Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2018.

Palace law[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. Consensus is that a broad-concept article would be ideal, but this is better than nothing. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Palace law" is a historical class of laws, which used to comprise much more individual laws than the one regarding royal succession. Since there is currently no article on the subject, it should be a red link. Paul_012 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unopposed, but given it has been here since late 2006, I think it warrants at least one relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems as if it merits a general concept article, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I did a fair bit of searching but the current target is the only "Palace law" I can find. If there are others, the target would be the primary topic as far as I can tell. Unless someone can find sourcing to support the creation of a general article, I don't see any problem with the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. I agree there's likely more to be said in the general, but this appears to be all we've got at the moment, so in the absence of more material, it's useful. Perhaps worth tagging with {{R with possibilities}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:53, 14 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.

Doyle Lee Hamm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 25#Doyle Lee Hamm

The Evil / The evil / Suck evil / Suck Evil[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. Some interest in retargeting the first two to Evil (disambiguation), but unconvinced of the utility given the options at that page and no clear evidence of usage beyond the general. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are mentioned at the target article. In the least, "The evil" is ambiguous unless it specifically refers to something, which it doesn't seem to in the current situation. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect "The Evil" and "The evil" - Keep per WP:CHEAP, since during certain 2018 concerts, the band has referred to themselves as "The Evil". If this can not be kept, the term can be redirected to "Evil" or some other suitable target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Suck Evil" and "Suck evil" - Keep per WP:CHEAP, since the band has been referred to in some circles as "Suck Evil". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Since a variety of entities titled 'Evil' can be also known as 'the Evil', I'd rather that we go over to the page 'Evil (disambiguation)'. The latter two redirects I'm not sure about, so I guess I'm just neutral on them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nicknames(?) that are not attested in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No articles to show use of these phrases, not even t-shirts and merchandise, which have stuff instead about "Evil Sucks" or "Running Sucks" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 27 April 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) 21:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suck/suck, I couldn't find any source which uses this phrase for the band. Retarget The's to Evil (disambiguation) - if it is a sourced nickname of the band, they can be added to the list. --Qetuth (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still awaiting the source that uses this officially as a nickname. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The first two are too vague, the latter 2 seem unencyclopedic and derogatory, and none are mentioned in the article at all, let alone are they likely search terms. Exhibit A - abysmally low page views. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon a bit more thought, I'd like to say that whatever we do with the first two redirects we should delete both 'Suck Evil' and 'Suck evil'. Neither of the latter two redirects here seem encyclopedic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:22, 8 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.

M22 graph[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 Mathieu group M22. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is factually incorrect (it is associated with the Mathieu group M22), and the graph itself may be notable enough for a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:47, 6 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.

Untitled Blade Runner project[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, unopposed; Keep Untitled Boyapati Srinu project and Untitled blink-182 album. Deleting all as unopposed redirects, except Untitled blink-182 album per Tavix below, as well as Untitled Boyapati Srinu project, which has some history. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirects as all these projects now have titles 69.118.34.147 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Untitled blink-182 album: it never had a title, so it's not just a placeholder. From the target: The record was left untitled as to refrain from labeling its content.... I haven't yet analyzed the rest, but they look okay to delete at a glance. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 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.

Arsenacho[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) 21:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED, most likely. Not mentioned in article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both.
    • Arsenacho was created with the edit summary "antiquated word for arsenic" but I have been unable to verify this - it doesn't match the etymology given at wikt:arsenic for example. It does occur (once) in a 2012 novel set in the 14th Century though (which may be the source). The only other uses I can easily find are in Italian (the Italian Wikipedia entry is at it:Arsenico, Italian Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for "arsenacho") or the username of a member of the Steam community. None of this merits a redirect here though.
    • "Scherbenkobalt" is, according to wikt:Scherbenkobalt obsolete German for arsenic, the modern word being "Arsen" which is how the de.wp article is titled. WP:FORRED absolutely applies here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. --Qetuth (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 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.

Glamour (Charmed)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Glamour (Charmed)

Glamor[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 Glamour. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't the "US-pedia", this redirect should probably be retargeted to Glamour. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 6 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.

Jeffrey Reinking[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. Middle names only don't make for good redirects, and let's do no harm. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Waffle House shooter was known as Travis Reinking, not Jeffrey Reinking. Searching Google gave several results for a professor at UCF (possibly notable? his page lists several publications), so it is not a good idea to connect him to a shooting. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Jeffrey Reinking is the middle and last name of the suspect, and the professor is named "Jeff Reinking". --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jax 0677: The professor uses both: [1] [2] [3]. On the other hand, the suspect goes by Travis, not Jeff(rey). -- Tavix (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why in the world would someone search for a shooter by their middle and last name only though? Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as middle + last is not how the shooter is ever referred to, and implicating a professor of the same name should be avoided. WP:RFD#DELETE #2 redirect causes confusion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Angus. No one is going to be searching for him by his middle and last name, in the same way no one's searching for Lionel Dahmer. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unlikely way of referring to the shooter, and there are BLP concerns with keeping things as is. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 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.

