Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2018.

Essen Hauptbahnhof (VRR)[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. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the DAB (VRR) on this and similar place names Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is needed for the Template:s-line as in all other Essen Stadtbahn station articles. Otherwise it won't work. Or the template has to be adapted.--Greywin (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't this just a case of having a redirect with an unnecessary disambiguation, which happens all the time? Something formatted like 'X Railway Station (Y Nation)' going to 'X Railway Station' that should be kept? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per arguments above. Agathoclea (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, correct and harmless and apparently useful for technical reasons. We typically do not delete unnecessary redirects, only harmful ones. —Kusma (t·c) 14:10, 17 March 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.

Dslayer[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) 09:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been some kind of WP:GAMEGUIDE content originally. Term is not relevant or mentioned on any linked to pages of the disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. This weird term is used in a bunch of places online, none of them seeming to be notable. We can just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems to be related to usernames more than any particular term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dte per abv. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
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.

Olot volcanic field[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of old volcanic fields around the globe. Not specific enough at all Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It doesn't say "old", it says "olot". As far as I can tell, that is a unique name of this particular location.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly {{R with potential}}. The Olot Volcanic Field has significant coverage, e.g. [1], [2]. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw that is what failing eyesight in olot age gets you. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 17 March 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.

Useless redirects to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 24#Useless redirects to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles

Bolonium[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/retarget.
(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, possibly a one-off joke. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fictional list of chemical elements here, maybe it could be included.--Pwnagic (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As fictioncruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even in the context of the episode, it's just a minor joke. This seems more like a trivia point than anything else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or add original contents of article to the list of fictional elements. Did anybody bother looking at the page history of Bolognium/Bolonium before recommending deletion? It had contents including two notable authors, one use quoted, and multiple uses in television programs before someone turned it into a redirect back in 2009. Not sure if the same person ever added any of the content to the list of fictional elements, but it's certainly more likely to be encountered than some of the other entries, and there seem to be more sources. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just added Bolognium to the nomination, as the redirect has already been tagged. – Uanfala (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added the original contents of the article, plus some additional references and better citations, to the list of fictional elements. Since users might not know that such a list exists, it makes sense to have redirects to its contents. I didn't remember there was a list when I googled the term a few days ago, and landed on the redirect. In fact, why would we even want to delete redirects from terms someone might search for? P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget both to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles, where P Aculeius has created an excellent discussion of the term's use in literature over a long period of time, not limited in scope to the Simpsons franchise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget both to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles, now that it's given a proper entry in that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 20 March 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.

Parsons, Jim[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 per special weather statement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has been creating redirects from Smith, Joe to Joe Smith. Are these desirable? If we need or want such redirects let a bot create them all. If not, we should delete them. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please refer to the clear evidence of these redirects being useful presented on my talk page by BD2412. Thank you. Goveganplease (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They're called {{R from sort name}}, and their usefulness is quite desirable. In any system using Western name order, surnames are useful for sorting, and are common ways of referring to people. Should a bot create more? Quite possibly, yes—it could use DEFAULTSORT info from articles on people. But this is hardly an all-or-nothing proposition, and deleting those that exist is a reckless suggestion. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if we didn't have precedent for keeping these redirects before, they still seem at least partially useless. Some readers might be unfamiliar with Wikipedia and seek to look up people on a "[Last Name], [First Name]" basis based on prior experiences with encyclopediae. There's also the fact that I can't see these redirects as doing any harm; it's not as if they're at all misleading. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and unambiguous. Redirects like these can be useful in linking author names in references and bibliographies. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per everyone. I'm not a big fan of these redirects, but they have their uses, and there's no chance of them being deleted. Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I originally was gonna go with delete as these are utterly pointless .... however ...... when making a point Swift, Taylor, Williams, Robbie, Beckham, David all exist and so my !vote was all but pointless really hence the change....., As (IMHO) pointless as these are they seem to exist everywhere so deleting one isn't really going to achieve much if makes sense, –Davey2010Talk 17:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note Beckham, David was originally Beckham David so I've moved that. –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 19 March 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.

