Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2018.

Template:Alb[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Template:Alb

Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures[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 wrong forum. [I think this is better addressed at Categories for Discussion and I've opened a discussion there at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 24#Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures. (non-admin closure)] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow to East Asian culture only. Overwhelming articles reflect this style only seem to apply to Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Tiger parenting has its roots in Chinese Confucian origin and Imperial Examinations through Imperial Chinese history. No evidence of Tiger Parenting ever taken root in Afghanistan or the Philippines for example Backendgaming (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close, reverse nominator's category move & depopulation, and send to WP:CFD for a proper discussion. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:15, 23 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.

Basic tools in nutrition[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Tools" isn't a well-attested term in the realm of nutrition, so it's vague what this may refer to. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 22 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.

Mathhew Shepprd act[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An obscure spelling that would probably never help anyone redirect to this page. Goveganplease (talk) 17:54, 22 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.

Magadize[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 1#Magadize

Dr. Sellappan Nirmala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 30#Dr. Sellappan Nirmala

L'Affaire Russe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. A few reasons:
  • Discussion below is somewhere on the no consensus to delete spectrum
  • The previous discussion ended less than two weeks before this started. If you want to challenge an outcome, the proper venue is WP:DRV, not restarting a new one 11 days later.
  • There's a mention now which, whether appropriate or not, makes this even less likely to delete.

In short, no consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. No evidence of widespread usage in English-language sources, just a one-off catchy blog headline. See prior RfD discussion, which was closed as no consensus, thus keeping the redirect in place. Consequently, PamD felt compelled to add the term to the article, while noting it was a stretch (see this thread in the article talk page). We should now eliminate both the redirect and the mention of the term in the article. — JFG talk 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Lawfare uses the term extensively in it's coverage see here. However, other media outlets have not really picked up on the term.Avisnacks (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the reason to delete. Lawfare (blog) is a blog that coined the term, and it wasn't picked up anywhere else. It's not even used frequently in French-language sources. — JFG talk 09:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current title has less claim to WP:Common name (0 use off wiki) compared to the redirect (1 use off wiki). The purpose of redirects must surely be to improve accessibility to the relevant information. Presumably Avisnacks read said blog and wished to further research said topic on Wikipedia. He faffed around to find Wikipedia's convoluted title and created the redirect to save the next reader that faff. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would somebody type in a French phrase when they are looking for information about Russia interfering in a US election? Thundermaker (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't even a redirect in the French-language Wikipedia. Translated, it means "The Russian Affair", which could refer to many different things. Thundermaker (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"French interference": good one! — JFG talk 11:36, 24 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.

Wikipedia:Trump exemption[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 per G7. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive and POV redirect created to make a WP:POINT in an ongoing discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Ranking Trump in relation to other presidents — JFG talk 08:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing...[which] disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia - that is not the case here. The redirect has been used to make a succinct point that differs with the POV of User:JFG. Breaking the link while the conversation is still ongoing is a below the belt method of turning an opposing editor's comment into nonsense. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Seems like a joke in poor taste rather than an attempt to helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation. JorgeLaArdilla interprets the situation quite exactly. Kudos for that! Before seeing this, I had already replied here. I'll bring over the relevant part in a little bit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and changed the redirect to save it for use as a private essay I'll write. Unfortunately I now have to leave and can't add a more complete comment now, so my diff will have to do for now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your basic assumption is a BIG policy violation by refusing to AGF? You have no idea what kind of essay this will be. There is a lot of latitude for personal essays. Please reconsider.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe
  • Did you notice MY preferred version? It's not to IAR. I did not make the latest, very problematic, change. I don't want thst version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGF has nothing to do with it ..... Whether it's a redirect, an essay or a gallery of the bloke the point is the title is not appropriate, Yes I did notice hence the essay part in my !vote - Allowing this would set the precedent that this sort of thing is okay ... when it's not, If you recreate this as an essay then it'll still be back here regardless so it might be a better idea to give up with this. –Davey2010Talk 02:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we can cross that bridge if it is ever necessary. Right now it isn't, and don't be surprised if I'm not good enough to do it in a totally policy-compliant, non-disruptive, and likely humorous manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting action on this. Just delete it already. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:07, 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.

