Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2018.

Kronborg(god)[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the missing space before the parenthetical disambiguator, I don't see any indication from the target or from Google that this Slavic mythological figure (or any figure of any mythology) has ever been known by this Danish name. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:56, 10 October 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.

Hyperactive Children's Support Group[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization is not mentioned at the target article and therefore the redirect serves no purpose (and may even mislead the reader). Peacock (talk) 21:11, 10 October 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.

Wenyi Fuxing[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) 16:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of the Chinese 文藝復興 (wén yì fù xīng) meaning "renaissance". Sam Sailor 19:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this would not make sense, especially with the spacing, to people who do not use this transcription Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment under the official pinyin rules covering spacing in this situation (GB/T 16159-2012 § 5.3), "wényì fùxīng" is probably more correct than "wényìfùxīng" (and definitely more correct than "wén yì fù xīng"). In any case that's not really relevant to whether we should keep this redirect. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, as the target has nothing to do with the Chinese language, and there's nothing else by this name in English Wikipedia. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have an article Chinese Cultural Renaissance, but the pinyin name for that is "Zhōnghuá Wénhuà Fùxīng Yùndòng" according to the article so would seem to be an incorrect target. The only other close match of article title I can find is China Renaissance, and investment bank, but the Chinese name is not given (in pinyin or otherwise) on that article and the Chinese characters on its official website are completely different to those given by Sam Sailor above - and an investment bank would likely be a WP:SURPRISING target for someone searching for this anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we have a metro station of Zhongxiao Fuxing or Nanjing FuxingWifik3r8bLk2Zr (talk) 18:35, 14 October 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.

Shirley Roberts[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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, not mentioned in target article. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that section is completely unreferenced. I came across the redirect as I was looking for an article on a biographer cited in another article. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I've added an IMDb reference to that article. Apparently most of the voice actors on that series worked pseudonymously due to union rules. Such presumably impermanent pseudonyms probably produce plenty of unpreventable redirects. --pmj (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is not a reliable source though. We need Tweets or official website material that connects Barbara Goodson to Shirley Roberts, or optionally via Marie Crystal (her character in Robotech Masters). [2] There is a Shirley Roberts listed in the voice actor credits for Robotech. [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to avoid the mess that was generated from indirect references like Talk:Rebecca_Soler#Revisiting_Jessica_Paquet_as_alias_for_Soler which had to be resolved with an OTRS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of a reliable source that connects this name to this living person, the name shouldn't be in the article, and if the name isn't in the article then the redirect is unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:39, 9 October 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) 17:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every Google hit for either Roberts+Goodson or Goodson+Crystal is WP:SPS, so we have no WP:RS stating either that Roberts is Goodson or even that Goodson voiced Crystal. At best we have double indirection (Goodson's inclusion in a reliable printed voice actor credits list for Robotech [4], without mentioning which character she voiced), but that requires synthesis with other sources to link her to Crystal and from there to Roberts, which is far too much WP:OR for a BLP. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 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.

What Can't Be Said[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mention of redirect on target page, formerly redirected to a redlink album. No better or suitable target can be found. Richhoncho (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Supposed song on a supposed rumored album that never existed. There's a mention of it on Giving You Up but that reference is dead and looks suspicious as well. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any source whatsoever (even an unreliable one) in Google searches for '"Rachel Stevens" "What Can't Be Said"' or '"Made of Glass" "What Can't Be Said"' (the album which purportedly would have had this song). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 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.

BLADE RUNNER (1982)[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) 16:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a Blade Runner 1982 page (note lower caps). No need for a page that has BLADE RUNNER in capitals. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The {{R from move}} was the nominator trying to move the redirect around (which doesn't work and messes up the history). I did what I could to fix it, so that shouldn't be a problem moving forward. Just to note, the target article was never at this title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You made it redirect to a redirect, I've fixed it now. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and a plausible search term. "No need" is not really a convincing rationale. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:56, 12 October 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.

Redirects to pi[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. While consensus here is to keep these, I want to note a few points. There's clearly some appetite for limiting the number of these, but I can't find a consensus here (or in past discussions) that create a solid rule. Lengthwise, 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 is the outlier, as the next-longest was previously kept. Another suggestion is for common calculator limits (the rationale behind the creation of the above, I'll note), but that seems too fluid (to round or not to round?). A third is only the "correct" ones, which likewise is subjective. At any rate, there's no consensus to limit creation here, but the strength of the consensus is in usefulness. This should not be interpreted as a mandate to create the many "missing" redirects with fewer than 30 decimals.
I'll also note that none of these were tagged appropriately, but given the discussion and the outcome, this can stand as in-process. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Another round of pi redirects. Anything beyond 3.14159 is an implausible search term. And yes, there was a pi redirect in Draft: for some reason. ONR (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all that are correct as both useful and harmless. Many of these have been previously kept at RfDs (some more than once), and others have had recent RfDs that ended in no consensus - the nominator has not identified what (if anything) has changed since then. Draft → article redirects are fine per WP:RDRAFT. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Some of these are averaging 40+ hits monthly which is a huge number. They are all unambiguously accurate and take you where you want to go. They all get a little spike on March 14th (pi day) each year :) JZCL 19:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per previous two comments. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The draft one is abandoned so I added G13 to it.– BrandonXLF (t@lk) 01:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The hits could easily be from a bot, and it's unlikely that a human (or other sentient being) would enter it without knowing what the target is. Wikipedia is not a real number identification service. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arthur Rubin: as explained several times previously, it is exceedingly implausible that more than 2-3 hits per year are from bots misidentified as humans. You also haven't identified what harm these redirects are doing or what benefits deletion would bring to the encyclopaedia (hint: the answer to both is "none"). Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may not be a significant harm, but it adds material which no competent mathematician would expect to be there, and clogs up Special:PrefixIndex/3.14 to the point of absurdity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, this means the audience is much wider than just "competent mathematicians" and includes people with very limited mathematical knowledge. "Cluttering" the prefix index is exceedingly trivial and not actually harmful when all the listed entries are useful to readers (as they are here). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Where are previous discussions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ones I've found are now listed at the top, most discussions considered multiple redirects. It's possible there are other discussions that considered redirects not listed in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (except the draft that's already been deleted) per Thryduulf and JZCL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf and pageviews, which show at least one page hit per redirect per day. ToThAc (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only common calculator ones: 3.141592654 and 3.141592653 [5] (TI-84 10 digits), 3.1415927 (old calculator, 8 digits) 3.141592653589793 (macbook calculator). That's about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:02, 15 October 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.

