN[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Wikipedia:CHURN

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_12&oldid=1036305840"