Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 29, 2018.

Personification[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. No comment on whether it could be a future article, except to note the nearly decade of history. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete as per this thread. @Medeis: Thanks for commenting on RD/Hum. You might also want to leave a comment here.--Siebi (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:REDLINK, although a better course of action would be to make a new stub.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag {{R with possibilities}}, and/or convert into a Real Article. Until that article exists, however, the target does cover personification (albeit badly). Ergo, this redirect should stick around until we have something to replace it with. --NYKevin 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, and consider splitting the article where helpful. It's rather difficult if the terms are used interchangeably. But do not delete. The term is really important in literature. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 30 January 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.

Bolivian akodant[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's request - spelled the page's name incorrectly and had to move it, so no need for the old spelling. SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 19:22, 29 January 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.

Backstage with Jon Bon Jovi[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) 16:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of this article at its creation tells the story: "Backstage with Jon Bon Jovi is the official fanclub for Bon Jovi." But there's no mention of it at the target article. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 29 January 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.

Wilkesboro Metropolitan Area[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) 16:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last RfD in 2010 was closed as no consensus. However, the original nomination rationale still applies: this geographic region does not exist. There is a North Wilkesboro Micropolitan Area, but that is too different to be plausible. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was prepared to say keep under the rationale that lots of places could have a "metropolitan area", even if they're not the center of an official "Metropolitan Area". But Wilkesboro is really small. And the fact that the target is just the town's own article really seals it for me, because a) it's about the town, not the town and surrounding area; and b) anyone familiar enough with Wilkesboro to seek its "metropolitan area" will be able to find the main article anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's misleading to have a redirect for a nonexistent metropolitan area. - Eureka Lott 01:42, 30 January 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.

Party pizza[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 Totino's. Add a hatnote if you want. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines as Square pizza, except even more vague. The term "party pizza" is somewhat supported in a Google search as a synonym for Rhode Island pizza strips, but i'm not clear if they're all referring to pizza strips or pizza in general. Any pizza could be a party pizza if you served it at a party. The redirect was created by a user who is now banned. D1, D2 & D8 apply. Apocheir (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting it to Totino's would make it "unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine", reason for deletion #1. I'd much rather delete. -Apocheir (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are the similarly named articles? It's not pizza party, which is very generic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:52, 29 January 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.

Mario timeline[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 List of video games featuring Mario. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect formerly targeted Mario Storyline. In its present state, the redirect is unclear what it refers to. Does it refer to the timeline of Mario's appearance in video games? Does it refer to Mario's character's story timeline? It's too vague to be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed - The Mario franchise doesn't really have enough continuity to sustain a "proper" timeline. I suppose we could have one for the RPGs and Paper Mario, but even that seems like a stretch. On the other hand, "Mario timeline" could also mean "a history of the Mario franchise," which the retarget would provide. --NYKevin 06:16, 30 January 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.

Disambiguation (audio)[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. Disambiguation (disambiguation) might be my new favorite page... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect pointing to a dab page, where there is no link to a real article. Onel5969 TT me 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 'Audio disambiguation' in the sense of trying to parse out separate elements from a blended sound as well as determine the proximate location of a sound is a topic discussed by reliable sources (see here for a printed example) that might merit its own page. At the same time, though, maybe it's already discussed in some article that we have now on A/V technology? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect was the article. It was deleted via PROD in 2015. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For one, I don't see any precedence to use this disambiguator. For two, seems like some sort of topic that qualifies for WP:REDLINK per CoffeeWithMarkets' comment. And for three, as much as I disagree with the following statement (though I see it being plausible), I would expect any audio-related redirects to target a page in the "File:" or "TimedText:" namespaces. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I guess, after some more thought, that I come down as seeing this as a case of WP:REDLINK. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ripping which I think may be what user:CoffeeWithMarkets was looking for. The term disambiguation is used in the audio sense in Radio music ripping (which does have issues, but...). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:57, 2 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.

Fire Temple[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6#Fire Temple

Traveling Merchants[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 Travelling salesman. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in target article, and as a title is vague/ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 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.

Arkavansham[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6#Arkavansham

HuainaruhuantaziVII adobentotirudoren[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) 16:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as erroneous and unlikely per similar discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#HuainaruhuantaziX. The "hua"s in these are Eubot mistranscriptions of Japanese ファ ("fa"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 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.

