Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 21, 2018.

Printer Colors[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. Would've accepted R3. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirect. I retargeted to Color printing (it was pointing to CMYK) No idea why it needed to be in caps as there is no media of that title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:29, 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.

Traveller (typeface)[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 Monotype typefaces. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This typeface is not mentioned in the article British Rail. The name has been applied to at least three different typefaces; searching for this typeface using Google turns up the following:

plus a number of others that are apparently identical to one of these. They are clearly highly stylised, each having a number of distinctive features, from which I can say that British Railways/British Rail has never used any typeface resembling any of these. In fact, the typeface used by BR until 1965 was Gill Sans; that used from 1965 is Rail Alphabet, both of which are very different from Traveller. We do not seem to have an article named Traveler (font), Traveler font, Traveler (typeface), Traveler typeface, Traveller (font), Traveller font, Traveller typeface to which this redirect could be retargetted. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entry "Traveller (typeface)" in {{Monotype typefaces}} used to be piped to British Rail. When I was cleaning up that template last year, I removed the piping and created this redirect as a replacement, taking it as read that the connection to BR was correct. The entry and the piping were originally added by User:Blythwood. I suggest he should be consulted about it. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64–I'm happy for this redirect to be deleted or (probably better) redirected to "Monotype typefaces". Traveller certainly did exist, it was a professionally made metal typeface (unlike the above amateur or non-notable ones). It was designed by Cambridge University Press designer John Peters (for more information see here, here and here) and manufactured by Monotype for the British Transport Commission. That said, to be honest I've never had the impression that they made much use of it–as you note, they mostly used Gill Sans, Rail Alphabet and other common typefaces and according to a mention in Fine Print "it was never used as originally intended for British Rail notices. The series was made available for general use in 1964". (I think if it had seen serious use from anyone they would have made an italic for it.) I have to admit when I made the redirect I was hoping I would do something else with the redirect, perhaps do an article for Peters, but I never got round to it. Blythwood (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 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.

Warping spacetime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Warping spacetime

Caryophyllus[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. Please perform fixes if necessary. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obscure taxonomic headache that Wikipedia doesn't need to be making more prominent. Caryophyllus has been used as the name of two unrelated genera, one in the family Myrtaceae (where it's a synonym of Syzygium), the other in the family Caryophyllaceae (where it's a synonym of Dianthus). Neither use of Caryophyllus is currently permitted under the rules of botanical nomenclature (a little more detail can be found here).

Redirect to one of the two possibile genera is not appropriate. A dab page is a possibility, and a redirect to wikt:Caryophyllus in another. However, I'd prefer to see the redirect deleted, so Caryophyllus can languish in deserved obscurity. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as Plantdrew suggested above. The disambiguation page can be worded to explicitly state that these terms should no longer be used. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab would be useful. It's nice to have old terms linked to their proper targets, and I'm definitely for Oiyarbepsy's nudge to state that these are archaic. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 29 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.

DK King of Swing DS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an alternate name for the target. Pageviews stats show zero hits. ToThAc (talk) 13:53, 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.

Boto pink[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. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted as Boto pink (also titled Dolphin Pink) were totally made-up colours with no grounding in WP:RS, and have themselves been removed from Shades of pink. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment was there a particular organization that made or trademarked the color? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF:. No, definitely not. There is no organisation involved in this. I am firmly of the opinion that one user simply took one picture of a Boto Dolphin (which is very variable in colour, sampled one random bit of the image, created RGB colours and proposed a page for it. I originally PROD-ed that page (diff), but the editor (who has a curious history of making some unusual baseless page content linked to self-published works, and possibly associated with a number of other SPA IP addresses) added it to the Shades of pink page, initially under the name Dolphin pink (see diff). They even used the image linked to above as the citation for the colour! I challenged this content with a 'cn' tag in November 2017 (diff, then came back four months later when no substantiation had been provided and deleted the Dolphin pink/Boto pink section (see diff). Bringing this redirect to RfD now is simply to mop up the dross left behind by these irksome and pointless contributions. I should probably have CSD-A11-ed it in the first place, but like to give people benefit of the doubt where I can. (Oh, and my apologies for overlooking responding to you in a prompt manner.) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:58, 28 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.

Architecture of Antigua and Barbuda[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. Normally, I'd prefer all redirects under discussion to be appropriately tagged, but since 1. nominator mentioned them en masse, 2. we've had them listed and checked for nearly the whole week, and 3. the creator has given their blessing for the ones without a section, I am fine deleting these. That being said, I will gladly restore any of them at anyone's request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of what looks like dozens of "Architecture of country" redirects created in February that redirect to Country#Architecture - where there is no such section or any mention of architecture in the article. I found these when working on Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors. Pointless to have a redirect to an article that doesn't discuss the topic. I believe all should be deleted. MB 03:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but a handful of those redirects actually do land on the topic. It was intended as a placeholder for future development. The wiki links already existed in multiple location. I redirected to the topic when I could and simply made a placeholder when the topic was not was not fully developed. I understand deleting the superfluous ones, but please preserve the applicable ones. Mathew105601 (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathew105601: I compiled a list below of the redirects that don't target an "architecture" section. Are these okay to delete? -- Tavix (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of redirects
  • Keep per Mathew105601's comment, and per {{R with possibilities}}. ToThAc (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Weak delete as there are actually no sections on architecture per country, but we should probably review the other superfluous redirects per Tavix's comment. ToThAc (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ToThAc: Mathew105601 mentioned that he understood deleting the superfluous ones. Are you okay with that as well? -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Architecture of Guadalajara, Architecture of Havana, Architecture of Mexico City, Architecture of Miami and Architecture of the Dominican Republic have valid targets. Delete the rest. MB 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, thanks. I went back to my list and the links were purple through Trinidad and Tobago, which means I somehow didn't check the last ones (not sure how that happened!). -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all redirects from my list that have not been stricken. It doesn't look like I'm going to get the WP:G7 resolution I was looking for, so I might as well !vote: it is misleading to have "Architecture of" redirects targeting a place that does not discuss architecture. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 26 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.

1.2 liter engine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible arbitrary engine size. Why not 1.3 liter? Why not 5.0 liter? 440 cubic inches. Don't know why this exists. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - The redirect has use (and one could create the rest) however the target is the issue ... Engine displacement doesn't really fill the reader up with knowledge inregards to litre engines ..... There must be a better target? (if there isn't then Delete). –Davey2010Talk 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was referring to the most used car engines however looking on Google 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 all seemingly commonly used and so as per your comment it'd be stupid to create every single car engine litre so I fully endorse deletion, I still think the most common ones could be used however keeping this would just set a precedent of "Oh this exists lets create 1.3, 1.4 etc" –Davey2010Talk 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comment reply directly above. –Davey2010Talk 22:08, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21&oldid=1036307850"