Spartan Stadium (San Jose, California[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. Per Bobak. Note: I closed the Genie (feral child RfD, and I continue to find the argument convincing (and surprising!). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, everyone should read the discussion on the talkpage; it's not often we have those here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a closing parenthesis. The proper redirect Spartan Stadium (San Jose, California) exists, so there is no reason to keep this one around. ONR (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason is the Wikipedia URL format often messes with the 5th busiest site in the United States (12th in the world), Reddit. The site formats external links in text posts and comments as [hypertext](URL). Unless someone knows to use a "\" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Stadium_(San_Jose,_California\) to cancel the first of two back-to-back close parenthesis, it gets read as "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Stadium_(San_Jose,_California"; as these kinds of redirects are harmless and otherwise beneficial, I occasionally make them when needed. -- Bobak (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bobak, the redirect has been used 75 times so far this year so it's clearly useful, and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 14#Genie (feral child. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Page views are unreliable and cannot be used to determine whether a redirect is useful or not. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the linked discussion where this was discussed at length. It ultimately did not receive consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've looked a bit more into Bobak's argument, and it is convincing enough for me to switch my !vote. Regardless of how often it's used, it's ultimately harmless for the most part. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While page views are not everything, they are something. Bobak's argument is pretty convincing too, assuming he is correct (my technical knowledge is not enough to comment on its accuracy). In other words I see no good reason to delete the page. JZCL 21:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a Google search using this redirect, which took me to the official page without the use of any brackets. More importantly, I did a search within WP (and I do recommend other editors do the same) for Spartan Stadium (San Jose, Cali.... and towards the end the without brackets version came up first, at all times both versions were visible as suggestions. If this redirect did not exist searchers would find the target easier. I do not see/understand Bobab's argument, but I would respectively ask him to test his theory on this particular redirect. It is my opinion what might have been a problem once, may not be anymore. Also the keeping of this redirect would suggest we also need variants with and without brackets, commas etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Search engines are not the only means by which people find Wikipedia articles. Indeed the exact purpose of this redirect is not for search engines but for people following links, which only work when the title is exactly the same as the article or redirect title (including punctuation and capitalisation). Even the search suggestions mentioned only work when using the internal search engine with javascript available and enabled. Accordingly Richhoncho's rationale is entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for reply, however this particular redirect has no incoming article links, and has no history, having been created to redirect to the full original name Spartan Stadium (San Jose, California) - which is a redirect now and not under discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The links are from external websites, (mainly but not necessarily exclusively) Reddit. Whatlinkshere only shows links from current revisions of English Wikipedia articles, but those from external sites are equally important. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A redirect which differs from an established name by only one character is probably a plausible typo anyway; in this case the Reddit issue means the benefits of keeping this are greater than usual. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: I'm not seeing any convincing arguments to the keep votes; just see the UNOPPOSED deletion discussion for Ball (baseball if you're not convinced. ToThAc (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is not convincing about arguments to keep a redirect that is, per all the available evidence, useful, used and unambiguous? The baseball redirect is not relevant to this discussion as it's a different - it was not created based on incomming links and based on the discussion doesn't seem to have been well used. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh please, no convincing arguments? Did you read Bobak's comment? JZCL 14:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bobak and my previous comments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_14#Genie_(feral_child which back up his comment. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:29, 18 October 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.

James-Honey[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) 16:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This name isn't mentioned in the target anywhere, even without the hyphen. Pretty implausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not mentioned in the target, and no other articles have any substantial discussion of people called James Honey. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment James-Honey appears to be a duo formed by James Snider and his sister (hence the hyphen) after WinterKids disbanded [6]. It was previously mentioned at the target but was removed without explanation in October 2011. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 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.

Hp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 21#Hp

SeaMonkey-ko[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) 16:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Former redirect to Moe anthropomorphism. Delete Largely forgotten character, originally a redirect to a section for a Mozilla-related anime girl that was redirected and protected 10 years ago. No content within either current article; implausible search term. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:09, 10 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_10&oldid=1036305965"