Ayymd[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WP:CSD#R3 should be used for recently created redirects, so RfD was the correct venue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ayymd → Advanced Micro Devices  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Ywwuyi, GCCPK (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Ywwuyi: shouldn't there be a reason for nominating this redirect as per WP:RFD#HOWTO? It look like a clear R3 to me no mention of this in the article and when a search is carried out with this name it throws up "We are a satirical PC hardware community dedicated to proving that AMD is clearly the better choice". Domdeparis (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template probably ate the nominator's rationale, but in any case this is not mentioned at the target article, so it's unhelpful to readers. The few dozen Google News hits appear to be cases where people mentioned it in the comments section, with no actual WP:RS coverage. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless The Fonz is marketing stuff for AMD, this isn't appropriate., AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that the WP:PTOPIC for this term would be the satirical /r/AyyMD subreddit, but that doesn't seem notable. Delete. feminist (talk) 15:46, 5 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.

Hawaii missile alert[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. Well this is exciting! Basically, I think Zxcvbnm has it right: this is useful, and the only such incident. Should the islands receive another missile alert this would be a good dab page, but thankfully that is not yet needed. It is not up to us to optimize Google's algorithm for them, and we need not care too deeply about how readers get to the page they want as long as they get there smoothly. It's a good example of what redirects are for — Wikipedia standards may result in the current title, readers will find it useful; Although not mentioned below, I'll note that since the rename the redirect still gets dozens of page hits a day. The public safety argument is interesting, to say the least, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arm of any given public policy institution. The redirect is useful, so we keep it. I take full responsibility for any loss of life should any cataclysm occur. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete the direct- misleading redirect source to target. God forbids if there is a real missile alert. The article was created at Hawaii missile alert in a rush and consensus reached that the old article name is misleadingSYSS Mouse (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There having been no other missile alerts in Hawaii, real or otherwise, it is still a pertinent redirect. I don't see how it's confusing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Delete I don't consider it confusing, but if the page remains then Google's machine learning algorithms will presumably consider it an additional hint that the first hit for 'Hawaii missile alert' searches should be '2018 Hawaii false missile alert', and we can't NOINDEX pages in article space (presumably including redirects). I feel like the odds are 100:1 it won't create a problem even if there is a future actual missile strike, but better safe than sorry. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a counter-example the tsunami alert redirect doesn't show up for me on page 1 of Google and is only the 6th hit on Bing. I really think it's easier to just delete Hawaii missile alert though than to try to somehow prove that wouldn't ever be a problem. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cant's say I've ever seen a public safety exception invoked in an RfD. But as they say on Law & Order: "It's a novel argument, but I'll allow it." That said, I think this would all hinge, then, on whether Rolf's concern is 10:1 or 100:1 or 1,000,000:1. Question: Does Google have any ambassadors here on Wikipedia who we could poke? I know the WMF has some business dealings with them, at the very least. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All Wikipedia pages use <link rel="canonical"> to canonicalize URLs. Once Google re-indexes the page (after this discussion is closed and the redirect starts working again), Google will know that the canonical title of this page is "2018 Hawaii false missile alert" and not "Hawaii missile alert." Similarly, it will know that the canonical URL has "2018_Hawaii_false_missile_alert" in it. Try searching for "foo" and note that Foo only comes up under the name Foobar. --NYKevin 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the page is clearly labeled, my concern is that the existing redirect probably increases the relevance that search engines perceive of the page for searches on "Hawaii missile alert". We're somewhat googlebombing our own page, which probably results in the page link showing up a bit higher on "Hawaii missile alert" searches than it otherwise would. This may theoretically slightly crowd out more useful information. The page title of the redirect page is "Hawaii missile alert", which (if it matters) is arguably semantically wrong; according to the html5 spec, "Authors should use titles that identify their documents even when they are used out of context, for example in a user’s history or bookmarks, or in search results." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:51, 29 January 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.

Book:Great Card Games[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) 16:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this redirect resulted from a pagemove, it reflects a purely subjective assessment of what qualifies as a "great" card game. Useful history is preserved at the target page, and the redirect is neither helpful (non-neutral) nor actually used (1 pageview, by me, in the last 90 days). Delete as nominator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It doesn't seem helpful. That and the subjectivity of labeling certain games as "great", as stated above, mean that this ought to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to vagueness of "great" --Lenticel (talk) 09:44, 31 January 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_January_29&oldid=1037876658"