Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2018.

Slavic-speaking 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. I guess there will be Slavic speaking communities outside Europe The Banner talk 22:13, 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.

Ursernthal[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.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) 22:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong in three ways; there is no thal, nor tal at the end, and written rather Urseren than Ursern nowadays. ZH8000 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ZH8000: why'd you remove the RfD template from the redirect a a few days ago? Am I to take it that you'd like to rescind this? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:31, 7 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.

Hurriedness[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) 20:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not plausible to use the word "hurriedness" to describe any of the entries at the target page. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only reason to keep it, it can be a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:hurriedness. However, it does not seem to be a word that is commonly looked up. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a dictionary. The concept of hurry is not described in Wikipedia so variants of it do not apply. Otherwise Wiktionary it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 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.

'Murica[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 wikt:'Murica. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect targeting where it does goes against the result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 6#'Murica. The consensus at that discussion was to retarget the redirect to a page that no longer exists; thus, this redirect was eventually deleted per WP:G8 since its target was deleted. However, about a month after the redirect was deleted, it was recreated to target its current page. Either way, I don't see how its current target is helpful to our readers. With that being said, since this redirect is not eligible for WP:G4 (as I interpret it), and since the retargeting option in the previous discussion has since been deleted, either retarget to Wiktionary:'Murica or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per creator - Oh dear, I had no idea it was deleted by discussion earlier! And TBH, I kinda realize its pointlessness now.
    But wait, I had no idea we make cross-project redirects??? Never seen or heard of its like, and it sounds like a wicked thing in my ears too. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 17:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are plenty of redirects to Wiktionary, they are created with {{Wiktionary redirect}}. You can see the list at Category:Redirects to Wiktionary. -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wikt:'Murica. It is certainly a plausible search term, and the Wiktionary entry seems to be all we can give them on the subject. It has a good overview of what the slang term is, how it is derived, and its usage. I can't imagine someone searching for this and being satisfied with general information on the United States anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wiktionary entry as above since the original list got deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 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.

NeoScrypt[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) 12:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content was removed from the Scrypt article & this is not independently notable. -- intgr [talk] 15:24, 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.

Business solution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 7#Business solution

Snopp dogg[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) 20:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only it is an unlikely spelling error, "Snopp" is also a derogatory term in Swedish, and the target of this redirect has been in hot waters in Sweden according to this news source. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is the English Wikipedia, so issues that happen in other languages are not as problematic as if they were present on the Wikipedia of the language which the word's spelling has issues (in this case, Swedish). That, and I can see this being a plausible misspelling since "Dogg" contains two repeating consonants at the end, and so does the first word of this misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the name were Snoopp Dogg, it'd be plausible but not mixed like that. Snoop Dog already goes there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is evidence that Swedes (or some other group of people) are deliberately using this term to describe him, whilst otherwise speaking English. If such evidence does emerge (which frankly seems unlikely to me), then keep and tag {{R from pejorative}}. --NYKevin 07:02, 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.

Imani Williams[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. At least until an article is created. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting one. Williams meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2, having had two hit singles. I distinctly remember her first hit Say You Do being marketed as a Sigma-Sigala release, and so despite it being a bigger hit, I'd say Williams is about as well known for Say You Do as she is Don't Need No Money, and so a redirect to either would be inappropriate. I say we delete this redirect to encourage article creation. Launchballer 13:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be deleted to encourage article creation? I think most people who would be willing to create an article for the singer know how to edit a redirect. I redirected this article to the song because it's her debut single and talks about her in the first line. At least she's mentioned. It's like saying we could delete a redirect for a song because it doesn't have an article and we could point it to either the album it's from or the artist's page where it's mentioned. Ss112 14:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, my memory really is failing. It's DJ Fresh-Sigala, not Sigma-Sigala. My point is that as she's equally as well known for both, a redirect to one of them would be undue.--Launchballer 14:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a guideline about undue weight in articles applies to where a redirect points. WP:UNDUE is a more specific point of WP:NPOV, which is about unbiased writing, not about avoiding pointing a redirect to a specific page lest it give undue weight to said page. It's her first release as a primary artist, and she's named on that article. She is merely a featured artist on "Say You Do". Ss112 15:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that although Don't Need No Money was her hit as a primary artist, Say You Do was a far bigger hit, and so I'd say she was known as well for one as she was the other; certainly she got about the same amount of coverage for each. (Having re-read WP:UNDUE, I think the bit in the "Balancing aspects" section, that "an article … should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" really ought to apply to the redirect in this instance - especially given that per WP:MUSICBIO#C2 there really ought to be an article there.)--Launchballer 15:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That point is only talking about content within articles themselves. "Ought to" apply doesn't mean it does apply to where redirects point. Seems like a bit of a stretch, but we'll see how others feel. Ss112 15:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Imani is the primary artist in Don't Need No Money but a featured artist in Say You Do (Sigala song). Featured artists shouldn't have singles chronologies in the infoboxes anyway. Those are like guest or cameo appearances, unless it's part of the primary act like "Wham! Featuring George Michael". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 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.

