Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3
May 5 >

May 4[edit]

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

Alternative Life Form[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) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the character "Alf", the lead character of the target article's subject, stands for "Alien Life Form". For that reason, this redirect is an unlikely incorrect name, and thus ambiguous as a reader could be attempting to find something else if using this term to search. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An incognito search for the three words [1] seems to turn up Hypothetical types of biochemistry as the first result. --tronvillain (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with a hatnote This was originally created in 2006 as a duplicate of the target, and quickly redirected there. Very roughly about a third of the Google results for the exact phrase seem to be about the TV series so it's neither the primary topic nor an uncommon mistake. If there is a better target for the other uses then it should be retargetted there and a hatnote added. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what method are you using to get that Google result? My incognito search for ""alternative+life+form"&gl=us" returns almost nothing about ALF except the initial redirect - it's almost entirely about extremophiles, alien microbes, alien life, ("If we ever did meet any other intelligent alternative life form -- do you think it would be a benign and friendly encounter?"), Santa Clarita Diet, C. elegans, and various other random results, with ALF finally turning up on page 9 in a Russian video. -- tronvillain 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom given the subject is in caps like that and there aren't any terms in media that match this. If it were lower-case, you could weak retarget to Hypothetical types of biochemistry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine I feel that this could be better refined since "Alternative Life Form seems pretty vague. If not then it should be deleted.--Paleface Jack 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Mythical being[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 12#Mythical being

List of botanical cryptids[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 13#List of botanical cryptids

Cryptid whale[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 and retarget, though it occurs to me Cryptid cetacean might be more accurate given the "rhinoceros dolphin". --BDD (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not identified in the target article, nor does the target article mention the word "whale" at all. (However, Cryptid whale is a {{R with history}} as a result of a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 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.

List of cryptozoology organizations[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 and refine. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list of organizations at the target. (However, List of cryptozoology organizations is a {{R with history}} as the result of a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was just going to point that out. Human memory is terrible. *chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so it was me indeed — been a while :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems unlikely anyone is going to search for "list of cryptozoology organizations." --tronvillain (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC); edited 20:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tronvillain: I'm confused; did you mean to say "Keep" the redirects in existence and targeting where they do? Just asking since your "support" opinion is not a really clear due to the way you worded your statement. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, let me fix that. --tronvillain (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tronvillain: I think the edit you just performed ended up in the wrong section (this one) since you referenced "whales". Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It did. Had an edit conflict and pasted it into the wrong section.--tronvillain (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to the list that I've created at Cryptozoology#Organisations. We have articles about four organisations and there are plenty more out there that I haven't got time right to now to add to the list. I can't think why anyone would regard this as an implausible thing to search for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine As above I also think it is something people will look for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine - A redirect/merge should work here since editor @Thryduulf: created the list at Cryptozoology#Organisations. No real reason to keep a separate article on the subject when you have the same info at the main topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 5 May 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.

Alien and Paranormal Creatures[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. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. For example, the term "Alien" could refer to "Extraterrestrial life". Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Alien" is highly likely to be interpreted as "extraterrestrial life." --tronvillain (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lists of fictional species which lists everything that someone using this search term could be looking for, including extraterrestrial life. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paranormal would typically mean spirits and such which are different from cryptids. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems odd to have "and" in the middle of a redirect title in such a way. --Qetuth (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly unlikely, and even less likely with the Title Caps in it. I'm almost wondering if somebody was trying to boost Google hits for a book title or something...? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this doesn't seem helpful, and I question why it was created in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:18, 10 May 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.