Unused redirects for Template:Stnlnk[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. Not convinced there's an advantage to deleting these, especially as it seems folks find them useful (as evidenced by using them) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirects. The first one was probably created accidentally, as it was only used on a single page. The second one was only on ten pages (of which one was a duplicate) out of over 12,000 uses of {{Stnlink}} and its aliases. Use of the third one was discontinued almost a year ago, with all instances replaced by {{RWS}}. Useddenim (talk) 10:49, 26 April 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) 11:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Since this was relisted, keep all since no rationale for confusion or ambiguity is present in this nomination, considering that these are redirects in the "Template:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale for deletion: a proliferation of unused redirects just leads to forking. E.g. the former Template:Cn-stalink only differed from Template:Stnlnk in capitalization. Useddenim (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Which, in my opinion, means that they are useful redirects in the "Template:" namespace. I'm still not seeing any harm with these redirects. Such redirects help editors who may have not edited Wikipedia for a while find their respective templates. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, Steel1943, in your opinion it's a good thing to encourage mis-spellings and forking? Useddenim (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the third one was widely used, doesn't that mean the redirect preserves the formatting of old versions of many articles when looking through history? Or am I misremembering an old reason to keep template redirects? --Qetuth (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Qetuth: The consensus is to not preserve old versions of WP:Route diagram templates, and at it this point it would be near-impossible because the redirects for mis-named and obsolete icons have been purged. (Take a look at just about any template that JJMC89 bot has been through – like this, for example.) This nomination was an attempt to do the same for a few of the auxiliary templates.
Also, {{Cn-stalink}} was used only on diagrams for Chinese lines (primarily metros), so I don't think that was really "widely". Useddenim (talk) 10:58, 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.

Robbie Williams (band)[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 Robbie Williams#Robbie Williams Band. Keep/refine ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie's been in a band but he's not a band .... It's no different to having Gary Barlow (band) ?, Anyway created in '09 by an editor who only created this redirect and another, IMHO pointless redirect, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia should not imply something that isn't true. We should find a way to just speedy-delete these... wbm1058 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Robbie Williams#Robbie Williams Band for which it is a very plausible search term. This is exactly why redirects like this should not be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no issues with that but then I would suggest this should be renamed to Robbie Williams (tour band) (with "Robbie Williams (band)" then being deleted), The header in the article ought to be renamed too but shall leave for now pending this discussion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? "Tour band" would be a type of band, so if "tour band" is okay, then "band" would also be okay. "Robbie Williams (band)" may be a plausible term, but "Robbie Williams (tour band)" certainly wouldn't be. I would strongly oppose to this redirect being moved. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tavix. Robbie Williams (tour band) would just be moved to Robbie Williams (band) anyway as overprecise disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Maybe it's my logic (or lack of) but I thought "tour band" would kind of make more sense than just "band" ? as band indicates he's a band whereas tour band would kinda .... no that isn't making sense either .... I just feel having it at "band" just gives the impression he's a band and could confuse readers I suppose..... –Davey2010Talk 01:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) It's worth noting that the sources I found all refer to "Robbie Williams Band" (with varying capitalisation of the last word) and never "Robbie Williams tour band" (with any capitalisation), so changing the header in the article will almost certainly go against WP:V. Also, when he is performing with other musicians as he does on tour they are collectively a band called "Robbie Williams" or "Robbie Williams Band". Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So create Robbie Williams Band (I just did). Robbie Williams is not a band, he is just one person. A band is a group of musicians who perform together as an ensemble, usually for a professional recording artist (in this case, Robbie Williams). wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - This can be tweaked, sure, but I don't think deletion is the right call. It's perfectly reasonable for somebody interested in the performer's touring to type in something like 'Robbie Williams (tour band)', and this redirect here is a plausible permutation of that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given that his article has a section with members about his studio or touring band, then this is plausible, but it would be sufficiently covered by Robbie Williams Band [4] without the parentheses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 27 April 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) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-target to Robbie Williams#Robbie Williams Band, a plausible search aid. Redirects are cheap, no one will die. Make Robbie Williams (tour band) a redirect to the same place. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just about all suggested variants as possible search terms. I can understand the issues with having an article titled "Robbie Williams (band)" when no such band exists, but I don't see that issue here as a redirect, especially considering it seems that any misconceptions should be pretty much immediately cleared up by the prose at the redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 8 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.

Modern Mathematics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 16#Modern Mathematics

Global 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target to world language, universal language, or perhaps elsewhere? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:00, 6 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.

Tortilla[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. Finding myself generally in agreement with BDD (talk · contribs) and Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs) that no decisive close feels right here. My initial read of the consensus is that probably a disambiguation page is correct here given the overall lack of agreement on a primary topic between Wheat tortilla and Corn tortilla, and the other options muddying it further - but given the vast number of incoming links and the already-existing disambiguation page at Tortilla (disambiguation) I don't think it's either likely or correct that we can settle this decisively at RfD. A requested move on the disambiguation page may well be the best route forward. ~ mazca talk 20:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit, the only meaning I had heard of before today for tortilla was Spanish omelette. Unless Wikipedia is USApedia, there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and this should be a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, corn tortilla would be the primary topic in Mexico. Flour tortillas are more of a Tex-Mex thing but corn tortillas are a staple of Mexican cuisine. In fact, if I were to make a primary topic claim, I'd choose corn tortilla over wheat tortilla due to the historical significance. -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't disagree there — an earlier draft of my comment said as much, but I left the corn V flour debate off in deference to the previous decision (wherever that was) and somewhat offtopic. I think that's a valid question, potentially worth discussing once more, but again, I don't think we should be covering that here. As far as this redirect goes, this is just fine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not personally comfortable closing this. While I agree with NOTBURO and that an RfD can result in a move, I'd like to see broader input. The idea of a disambiguation page at "Tortilla" is unsatisfying. To me, there is a primary topic in a theoretical sense, but it's split between Corn tortilla and Wheat tortilla. Should they be separate articles? I see them as two ways of making the same food, though I can understand the argument for treating them separately. A WP:CONCEPTDAB about the flat bread seems like the best answer for now. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this is pretty much exactly why I chimed in as well. I think anything other than keep/no consensus is likely to get brought elsewhere, and whomever does it would be totally justified in doing so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:14, 18 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.

Limulus darwini[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Limulus darwini

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_6&oldid=1138582500"