Double Gate[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. I've done so at Double gate, where I have redirected this as well as Double-gates, which has the added benefit of making use of two Neelix redirects. Please edit at your mercy. If someone can figure them out, Tamworth, Staffordshire (target of Two Gates) and Shafton (target of Shafton Two Gates) could end up there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gate is too confusing for specific gate. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the term used on Southern Wall where the linking is coming from. If you think that may be confusing, you should look into the references and discuss it on that page. Tomdo08 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: ... also defined as such on the target side of the links: Huldah Gates Tomdo08 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate When one searches Google for "double gate", Huldah Gate is not at the top of the results, which are primarily about gates and fences. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate with what? Tomdo08 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Double Gate' is not the same as 'doublegate'. 'Double Gate' is a distinguished term, it should never redirect to a term written differently. Instead 'Double Gate' (or in this case 'Huldah Gates') could have a Template:Redirect. Tomdo08 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that: 'doublegate' in electronics normally is not used alone, it's used as attribute. Tomdo08 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A couple of links where the terms ('Double Gate' and 'Triple Gate') are used as known identity:

Tomdo08 (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What would a disambiguation page look like if one were put at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Pinging MShabazz and AngusWOOF since they mentioned disambiguation in their comments.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Also pinging Malik Shabazz as I just noticed it is the primary account of MShabazz.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical articles still refer to Double-gate or Double Gate devices. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and even refer to them as DG MOSFETs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above. I think it's reasonable to assume that the phrase can mean different things --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 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.

Nicastrese[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 Nicastro. While this isn't the place to rename pages, a little discussion is always illuminating. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Nicastro; Nicastrese is a generic adjective meaning 'of/from/pertaining to Nicastro', and is not some kind of neologism pertaining to a goat breed. Nicastrese history is rich, though we say little about it yet. Just googling around, I see that there are: a dance (and music accompanying it) called the tarantello Nicastrese, possibly a viable topic; a Nicastrese hot pepper (peperone Nicastrese or peperoncino piccante Nicastrese among other names) which may be a viable topic, too; various other culinary terms; historical Nicastrese costume (which you can buy on eBay); a Nicastrese Women's Society of St. Anthony of Padua that even has a branch in New York; and so on. Because references in English are often about the goat or its cheese (which might be a viable topic of its own), use {{redirect|Nicastrese|the goat breed|Nicastrese goat}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, oppose. Move the article back to this title (and please don't ask me why McCandlish thought it needed to be moved in the first place). We don't disambiguate things that don't need to be disambiguated; if we had a page on the Tarantella Nicastrese (NB spelling) it would be at that title, the peperoncino (which is the same thing as the "peperone", a small hot Capsicum annuum often stuffed and preserved in oil) would be at Peperoncino Nicastrese, and so on. The goat is the only candidate for this title at the moment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Execept we wouldn't, per WP:USEENGLISH; we'd have Nicastrese pepper and Nicastrese tarantello (or tarantella – sources vary on the spelling); see Category:Chili peppers, and Category:Dances (and subcats thereof).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget for now per nominator and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. The fact that Nicastrese goat is the only article with the exact string "Nicastrese" doesn't make it primary for the bare demonym. Disambiguate later when we have more discussion of the dialect, the olive cultivar, and all the other stuff that can be known by the bare demonym. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:43, 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) 13:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to the nominator @SMcCandlish: Given that you personally nominated this for a requested move, and that RM failed to achieve consensus, how exactly did the article end up at the new title? I don't think this RfD should proceed unless we have a satisfactory answer to that. --NYKevin 06:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved in a later RM that was more narrow [6]. See also the other results at WP:BREEDDAB; it's entirely routine at this point to disambiguate breed names that coincide with actual or plausible demonyms or geonyms. The idea that there's something controversial here is pure fiction (more specifically, years of tendentious anti-disambiguation and anti-WP:NATURALDISambiguation by Justlettersandnumbers, whom you'll see on the opposing side of almost all successful RMs listed there).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. Split the baby. Retarget with hatnote and with no prejudice against this RfD being overturned by a later RM or RfD, particularly in the event the cheese gets created or an RM decides to move the goat back to the original title. RfD is not the appropriate venue for precluding either of those outcomes.
    @Justlettersandnumbers: RfD is also not the appropriate venue for overturning a previous RM. If you want it moved back, go discuss it at RM, not here. --NYKevin 03:17, 4 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.