Portal:Cryptozoology[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. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per similar rationale and consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 2#Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. No such portal exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I'm certainly willing to maintain and update it.--Auric talk 22:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about a cryptozoology portal, are you aware of any other extant pseudoscience portals? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. See above. I haven't been able to find any.--Auric talk 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reasoning stated in fringe theories noticeboard.--Paleface Jack 23:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Paleface Jack: I have no idea what you are talking about as you did not provide a link. Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry about that. Was just fending off the rantings, and accusations made by BloodofFox. Here (look under Black Shuck, English folklore, and cryptozoology): Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard--Paleface Jack 01:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Paleface Jack: I still have no idea what you're talking about. I searched for the word "portal" on that page and only saw an announcement about these discussions. The section you identified does not contain the word "portal". I'm not interested in reading a massive wall of text that mostly has to do with adding categories to a particular page about a mythological dog. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also pertained to the unexplained removal of cryptid categories from articles, cryptozoology in general and POV pushing by BloodofFox which is partially my reasoning behind my decision. I'm not entirely certain of this but I think the portal was deleted/removed, I will have to look at its history though.--Paleface Jack 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)--Paleface Jack 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, this guy. Ever been yelled at by a flat earther on a geology article? That's what's happening here. More information. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read any of my following comments explaining WHY I did that? Apparently not, otherwise you souldn't continue to bring this up BloodofFox. Name calling and undue accusations on Wikipiedia and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop it. Back to Oiyarbepsy's comment, I do think that the Black Shuck is more a Mythological/Folkloric creature rather than a cryptid as there is no sources that suggest otherwise. Something I stated before in the link that I supplied. My issue was more around the lines of both me and another editor (DarkKnight2149) have seen that a lot of what BloodofFox has been doing in regards to articles on Cryptozoology, I.E. removing categories without having a proper discussion/consensus with editors before making such edits (other edits are delved into in more detail here). If there never was a portal rather that there use to be and it was removed then I believe that one should be created rather than the whole thing removed. All I ask is that ALL alternatives be explored before deciding on deletion.--Paleface Jack 16:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Cryptid[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) 09:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently cryptid and cryptids redirect to list of cryptids. This follows a merge discussion that occurred in 2016 (see here). However, since then, the cryptozoology article has seen significant development, and now includes a robust section discussing the development of the term cryptid and its application (in short, the term was coined by cryptozoologists as a reflection of the pseudoscience's approach — its use is essentially restricted to cryptozoologists and in cryptozoology-influenced items, and isn't used by, say, academic zoologists or folklorists and remains obscure to the general public). Everything but the list itself and Eberhart's proposed classification scheme are included at cryptozoology, and with more detail and context. List of cryptids also refers readers to cryptozoology for more information. I propose we redirect cryptid and cryptids to cryptozoology, rather than the list. What do you think? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect from cryptids (plural) to list of cryptids as being a likely search target. Abstain/no strong opinion regarding the singular version. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both or weak retarget both to Cryptozoology. My preference is for "delete" is per WP:REDLINK, considering that it is quite ashtonishing that we have an article on the study of cryptids (Cryptozoology), but not about a cryptid itself is. (The latter part of what I just said is why I'm only "weak retarget" for Cryptology.) Also, in regards to any "keep" opinions; I oppose "keep", especially oppose keep for Cryptids; most plurals of any item, whether it be real or fictional, is to its singular form (such as how {{No redirect}} is a redirect that goes to Dog) rather than a list page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's that astonishing, since "cryptid" was defined after cryptozoology, as essentially "what cryptozoologists study."--tronvillain (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The original merge of the articles Cryptid and List of cryptids was unanimous. Both articles were lacking in some aspect and merging them gave us a single robust article with the term cryptid fully explained. It gave us the term "cryptid", it's definition, and an actual listing of cryptids all in one place. The cryptozoology article has certainly been re-written, but I'm not convinced it is a better place for this redirect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone looking for Cryptid (or tids) will be looking for an animal, not the study of them. re-writing list as an article about cryptids is a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slatersteven. Anyone who is looking for cryptozoology will find a link to it in the first sentence of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I'm going to say is that my reasoning for keeping it is the same as what I stated on the List of Cryptids article.--Paleface Jack 23:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: In their current states the list seems like the more appropriate target. Should the article-like intro to the list be moved in the future (eg to Cryptozoology), obviously these redirects should move with it. --Qetuth (talk) 11:43, 7 May 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.

Dale Coyne Racing with Vasser Sullivan[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) 20:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

created soon after the AfD for the advertorial at the same was closed. It amazes me why we would do this. The creator (who is blocked) of the advertorial gets what they wanted by having a redirect. it isn't about the article content, it is about the link to Wikipedia. I wish people would understand how SEO works. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment If I had known beforehand, that to make a redirect, I just had to edit the article and could bypass AfD entirely, I would have. I am the nominator of the article at AfD, which I shouldn't have done. I would have created this redirect originally myself had I bothered to read up on how before the article was created by the COI account, and no one would bat an eye. It's not about giving the guy "what he wants" (LOL), it's the fact that there is a full season, race winning entry to the 2018 IndyCar Series named "Dale Coyne Racing with Vasser Sullivan." I'm pretty sure that's notable enough to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:ORG enough to warrant a redirect. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:26, 4 May 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.

