Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2018.

List of planets in the F-Zero series[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no list of planets in the target article. Unnecessary redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT #7, levels (including lists of stadia/sport venues). Planets seem to be akin to hosting a number of various race track conditions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 22 February 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.

Delphi Packard Electric Systems[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 28#Delphi Packard Electric Systems

Yellow Light of Death (PS3)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 28#Yellow Light of Death (PS3)

TWIMEN[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. No sources found that this is being used as a shortcut name for this album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. There is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are cheap. Anyone using it is hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
  6. If {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} are acceptable names for templates, my redirects are also acceptable as they are. If not, my two redirects should be renamed. Per @Thryduulf:, "we also have the {{hat}} (not about hats), {{temp}} (not about temporary workers), {{link}} (not about chains, golf courses, an American singer, etc), {{user}} (not about drug, computer or telecommunication system users), {{admin}} (not about administrators), {{ill}} (not about illness), {{top}} (not about spinning tops or clothing), {{bottom}} (not about buttocks or the seabed), {{columns}} (not about architecture), {{reliable sources}} (not about publications, {{cleanup}} (not about cleaning), {{fiction}} (not about fiction), {{copyedit}} (not about copyediting), {{tone}} (not about literature, linguistics or music), {{neutrality}} (not about international relations), and many others".
--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow why so much of your rationale focuses on countering the claim of "confusion" when the nominative never made that claim to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I am using the abbreviation, and there are more than one dozen uses on one of the days. The redirect is cheap and was only created recently. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, its not uncommon for a redirect to get views while its up for deletion. I probably added a few to the count too, not because I was using it as a valid redirect, but because I was researching it so I could leave a comment here. While I hadn't realized how recently you created this, I still stand by the nominator's stance - googling "TWIMEN" gave zero relevant hits for it in like the first five pages of results. This doesn't appear to be a widely used shortening of the subject's title. If no one (except you) is using it, it's not a valid redirect worth keeping. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Twimen seems to be a brand within Carrefour Market [1], but the all-caps version isn't helpful if it is made up by a single editor and not propagated by the album. The hashtag was used by some non-notable blogger who uses #twilioggd There's also Twyman as a surname, but not in all-caps, and searches for that would be hindered by this. It might be a potential hashtag for the album but when I do a search on "twimen pictures" I get a bunch of pictures of twins instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:33, 22 February 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.

John Hinder[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target article; no indication that this is a useful redirect. PamD 17:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No news articles that show that Walker ever went by this as a stage name. It doesn't make sense to call him as a combination of his middle name and his band name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 22 February 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.

1985 video games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 26#1985 video games