Ythsie[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 procedural closure. Thanks to PamD for converting it into an article.(non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This small feature located here (less than a settlement) is not mentioned at the generic target. Tarves appears to be its civil parish but because Scottish parishes have little recognition that could be questionable. Its farmhouses are mentioned at List of listed buildings in Tarves, Aberdeenshire so maybe that's another target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it is hardly notable, but it does exist. Which criteria for deletion does it satisfy? It doesn't appear to be misleading, confusing, abusive, meaningless, spam, or broken in a technical sense. It is also a long-standing (ie old) redirect. Might make sense to let this discussion work through before nominating the dozens (hundreds?) of such redirects that one editor created a decade ago. Or list them all in one go. Lithopsian (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the target is way too broad, I have pointed out a potential targets but I don't think any are that viable. It is part of a large number of generic redircts, many of which I have fixed, see User:Sjorford/PrimroseGuy redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is confusing to have a redirect target an article that offers no information on the term. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that for Windsoredge there is more point because at least it is where is would be mentioned (Nailsworth, its civil parish) like Willows Green is in Felsted, but Ythsie is obviously not going to be mentioned at Aberdeenshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced its a sound redirect, that article deals with "North Ythsie Farmhouse" and "South Ythsie Farmhouse" but not "Ythsie". That's like having Manchester redirect to List of football clubs in England. That said I think that because those 2 Listed buildings is what Ythsie appears to make up, I'm happy with it to be targeted there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have created a stub - Ordnance Survey recognises it as a hamlet, that's good enough for me; found a few refs and an image, etc. Can we now Close this RfD and tidy up the stub to remove the redirect? PamD 23:06, 23 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.

Nintendo N5[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) 04:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another ancient(?) name that isn't mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "N5" is an early name that appears to have been used by some popular publications. It's not just made up, but then would the Wii article need to list early names at all? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editorial consensus on writing video game history; after all, products tend to go through multiple titles before official release. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as shown by that Eurogamer article as an unofficial nickname for the Gamecube successor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - As it was used in early versions it obviously makes sense to keep this. –Davey2010Talk 19:23, 22 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.

Nintendo nplay[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very ancient name for the console - possibly a hoax in fact. Could not find it in any sources. Implausible redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Don't see any uses for NPlay except for other products like Uma [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 22 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.

GameCube 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Console was never called "Gamecube Revolution", only "Revolution". This is not a plausible redirect currently. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The successor to the GameCube was, at one time known as "Revolution". Hence the redirect is not impausible. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no news articles that combine the two brands as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All Google results seem to be all forum-related ...... There's doesn't seem anything here that can back up JorgeLaArdilla's !vote (If it was called as such then it would've been by a few people and not multiple sources). –Davey2010Talk 19:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the successor to the GameCube was once known as the Nintendo Revolution is not evidence that the system was ever known as GameCube Revolution and as stated there would be evidence that it was a commonly used term. I would also note that we don’t have Super Nintendo Entertainment System 64 as a redirect to to the SNES successor the Nintendo 64 nor does Wii U Switch redirect to the Nintendo Switch article.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 02:15, 23 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.

GameCube 2 (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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made while Wii was still called "Gamecube 2", but very implausible redirect now. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The successor to the GameCube was, at one time known as "Revolution". Hence the redirect is not impausible. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete You can have perhaps Gamecube 2 or Gamecube sequel but don't sit on the fence with a combined title, one of which was a working title, when there are no news articles that have publicized it as the combined one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard the system called the GameCube 2 Revolution.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 02:19, 23 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.

American Idol: The Search for a Superstar[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 American Idol (season 1). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should these be retargeted to American Idol (season 1) since apparently, this alternative title only represents the first season of American Idol. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OP has a valid point and should redirect the redirect. Either way that is a keep JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:20, 22 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.

Idolonfox[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this was a website for American Idol but now redirects to American Idol on ABC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information provided by by AngusWOOF would indicate that "Idol on fox" is a plausible search term.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would indicate it's still used on a daily basis, In some ways I feel it's useless and in other ways I feel we'd be doing a disadvantage to those searching for it. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 22 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.

American Idol Magazine[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. I normally dislike deleting old redirects with some history, but the lack of references and lack of actual merged content here makes it easier. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. (However, this redirect is a {{R from history}} that was blanked and redirected.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep American Idol Magazine desrves a mention in main article JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no mention of this magazine, and the former article can't be used to add a mention since it was completely unreferenced for its entire existence. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While it may "deserve" to be mentioned in the main article, it doesn't seem to be notable to exist on its own. Should someone wish to write a verifiable article, or redirect to a section in the main article about the magazine, the correct name is American Idol (magazine) Senator2029 “Talk” 02:45, 1 April 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.

Emett, (Frederick) Rowland[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created weird stylization of the name not used in any books or news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!. Should this format be allowable in general? Or only if they are highly likely to be looked up by the dictionary? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What tag should this entry have then? {{R from sort name}} ? {{R from alternative name}} ? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Separate Template for "ODNB stylization"? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a format used by a major publication, so it makes sense that someone may use it on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above - Seems an obvious keep. –Davey2010Talk 21:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_22&oldid=1036306071"