Kent Peak (Ravalli County, Montana)[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. REDLINKing seems helpful; can link at the dab. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 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.

Lindsay Shepherd[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. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target outside of a few headlines (ref title parameters) in the references section (not mentioned anywhere in article content itself). TheSandDoctor Talk 06:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Las Vegas shooter's girlfriend doesn't even get a redirect despite being listed in references, so no reason for Shepherd to get one. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was already deleted by RFD discussion in February, for exactly the same reason as it's up for discussion now, and then got recreated a few days ago with no new reasoning provided as to why it needs to exist for any reason compelling enough to void the prior RFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the WLU event. Relevance is ongoing since some universities e.g. UBC are in the process of drafting freedom of expression statements in response. Connor Behan (talk) 03:18, 9 May 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:JOKE[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 most to Wikipedia:Humor, and of course keep the one that already points there. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This very rarely used cross-namespace redirect is misleading. We have a WP:HOAX - sometimes misinterpreted as guiding contributors not to cover hoaxes, when it actually recommends not creating articles that are, themselves, hoaxes. In an AFD another contributor is writing as if we had a policy against covering jokes. tSo I checked to see if we had a WP:JOKE wikidocument. I found it both surprising, and not all useful, to have it redirect to category space.

I think the redirect should be deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The outcome here probably apply to WP:LOL as well... Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made that redirect over 10 years ago, things were different back then. Ambivalent about deletion. Fish+Karate 06:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about retargeting to Wikipedia:Silly Things? It's not a "policy" per se, but it explains that jokes are often vandalism, along with linking to some well-known jokes, including the current target. We could create CAT:JOKE to be a shortcut to the current target if desired. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Humor, an essay about humour on Wikipedia in and outside of articles that has the current target listed in the see also section, and to which I will also add a link to the target suggested by Tavix. Note I've added WP:HUMOUR and WP:HUMOR to this nomination as they should all (especially the latter two) point to the same place, but they currently do not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Except for WP:HUMOR, which already targets WP:Humor, retarget WP:JOKE, WP:HUMOUR, WP:LOL and any other similar shortcut redirects that are discovered – retarget all per Thryduulf to Wikipedia:Humor.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the opinions, so far.

    Personally, I don't think any of the four redirects identified, so far, should redirect across namespaces.

    As I noted, above, I've come across another contributor, arguing, in an AFD, that we should not have wikipedia articles on jokes. Well, the clearest counter-example would be our article on the annual charade where weather reporters, and other reporters, give apparently serious coverage of NORAD's missile detecting computers tracking the progress of Santa Claus, on Christmas Eve.

    Ideally, if even one RS dropped the tradition of treating these NORAD reports as real, I'd focus our article around that RS. But, meanwhile, we have to use the references we have. If no RS say it is a joke, it would be hard for our article to call it a joke, without lapsing from SYNTH.

    I am considerring writing an actual essay, offering my opinion on covering topics like those NORAD reports on Santa.

    Is there anyone here who would object to me using WP:JOKE as the location of that essay? Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Geo Swan: The proposal to retarget to Wikipedia:Humor would not be cross-namespace and is already an essay about this topic so read that first. If your essay is sufficiently different to that one to still be worthwhile, then write it at a longer title (Wikipedia:Jokes on Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Wikipedia and jokes perhaps). Only once it is actually written will be appropriate to discuss retargetting an existing shortcut to it - and it will need discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a first draft at User:Geo Swan/opinions/When RS coverage is tongue in cheek. Geo Swan (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Geo Swan: that's a good basis of an essay (it needs a bit of proofreading though), but the topic of it is tangential to what I'd expect a shortcut like those under discussion to lead to - imo the target should be a page about the current practice is regarding pages on Wikipedia that are themselves (intended to be) humorous, whereas your essay is about how we should cover things external to Wikipedia that are not intended to be taken seriously at face value but where coverage in (some/all/many) reliable sources knowingly plays along with the joke (for possible want of a better term) - sort of falling between the existing stools of WP:HOAX and WP:INUNIVERSE. I'm also unsure of the appropriateness of a WP: link to an essay written in the first person that explicitly references a single person's opinion - I'm not sure where the best place for a discussion of that (in this specific case or in the more general case) is but it isn't this RfD nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 10 May 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_May_4&oldid=1036305567"