Shithole[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 disambiguate. The songs exist, the term is WP:RECENT, and the ability to have our cake (wiktionary) and eat it too (list songs) is convincing. I'll put a quick version based off of 59.149.124.29 (talk · contribs) and move the page to semiprotection, which should hopefully be sufficient. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created this as a soft redirect to Wiktionary a few months ago, back before the word became infamous for other reasons. Sandstein proposed turning it into a dab page on my talk page. Due to the sensitive nature of the word, I figured it best to open it up for discussion and see if we can gain consensus on what to do with it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To save clicks: I proposed creating a dab page of sorts, listing the recently much covered epithet "Shithole countries", as well as "not to be confused" links to Shitole and Sithole. Sandstein 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it should be a DAB unless Shithole countries is an actual article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnote the soft redirect per WP:TWODABS. I think it is entirely reasonable that someone might go looking for Trump's comments with this keyword, but the soft redir is still the "main topic." --NYKevin 01:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the following WP:DABMENTION songs could be stuffed onto the dab page to make it look big and important. (Or not.)
    • "Shithole", a song by Les Turds on the compilation album Play at Your Own Risk, Volume 2
    • "Shit Hole", a song on the 2005 film score album Saw II
    • "The Shithole", a spoken word piece on the 2006 album Boned!
    • "Shithole", a 2016 song by Canadian band Weaves
OTOH, hatnoting a soft redirect seems worse than just making a real WP:TWODABS or whatever: readers are probably used to the formatting of a dab page, whereas a hatnote on a soft redirect looks rather odd. And unlike the case with a real redirect, a hatnote doesn't actually save any clicks when you put it above a soft redirect; you have to click either way anyway. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate given the existence of multiple WP:DABMENTION topics that could be referred to as "shithole". A disambiguation page doesn't give "undue prominence" to anything; it's just a better-formatted list of the same stuff you could find with the search engine. I don't really think that maintaining such a better-formatted list adds much value over deleting and letting the search engine do its job, but apparently no one here at all supports deletion, so list it is. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wiktionary per WP:DICDEF. People looking for Shithole countries can already see a link in the search box, as they type "Shitho…", so no need for dab. — JFG talk 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JFG said: "People looking for Shithole countries can already see a link in the search box, as they type 'Shitho…', so no need for dab", but please note that the search suggest drop-down list on Wikipedia requires JavaScript, so it is not seen by people who are using a web browser without JavaScript or who have JavaScript disabled in their browser preferences or disabled via a browser extension such as NoScript; for this reason (since the search suggest drop-down list is not a universal part of the Wikipedia interface for all users), appearance in the search suggest drop-down list should never be used as the only reason why a disambiguation page is not needed (and this may also be why the search suggest drop-down list is not mentioned at WP:DAB). It is not true that all users see search suggestions as they type in the Wikipedia search box. Biogeographist (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see your point, but it's not 1998 any more. JS is pretty much required to browse the web today. I'd be curious to see stats of how many readers (except indexing bots) actually have it disabled. — JFG talk 22:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JFG said: "JS is pretty much required to browse the web today." Again, not true (and not even relevant to Wikipedia, since JavaScript is not required to browse or edit Wikipedia). Design principles for "the web today" that explicitly state that JavaScript is not "required" include, e.g., Unobtrusive JavaScript and Responsive web design § Mobile first, unobtrusive JavaScript, and progressive enhancement. Even if the overall percentage of readers without JavaScript is small (say, 0.2 percent), the often large number of readers of Wikipedia guarantees that many readers will be reading without JavaScript. Biogeographist (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems slightly weighted toward restoring the wiktionary redirect, but the added utility of a dab re: Sanstein hasn't been refuted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary (keep), exactly how it is now with no additional notation. The recent epithet is not a suitably prominent usage to be given this special treatment given that there are so many other prominent uses; doing so gives these comments undue precedence. If people want to go looking for the comments made by the Racist-In-Chief,[1] they can search for the full phrase as disambiguation, or find it linked from other articles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Abraham, Yvonne (January 13, 2018). "President Trump, our racist-in-chief". The Boston Globe. Retrieved February 8, 2018.
  • I'm not too sure about this one, but I think that setting up a disambiguation page is a good idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's been a month and we're not there yet; this could use some more input. Disambiguate or wiktionary? Hopefully some more distance will be productive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate add countries as PTM at the bottom for See also. The songs have been there prior to any Trump events, and none of them are primary topic. This also allows for the Wiktionary to be added. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per AngusWOOF's comments above. Disambiguating it additionally allows the link to Wiktionary. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB per AngusWOOF and add a Wiktionary link. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:09, 26 February 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.

Redirects to List of current UFC fighters[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 to delete all the remaining redirects. That being said, I am going to accept Ivanvector's recommendations and retarget Deiveson Alcântara Figueiredo to Deiveson Figueiredo and delete Grant Dawson since it has helpfully been pointed out that he is not mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Others tagged for this discussion that weren't listed

