Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 4, 2018.

Paul Cox, Artist[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. <pedantry>Musicians are artists, too!</pedantry> ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left by page move to Paul Cox (artist), subsequently deleted. Now redirects to a dab with no artists. Certes (talk) 22:27, 4 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.

Ethiop[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn.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) 07:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit too implausible of a typo. Also, it's a Neelix redirect... Thegreatluigi (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator. Well, I got this one completely wrong. That'll teach me to just assume something is an implausible typo and not bother to check it properly... Thegreatluigi (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • That it appears to be a typo is mere proof that this is useful to have. I'll admit to being a bit biased, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or whatever) per Amorymeltzer and WP:RFD#K5. Bit of a stretch, maybe, but not ambiguous. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:48, 4 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.

African lions and big cats by country[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 Mostly delete. I've tried to close or comment in this a half dozen times over the last week or two, but was hopeful we'd get more input. We have not, and there's no point in prolonging this another month. I'm keeping a couple where they are still used in the page, but otherwise deleting the rest. I'm actually marginally in favor of keeping all of these, but I couldn't figure out a way to comment that I thought would change the outcome; I still think this should be closed as delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in target article: nothing to indicate that this is a useful redirect. PamD 21:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo1pard: Adding "External links" is not the way to go about this. If you believe that these alternative names are valid and useful, please add them to the text of the article, using your sources as references. Thanks. PamD 22:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I turned links into references to add them and information in them to the texts of Barbary lion, East African lion and Southern African lion. Leo1pard (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 4 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 richest people of Ukraine 2009[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. Note: List of richest people of Ukraine (2009), List of richest people of Ukraine (2010), and List of richest people of Ukraine (2006) are all Rs with history, unlike this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the only article on Wikipedia that starts with "The richest people of...", this redirect has no precedent and no use, it is not clear why it was created (its creator is no longer active). No article links to there, and WP:RFD#KEEP#3 does not seem to apply to it. Such lists are written in a different format. Shalom11111 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not useful to have a yearly list if the list it redirects to isn't formatted as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 5 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.

Tally board[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 Tally. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a dab page; not obvious which of the many entries would be an appropriate target, but term is not appropriate as a redirect to the dab page itself. PamD 23:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page Tally. I'd never heard of the voting-related meaning. In UK, a tally board is a board or slate on which you keep tally of a score (e.g. in pub games). "Tally" can also be a near-synonym of North American "tab" in the sense of bar bill. I don't think there is a WP:PRIMARY meaning. Narky Blert (talk) 16:47, 5 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.

Doobious[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) 00:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this necessary? Articles I've seen for this refer either to a non-notable band or a purposed mix of the word "dubious" and "doobie" There's also an indie film called Doobious Sources [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While misspelling "dubious" like that isn't entirely beyond the bounds of plausibility, considering someone typing in "Doobious" is just as likely to be searching for something else, I don't think this redirect is terribly helpful. Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a lot of typos that merit becoming redirects, but this doesn't seem worth keeping to me either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 9 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.

Shit pump[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. Killiondude (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how common this slang term is, but judging from the fact it's had 2 hits in the last 30 days, I doubt it's common enough to justify the redirect. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 4-13 hits per month since they started keeping track of stats, otherwise the redirect has been around since 2008. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe it's not as obscure as I assumed. I should probably have checked that beforehand... Still, I don't think we need redirects for every single possible slang term, do we? Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Television is #7 on urban dictionary's list; the rest are terms for "useless person," perhaps particularly associated with Canada. I imagine traffic might be more associated with those uses. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the traffic is bot background noise. No one is using this. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. @Legacypac: it's been explained to me before that the new pageviews tool filters out bot views, so those 9 hits in the last 90 days were likely to have been humans. But that's far from enough activity to justify this redirect which might not be accurate anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:51, 4 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.

Carstairs family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 14#Carstairs family

1900s walt timeline[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too specific to be a useful redirect. I can't imagine many people typing in precisely "1900s walt timeline".. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:15, 4 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.

Justin Bieber's hair[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the implausibility, and the fact it's had no hits at all in the last 30 days, the actual article makes almost no mention at all of his hair specifically. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It looks like content from the article previously at Justin Bieber's hair was merged without attribution into the Justin Bieber article by Dr. Blofeld on 10 April 2011. So, per WP:RK#1, this should probably be kept, although the fact that (as far as I can see) no attribution was made at the time complicates this, as does the fact that the content was only in the article for 24 hours or so, unless it was restored and removed again sometime in the intervening years. If there were no attribution-related reason to keep then I would concur with the nomination that the redirect is useless to the reader as the target article mentions the singer's hair only once in passing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a valid topic and a pointless redirect. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R with history}} - if Dr. Blofeld copied the content into the main article then the history is required for attribution even if it is no longer in use (it exists in the history). The redirect is otherwise harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:53, 4 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.

Cadbury's (Brand of yummy chocolate)[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) 00:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fairly implausible redirect, thanks to the word "yummy", if nothing else. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:04, 4 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.

Draft:Level structure[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 keep. As discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects, the consensus was to keep these and not to delete after a period of time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non useful redirect from draft space to main space.

({{db-r2}} does not work in this case) D.Lazard (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The redirect from Draft namespace to mainspace is specifically endorsed by policy to provide linking history of the page, and to encourage other editors that might want to create a draft by the title be encouraged to edit mainspace. All things that would have been known if you actually read the operating documents. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:RK and consider withdrawing this nomination. Hasteur (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RK says "avoid deleting redirects if they have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge". Here the talk page history has been moved with the draft, and presently, the talk page history of the draft is reduced to the move log. Thus WP:RK does not apply. Your argument about "encouraging to edit mainspace" is a nonsense, as if we follow it, we should create, in the draft space, a redirect for every article of the main space. By the way, it is surprisingly that an editor that has been very involved in removing stale drafts, and specifically Taku's drafts, is now against removing useless drafts, specifically when Taku has removed the draft from the main space. D.Lazard (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hasteur and per WP:CHEAP and since it is a {{R from move}} that targets where the content moved to. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe a proposal can be made for automatically deleting such redirects after a certain period of time has elapsed since the move, but until that happens, let's not debate them individually here as there are tens of thousands of them. At any rate, I don't see how this particular one can be deleted anytime soon: it was the title of the page for three years and it was only moved today. Linkrot isn't such a big issue with drafts as it is with articles, but it's still an issue. – Uanfala (talk) 21:31, 4 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.

7-1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 14#7-1

Genesis (2018)[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 Genesis. Killiondude (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro wrestling events tend to be dabbed with just a year, but for this event named like this is terribly vague and could refer to Genesis (2018 film). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:12, 4 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_4&oldid=1037876651"