Thathal[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 restore. A WP:BLAR was objected to, so restoring the article is the natural next step. If deletion of the article is still desired, that can be hashed out at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of them at the target article, which has been cleaned of unsourced/non-notable entries over a period of many years. Can't find any reliable sources that would justify expansion of the redirect into a standalone article. Sitush (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add the basic info from these two classes of Jats and Rajput who belong to this clan at least. There are Hindu Thathals in Jammu who are Jats majority of muslim are Jats along with a few Rajputs. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.142.147 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are suggesting, sorry. However, if a clan is not notable then it isn't notable. That doesn't mean the article cannot be recreated if things change in the future. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete as this only became a redirect a week ago, having been an article for almost a decade and having a substantial editing history (including on the talk page). No matter how trusted the nom is in these matters, I really can't see how this could get deleted without AfD. Until that happens, a temporary solution would be to redirect to Jats of Azad Kashmir. Whatever happens to this redirect it should probably also be applied to Thathaal, Thathaal (clan), Thathar, Thothaal, Thothaal/Thathaal, Thothal/Thathaal and Thothar. – Uanfala (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no mention. We should not redirect an unsourced something to an article that does not mention them. And a redirect cannot go to AfD. Yes, the article has been around for years and it has never been reliably sourced. People have had plenty of time to fix that. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of mentioned at that target, but if the lack of a proper mention is a concern, then the "lite" alternative to restoring and sending to AfD will be to restore without sending to AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If by "sort of mentioned" you are referring to its entry in a navbox at the bottom of the Jats of Azad Kashmir then that is no mention at all, is it? The box exists so people can navigate to valid articles, not to validate the existence of articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment--Pathetic article-qualities, resulting in draconic cleanups that leads to the manifestation of a RFD rather than an AFD, could hardly be blamd along the lines of-- side-stepping the process.If you wish to challenge the cleanup, restore the non-redirected state (pending which an AFD may be launched) or if you wish to preserve the redirect, please provide the target that properly mentions them, backed up by sources.Winged BladesGodric 07:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just commenting (I've already !voted above) that in the absence of further input, the best course of action is to restore the pre-redirect version (this is after the "draconic cleanup" referenced above). As this one-sentence stub doesn't have any glaring content issues, and there are plenty of sources (if individually unreliable) on the web to verify this is not a hoax, it's only a question of notability, so it could be left to the initiative of interested parties to take that to AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that you and I are going to have a big falling out at some point regarding this rampant inclusionism that just wastes the time of other people. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested, and I'm not an inclusionist. Although I do take some of the blame for wasting everyone's time: I should have simply closed this discussion and reopened it as an AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 17:17, 3 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.

Jewish fraternity[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 without prejudice against creation of a new topical index at this title. Deryck C. 13:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Alpha Epsilon Pi is not the only Jewish Fraternity. Tau Delta Phi and Sigma Alpha Mu come from similarly Jewish backgrounds and are now non-sectarian. Perhaps one day it will go to a page on the history of Jewish Fraternities and Sororities, but I don't think the current redirect is appropriate Naraht (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or turn into a disambiguation page. If someone is searching for the "jewish frat" they probably are looking for Alpha Epsilon Pi, but the nominator makes a good point, so why not just turn into a disambiguation?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the topics are known as "Jewish fraternity" (that is, "Jewish fraternity" could be in contention for the name of the article), it wouldn't be a disambiguation page. It could be turned into a list article, or better, moved to a title like List of Jewish fraternities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's do that then, create the list and then redirect there.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category was created on 23 January 2018. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 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.

Crystal flash[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) 12:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technique not mentioned in the target article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to the nom's point, there's also a chain of convenience stores (of questionable notability) in the United States that goes by the same name. Steel1943 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as obscure game mechanic --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first search result is a Michigan fuel distribution company. [7] [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this seems too unclear to be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:53, 7 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.

Mochtroid[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) 12:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target page. Implausible to redirect to Metroid, given they are not Metroids but failed clones of them. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:40, 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.

Omega Cannon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 8#Omega Cannon

Chozo Ruins[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) 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this area does appear in the game, it is an overly vague redirect considering that there is a Chozo ruin in many Metroid games, including an entire level that takes place within them in Metroid Zero Mission. Chozo Ruins are not something particularly unique about Metroid Prime. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:02, 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.

Ice Spreader[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. For those interested, some good, classic RfD ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:51, 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.

Wavebuster[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. Ahh the good ol' days ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as another causalty of the deleted lists of Metroid items or weapons that now fits with WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (gameplay items) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 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.

Thermal Visor[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 Visor. Per the below, seems the most useful (thinking about astronauts), although Visor could definitely use some work. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is too vague and broad. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Thermal vision as more likely broad article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to suggest that, too, but a visor is something different. However, it appears that the usage of the term in-game refers to a thermal vision device. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Eye protection which covers googles, helmets and visors. Or Visor in general. All those can help protect the eyes and face from intense heat and light, and of course physical impact. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article only mentions a Scan Visor, but that there are other visors with different abilities. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 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.

Prime 3[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 Prime (symbol). Prime 3-manifold redirects to Prime decomposition (3-manifold), which feels a stretch. I'm also — on a whim — going to point Prime 2 there as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague and confusing redirect. It could refer to prime numbers or some other mathematical concept. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:47, 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.

Metroid Prime Revolution[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) 16:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution was the development name for the Wii, implausible redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the game came out over a year after the Wii name was announced meaning it likely was never know as Metroid Prime Revolution.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget List of Metroid media as there are multiple Metroid games under Wii. Also okay with deleting since Revolution wasn't really a fully developed name release. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 6 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_January_31&oldid=1056476834"