deletion - No articles have been developed or gone through any review. Editor User:Rickyc123 created the pages with only "#REDIRECT text" and "immediately" redirect to a general related page. Believe to claim authorship when the page eventually recreated. Similar is done on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 31#The ABC Murders (TV series) which reported by User:HornetMike. A case is file on ANI, see here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gaming the system - vandalism user:Rickyc123. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong meh Of course "[n]o articles have been developed or gone through any review" - that's the whole point of a redirect, to send readers to a more useful title when there is no article at their exact search. I suppose it might be mildly useful to go through the target page, add an {{anchor}} to each person, and then fix the redirects accordingly, but it seems like a lot of work for little benefit. These seem pretty marginal but I'd be really reluctant to call them "vandalism," assuming all of these people are actually listed at the target. --NYKevin 04:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page that I have redirected all the UFC Fighters to contain. Their Nationality, height, nickname, weightclass, Pro MMA record, Their UFC record and ranking if they are ranked. It also includes their current status e.g: If they are injurd, currently suspended by USADA, their next booked fight and the result of their most recent bout.Rickyc123 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
  • Delete all These are all MMA fighters who fail notability requirements set out in WP:NMMA and appear to be created on mass for reasons I can't fathom. It certainly defeats the purpose of redlinks which highlight articles which should be created. It doesnt help in the search for these targets since it would take you to the list anyway.14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)PRehse (talk)

That is irrelevant, to the discussion of whether these redirects should stay and if you could show me where I've tried to claim credit for Dan Ige and Saparbek Safarov it would be much appreciated. Also redirects don't need reviews or be notable there are plenty of examples where things which aren't notable enough to have their own articles and are redirected to a general related page and in this case it redirects to somewhere which shows enough information about that individual which is more than sufficient of a reason to redirect there.Rickyc123 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]

