Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 27, 2018.

Poet Warrior[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Poet Warrior

Compte rendu des séances de la Société de physique et d'histoire naturelle[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 delete. per G7 Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a CSD. I created this by mistake. Those refer to the proceedings of the Société de physique et d'histoire naturelle de Genève (Society of Physics and Natural History of Geneva), not the Académie des Sciences de Paris Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jake Orlowitz[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 deleted per G7 author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name does not appear in targeted list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Grand Forks Flickertails[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 5#Grand Forks Flickertails

FYROM - Denar[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) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM refers to the country name only, not the currency - hence for similar reasons to the one below it should only be "Macedonian Denar" Macedonia (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - country name + currency is a plausible search term. It's an unusual string for that but it's unambiguous and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I might disagree with the nominator – FYROM denar is a plausible search term, but I'm not sure I can see the point of this awkaward hyphen in the middle. There don't appear to be any similar redirects out there (example), and it's difficult to imagine a reader coming up with this way to search. I've added two more redirects to the nomination: FYROM - denar and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Denar. – Uanfala (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Uanfala that the hyphen pushes this over the cliff of "unlikely search term". Deryck C. 11:01, 26 November 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) 11:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hyphen is not included with respect to any mentions on websites [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

High strength[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to refer to any specific subject on the target page, and unhelpful to target its current target since Strength is a disambiguation page and the redirect is not a spelling/plural/etc. variation of that word. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if we should create a new disambiguation page for this. I remember conversations on construction sites going like this:
    So we will likely be adding values to our readers' experience if we give them a list of materials commonly abbreviated "high-strength" in their specialist context. Deryck C. 12:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a List of high strength materials set index be better than a dab? Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice solution too, and can include things like Kevlar which are known for their high strength but not known as "high-strength". Deryck C. 14:07, 26 November 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) 11:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trying to document uses of this just seems incredibly subjective. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no clear target for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Untitled Trooper (album)[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) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect as a search term is unlikely/misleading, considering that the target is not about an album titled “Untitled Trooper”. A similar helpful redirect, Untitled (Trooper album), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This exists because the redirect target was originally created at this title, and then moved by me to the more correct form. At the time, the policy was that even if it was otherwise implausible, WP:GFDL still required us to retain the redirect created by a page move — but that's since been deprecated, so there's no need to retain this title anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as longstanding, well used and harmless. If there is ever an album by the name "Untitled Trooper" then this can be retargetted there, until then there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’d say 43 pageviews in the last year is hardly “well used”. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4 views in the last year would be unused. An order of magnitude more than that is definitely a well used redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly, though most of these page views could potentially be caused by readers who clock on this redirect when typing in the search bar. The erroneous title of this redirect, combined with other requested existing that are correct, leave this redirect’s existence WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except it doesn't - the people clicking on this in search results are going to be looking only for the current target. This takes them there in exactly the same way that clicking a different redirect would. If it was in the way of something that would be a different story, but it isn't, so it costs us nothing and WP:COSTLY is as incorrect here as it most often is when cited in favour of deleting a harmless redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The people clicking on this in the search bar aren't going to lose any access to the article — given that the only difference between the redirect and the target title is in the punctuation, any person who searches for the album by typing these words into the search bar is still going to pull up the correct title anyway. This is a situation where the usage stats are entirely tangential to the redirect's actual utility, because its usage stats aren't indicative of anything except "the redirect and the correct title will both always show up in the search bar when a person searches on these words, so some random percentage of people selecting the redirect is simply expected". And its deletion won't harm anybody, because as I noted the correct title will still show up when a user searches for these words — the usage isn't because there's a significant difference between the two titles that would give value to retaining it, it's entirely because if somebody searches for this they'll always get both titles and have to make an entirely arbitrary choice of which one to select. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • That assumes that everybody using this redirect is clicking on it in a list of suggested titles - this is impossible to know and given that there are plenty of ways of navigating to Wikipedia articles without encountering such a list it is not a safe assumption to make. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • The other ways a person can reach a title can be easily ruled in or out by looking at verifiable facts. Clicking on it in a category? This redirect isn't in any end-user content categories besides the technical holding category that was automatically applied by the deletion template and isn't browsed by users looking for content. Clicking on it as a link inside another article? Nothing links through this at all. Which completely eliminates ever other other way besides the search bar that a person could ever get to this redirect in order to use it. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No it doesn't. You have missed direct URI entry, external search engines, external indexes, links from external sites, users without javascript/with javascript disabled, and others. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect implies we have information about something called "untitled Trooper", which is confusing. Deryck C. 12:05, 26 November 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) 11:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. Deb (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that "Untitled Trooper (album)" is misleading as it implies there's an album called "Untitled Trooper". And anyway, if someone wants information about something that they know has no title, they're hardly going to search for "Untitled" - they'd surely look for it by starting at Trooper or searching for "Trooper". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:Thursday.png[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created after a file move and might cause confusion. - Radiphus (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kerala scool.delhi[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 deleted per G8 by Deb. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four mistakes- the spelling, the spacing, the capitalisation, and replacing a comma with a full stop- make this an extremely unlikely combination and a useless redirect. Reyk YO! 08:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but on this occasion (for some reason) I obeyed the guideline that says we are not supposed to delete redirects resulting from a move. However, I would be glad to delete it. Deb (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've settled it by deleting the article to which it redirected, which had been turned into an advert for the school. Deb (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Reyk YO! 09:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Newtown MIddle Scool[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This contains both a spelling and a capitalisation error; an unlikely combination. Nothing links here, so it's highly unlikely to be useful. Reyk YO! 08:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brunswick High Scool (disambiguation)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from a defunct disambiguation page and with a spelling error is not likely to be useful at all. Reyk YO! 08:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Outagraphry[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was directed because of a claim that Ted Joans invented a thing called "Outagraphy". But the claim was always unsourced. The term "Outagraphy" had been included in Surrealist techniques, but unsourced there too. It appears to have been a hoax attempt by User:Daniel C. Boyer to get one of his own so-called outagraphs into Wikipedia, with long-term edit warring by him (apparently, using IPs) to keep it in. Outagraphy has once again been removed from Surrealist techniques and I removed the claim from Ted Joans. There are no reliable sources to be found which cover this as a recognized form of art and there's nothing to link it with Ted Joans (and unfortunately the length of time it's been in Wikipedia has led to a number of mirrors propagating the apparent hoax). Deleting this redirect is the final bit of clean-up that needs to be done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, housekeeping. Searches show only links to Wikipedia mirrors, no general usage, and certainly not of the -graphry spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Featured article candidates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Featured article candidates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_27&oldid=1036307454"