User:Shavicvanjill[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 soft redirect to Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood. Standard middleground, not hurting anybody. PROD was denied, anyway ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage redirect to a page they wrote, which I've PRODed due to it being too reliant on primary sources and only serving to promote. A redirect like this shouldn't be necessary. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignore or Remove if the mainspace page gets deleted the redirect can be simply ignored or removed by an edit. We can't delete the userpage out of existence like a redirect page. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing links to the userpage and the editor was only on for 5 days in 2012 and hasn't returned since, I'm sure they've fotgotten about it by now, Seems pointless keeping around. –Davey2010Talk 17:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to user talk page or simply ignore. I think it is harmless but I guess retargetting it to the user's talk page won't hurt --Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please no. If a user wants that sort of thing, fine, but otherwise, it's an unpleasant WP:SURPRISE whenever I want to find out about a user and just get thrown to their talk page. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or soft redirect Those are our usual courses of action with these situations. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 20 March 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.

Kennedy dynasty[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) 05:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth retargeting to O'Kennedy, an actual dynasty? Or the disambiguation page Kennedy? Favoring the political slang over a more accurate usage feels wrong. BDD (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If that is really such a problem, a hatnote can solve it. No need to change the redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This kind of terminology is usually associated with the officeholder-filled Kennedy family rather than anybody else with that last name. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and solve confusion with hatnotes. The American political family dominates search results for "Kennedy dynasty" and similar searches, even if you add in "Irish" or "Ireland" (the family has Irish roots). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 20 March 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.

DJ Mixify[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, G8. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a deleted page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 March 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.

Aprokgang[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. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not in target page: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 08:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Haram: Please add the term to the article with a sourced explanation; without it the redirect is not helpful. Thanks. PamD 22:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)@Garam:(typo -phone doing autocorrect!) PamD 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, here are so many Romanizations of Korean out there, that listing every possible alternative spelling is silly, to be charitable. Not every possible redirect needs to be listed at the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: If a term is important enough for it to be a useful redirect I'd think it worth adding to the article to show the reader why they have been redirected and that the redirect wasn't a mistake. PamD 15:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC) PamD 20:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Haram: Looks good, thanks.PamD 20:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC) @Garam: Phone auto"correcting" again! PamD 20:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw now that the term appears in the article to show why it is redirected. PamD 20:42, 19 March 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.

Children's Book Review Index[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not in target page: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. If it's a subdivision, merged title etc then please add sourced info to say so. PamD 08:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added term to target page with reference. --Shortride (talk) 14:22, 16 March 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.

Rajmahali language[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term does not appear in target article: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 08:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old alternate name for 'Malto', quite limited in usage, though as with Gaudian languages, these did once have slight currency, and I added them more to save headscratching as to the reference than because they’re satisfactory terms. Gherkinmad (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gherkinmad: Please add the term to the article and explain it, so that the reader following the redirect isn't puzzled. Thanks. PamD 15:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: It’s too late, the reader clearly was puzzled, and she knows someone carries the can. Gherkinmad (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as the reader will now no longer be puzzled after @Gherkinmad:'s improvement. Thanks. PamD 07:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Thanks. Rather know than not know. Gherkinmad (talk) 21:24, 18 March 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.

The Blue and the Gold[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 Blue and Gold. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible way that this is the only school that uses these two colors Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do have an alma mater song that's either called "Blue and Gold March" or "The Blue and the Gold March". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 19 March 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.

That which appears[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) 09:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be multiple books and artworks that have this title, and this redirect based merely on a translation may be discouraging articles on some of these. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:15, 16 March 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.

Hinduism in the Caribbean[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) 09:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Hinduism does not seem to be noteworthy in any of these Caribbean nations. These redirects are misleading because none of these targets offer any information on Hinduism, nor could I find a suitable alternative target. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Isn't the article 'Hinduism in the West Indies' an appropriate target for most of these? If the page needs additional information, then more can be added. It appears in flux at the moment, but there seems to be proper citations there with context given. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if reliable sources can be found that documents Hinduism in any of these countries, that information should be added to that page. As it stands now, however, there is not any information on Hinduism in any of these countries, so it is currently not an appropriate target for any of these. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Pointless and misleading. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - misleading; we do not have any information on these topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. We know what sourcing it would take for it to stay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for now as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 21 March 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 Kart Wii (working title)[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. Delete (working title) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense – a working title is, by defintion, different from the release title. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - Neither of these seem worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. They have served their purpose. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as rather pointless - Makes more sense to create an article when you know the name. –Davey2010Talk 17:12, 19 March 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 Kart 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) 09:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the time Mario Kart Wii was announced, the Wii was no longer called the Revolution. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The exact name "Mario Kart Revolution" seems to have been used a bunch of times by fans before things got formally announced. However, all of that chatter appears to be in random forums and the like, nothing being notable. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:45, 18 March 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_March_16&oldid=1036305663"