  • CommentIrrelevant with proven wrong and warn by admin? well, When you redirect a subject is not notbale to a general related page, once another editor (just say Alan here) create the page when the subject is notable the article creator is you but not Alan and you know that. It is easy to just look at Dan Ige and Saparbek Safarov pages who is the creator - you. That is the reason you redirect hundred of subject. You are WP:NOTHERE to contribute, you steal about 5 other editors work/content and make it your and that were all proven and reattributed to them in the ANI section. I agree content in Wiki is contributed by many and the is the core of Wiki open policy but to steal the creator initial work is not. Just take examples from academy and journalism, in academy field say a student does is master or PhD degree and work on a paper or thesis, any all content is cited with source but the paper is created by them. Just as in journalism, if the press didnt get the info themselves they have to report where they get it from (cite/reference) which means the work is not them but they create the work on the paper. What you do here is to put your name down (by redirect) and wait for other editor to do the work and your name automatically appear to be yours. This can be easily be seen at the subject history page against when your contribution page when you redirect the subject and when they subject page is created. You fool no one. If your actions was righteous, you will not be warn by admin on stealing other editors work and redirect. Question - Anderson Silva was one of the greatest fighter in the MMA history and now he is caught twice using PED, with all his wins, does he has any respect from peers or fans - none and what say about yours. When you do this you detect the actual editor which want to contribute where they initial is being stolen in a way, and they might not be contribute and leave Wikipedia. That is not the spirit of a Wikipedian and not a right way to go. You have redirect hundred of subject which are not notable not only the UFC fighter, everyone in Wikipedia could easy go to your creation log and see that, nothing is hidden in Wikipedia it is the matter if one want to investigate and link all the history together to see one's motive and behavior. How often you actually contribute vs your redirect, how many times you have stolen other editor work vs you do yourself, how many times your creations have been rejected and deleted and how many times you have been complaints in ANI. Wikipedia started with ppl want to to share knowledge to general large from those who are knowledgeable, willing to do the research to find source to cite (even they know the subject so well they still need to find source to cite as all just like in academy fields and journalism) and those who are technical in software put their time to develop application for all of us to gain the knowledge if we want to as long as we have a computer and connected to internet. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said though how can I take credit for a redirect because all people have to do is look at the creation log and see that I made a redirect, they can also see who's the one who added all the info on the article so how can I steal attribution on a redirect if all somebody has to do is check the creation log. And the Redirect Vs contribution argument. Well yeah I have made loads of redirects but I don't see them as articles I have created because if you go to the creation log you can see that all I did was put in a redirect and you can see who put in all the information. Last thing is that no topic has to be notable to be redirected and I am not the first too redirect to similar pages. For example some NXT wrestlers are redirected to List of WWE personnelRickyc123 (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep comments focused on discussing the redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a valid search term, proposer also seems to have a dislike of redirect creator, so taking into account the likelyness of someone watching a UFC event and searching the name of a fighter i say these are useful to the project with no valid deletion rationale. GuzzyG (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment. Please note Rickyc 123 is on the investigation on copied and pasted other editors's content from draft and create his own with evident and warn few times and now is not voting him to be banned on certain rights. see [[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal - Article creation ban#User:Rickyc123 gaming the system - part 2. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Outside of Ricky and Cass, there hasn't been much participation. While the latest ANI thread may be interesting background, this discussion is not about the users. Please focus on the redirects and whether they are useful or should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (see below) - useful search terms. I haven't reviewed the ANI or whatever but if attribution is an issue then the cut-and-pasted drafts can be historymerged into the redirects to correct that problem. It's a bit of a job, but I have tomorrow off. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Comment - Please note User:Rickyc123 has been banned with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations: Persistant, willful violations of WP:CWW after multiple warnings; see ANI for evidence) - see block log here [4]. Please note I dont think historymerge could be used on a redirect page which was already create in the first place for any creation of the subject the creator name will be [[user:Rickyc123] - do correct me if my understanding is incorrect. No other list of promotions fighters that do not meet nobility (with same info, name, nick name and mma record) has redirect in such way, why single out UFC fighters? here is the list of bellator, invicta and ufc list of current fighters for view - List of current UFC fighters, List of current Invicta FC fighters and List of current Bellator fighters. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption about history merges is incorrect. History merging blends the revision history of two pages into one page, then the "creator" (for tools which report it) would be the editor who first edited the draft, assuming the draft is older than the redirect. See the revision history of Kalindra Faria for example, which I've just repaired as it was obvious that Rickyc123 copied the content from Draft:Kalindra Faria. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector:, Hi, I know about Kalindra Faria incident and other 6 other Rickyc123 has copied and pasted from draft copy of other editors and make his own and understand about the histmerge as I am the one who raise the ANI on him (see part 1 on the case). This is not the same thing which I trying to address. Rickyc123 create the subject "first" and immediately redirect to List of current UFC fighters where the subject (fighters) do not meet the nobility of WP:NMMA and when "one day and if" the the subjects/fighters are notable and other editors come along and create the page, (by removing the #REDIRECT), the page creator would belong to Rickyc123 instead the actual editor who put the work and do the research to "actually" create the content. If you have a look at this creation log [5], a series of "TV series/drama" has been raised in redirect for discussion see here - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 31#The ABC Murders (TV series) and the result was delete all. Question - would the same if someone create subject of potential to be NBA player one day and #REDIRECT to a general page of NBA and waiting someone one day and "if" the subject/player to be notable and create them where this is would bring to "redirect for discussion" and the decision would be kept and not deleted like the ABC Murders TV series, that would puzzle me. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends List of current UFC fighters needs to decide whether they only want fighters that meet WP:NMMA as their common selection criteria WP:CSC, or whether any fighter that has participated in a UFC match is okay. If it's any fighter, then you can keep the redirects even if they only competed in 1 or 2 matches so far. If the fighter is not mentioned on the list, then delete or redirect to List of former UFC fighters if they meet the criteria for that list. The "former" list does not exist though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT- @AngusWOOF:. Greetings to you. As per WP:NMMA only fighters fought under top tier with 3 fights is considered WP:CSC. I am one of the regular and active editor maintain of List of current UFC fighters - pls go to the page history diff to have a look I have 1,156 edits on this page - pls see [6] under "top edited page" section. user:PRehse is one of most experience editors since 2005 in portal/wiki project martial arts who voted "delete all" for all this redirects (see above) and another editor is user:Papaursa. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would scrub the list first to ensure everyone is meeting the CSC first and then keep redirects to people on that list. The others that don't meet the CSC established should be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep a few which are no longer redirects:
Speedy retarget Deiveson Alcântara Figueiredo to Deiveson Figueiredo, article already exists.
Delete Grant Dawson, not listed at target.
Keep all of the rest, as they are currently useful redirects to individuals listed at the target and thus WP:RFD#K5 useful search terms. Iff those names are removed from the list then the redirects should be relisted or deleted, but the content of the list is outside the scope of this discussion.
Note as well that Julian Marquez and Alex Perez (fighter) have preexisting drafts (at Draft:Julian Marquez and Draft:Alex Perez respectively). If they had been promoted before this discussion then the redirects would have been automatically overwritten. Since those redirects now have non-trivial edit history thanks to having been nominated here, a pagemover will have to do it.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT- @Ivanvector: the clause as you mentioned WP:RFD#K5 covers a wide and limitless clauses, it seems if someone find useful and deter from the core policy of wikpedia of nobility, RS and CSC would would be part of inclusion - if that what wikipedia policies serve here if guidelines would be turn by someone find useful which all the AfD, page review, counter vandalism serve no purpose and find reason frustrates here. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:13, 22 February 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.

Violations report[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) 15:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target article: no indication that this is a useful redirect. PamD 11:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is Certified Information Systems Security Professional jargon, didn't think it needed citations as it was only a redirect Deku-shrub (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need citations for a redirect, but there should be some content in the target article that explains how this relates to the subject, otherwise it's just pair of vague words. As it is I endorse deletion: without any context suggested at the target, there are a very wide range of topics this could apply to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:23, 20 February 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.

OSO accolades[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem appropriate - OSO has so many meanings apart from this one film. PamD 11:44, 18 February 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.

Brad Knowles-Tagg[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target article: no indication that this is a useful redirect. PamD 11:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was previously known as Bradley Knowles-Tagg, with news articles that can be traced back to that name. They can be incorporated into the article by anyone.Fleets (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - found it in one of the sources cited, added it to article, redirect is now fine. PamD 12:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As nominator, I now withdraw this nomination. PamD 12:35, 18 February 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.

TOKI (satellite)[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target article: no indication that this is a useful redirect. PamD 11:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Added term into article Kees08 (Talk) 19:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. When there are other TOKI satellites then it can be opened up to a dab. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw now that term appears in article, thanks. PamD 06:50, 22 February 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.

RV32C[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. While the term is not explicitly mentioned in the article, one can be able to figure it out by reading the article. This is good enough for a redirect according to consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target article: no indication that this is a useful redirect. PamD 11:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a simple Google search for RV32C reveals the relevance: It's the standard abbreviation for the 32-bit compressed instruction set. The term may not appear literally in the article, but the linked section states that the letter "C" refers to the compression extension, and RV32C is the standard way of expressing that as part of the 32-bit ISA. --Dolda2000 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolda2000: A Google search shouldn't be necessary to explain why a redirect goes where it does. If it's the standard abbreviation, then please add it to the article with a source to support it. Thanks. PamD 17:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the article, just not in that specific form. The article makes it clear in several places that RV32/RV64 are the common prefixes for all ISA abbreviations, and also explicitly states "C" being the abbreviated name for the compressed extension. It's also mentioned in several combinations all over the page, such as RV32IMC or RV32GC --Dolda2000 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolda2000: Please add an explicit mention of this term to the page: if a reader gets redirected to this quite long page and does a search for the term in the page they will at present not find it. PamD 09:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a standard abbreviation for a subject discussed at the target, and not confusing with any other use that I can think of. Harmless and possibly useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mention not required for redirects as long as it gets to a place where reader can find information on it Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:48, 26 February 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.

Marc Europe[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term does not appear in target article; no indication that this is a useful redirect. PamD 11:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see a notable company or a person named Marc Europe. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:52, 22 February 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.

Zardu Hasselfrau[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 28#Zardu Hasselfrau

Internet shorthand notation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 26#Internet shorthand notation

Dontang[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XY. Could be a typo for Dongtan or Dontan or Dongtang, but isn't the actual name of anything. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as Dongtan is a dab page. I've added Dontan to the See also of that dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF: the disambiguation page provides the reader with all the plausible intended targets, so there's no obvious risk of confusion. (Is it possible that this not a typo but rather alternative or historical transliteration, in the same way Guangdong was traditionally romanised as Kwangtung, Sichuan as Szechuan, and so on?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:52, 19 February 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.

2005 film of Walt Disney pictures[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. Killiondude (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, no need to be there 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:5801:116F:415A:850 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_18&oldid=1037876232"