Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 4, 2019.

Цзар[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A misspelling of the Russian term Царь, no usage, could potentially cause confusion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 4 August 2019 (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.

Seaford & District[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) 04:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the name of a probably not notable transportation company in Seaford, which isn't mentioned in the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if it isn't or shouldn't be mentioned in the target then a redirect shouldn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company appears to be based in Lewes and operates several bus services in the area; there are mentions at Uckfield and Wivelsfield. PC78 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2019 (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.

Myths on 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these redirects use vague phrasing that doesn't quite entail the target, no usage history. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 4 August 2019 (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.

SMT3[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. --BDD (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a widely used acronym, and Nocturne isn't even unambiguously the third entry in the Megami Tensei/Shin Megami Tensei series signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mean, the game title is literally Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne. I made the redirect because that's what I call it and I was surprised it didn't exist already. I don't really see how deleting this serves the SMT navigation better than keeping it. --30 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) That game is titled "Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne" in Japan, and the series title is regularly shortened to SMT. I do not see the problem here.--Alexandra IDVtalk 18:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to SMT 3, without the typo, without leaving a redirect. It makes sense as a redirect, but not with the lack of spacing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a typo. It's an abbreviation. I spend a lot of time in video game communities and I can say that everyone refers to for example Final Fantasy IX as "FF9" and Dragon Quest VIII as "DQ8", not "FF 9" and "DQ 8". --30 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Japanese title makes it clear that this is the third Shin Megami Tensei game. Omitting spaces is common in such abbreviations. It's worth noting that there is also a SUMO protein called SMT3; this can be handled by a hatnote. Reach Out to the Truth 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with Reach Out to the Truth, and nothing's been said for 3 weeks. Is that consensus enough? --30 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2019 (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.

Dennis Highby[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, with no prejudice against merging. Clear consensus for keeping this in some sense. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former CEO of the target, not currently mentioned at the target. Originally created as a stub and redirected as an alternative to deletion, but I don't think this redirect is useful. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article (such as it was) and either prod it or AfD it. PC78 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add history to article as former CEO for six years and still on the board. [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mention in target article per AngusWOOF. This person seems to have enough coverage to be mentioned in the Cabela's article, but not for one on his own; the latter would probably not survive an AfD. Geolodus (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2019 (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.

Amadeus[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 move the target over the redirect. This is effectively a "keep", with the move mandated by WP:MALPLACED as some participants noted. There is not consensus at this time that the film should be considered primary topic. --BDD (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name Amadeus used to host an article about the play, which was roundly booted from primary topic status in this discussion. But while it's obvious the play isn't the primary topic, what is? The movie? The composer whose middle name is Amadeus? Or nothing at all? I am going to abstain from any discussion here. Red Slash 22:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Completely plausible search term, could be retargeted to Amadeus (film), but its current target is fine with me. CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd be hard pressed to tease out which article should be considered the primary topic for this. signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, striking vote. I had assumed that there would be more confusion between Mozart, the film, and other topics, but that assumption is refuted by the actual pageviews. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move Amadeus (film) → Amadeus. There is no reason to believe that Mozart is likely to be searched with “Amadeus”, and the film is clearly the primary topic based on page views. —В²C ☎ 06:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Neither the play nor the film is primary, so Amadeus (disambiguation) should be moved to Amadeus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reverse per WP:MALPLACED. While the argument about the view stats is arguably true (although since this isn't a WP:2DABPRIMARY situation I'd note that the domination between the play and film is less than 10-1 thus one could argue that the film isn't "much more likely than any other". Also the argument about incoming external links, while is isn't mentioned in the guideline is certainly something that would cause problems for our readers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move Amadeus (film) → Amadeus per B2C. The film is the WP:PTOPIC with respect to usage. It gets ~6x as many views as the play, which is the main other contender. Also, keep in mind, Amadeus (film) has a link to Amadeus (play) in its first sentence (or, well, it should - looks like dab links from the move haven't been cleaned up yet), so readers looking for the latter who land at the former still have a quick path to the article they're looking for. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is not a serious competitor, because we're considering the likelihood that the reader is seeking a particular topic given the search term "Amadeus". A reader who wants information about the composer choosing to search for "Amadeus" is highly implausible. Colin M (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already discussed in an RM at Talk:Amadeus (film). No consensus. This is not the forum for that discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're confused. Red Slash closed that RM with a finding that there was consensus to move the play away from the base name, but no consensus about the primary topic (if any). They opened this RfD to determine the primary topic. In their nomination statement, they specifically mention the film as one of the candidates: But while it's obvious the play isn't the primary topic, what is? The movie? Colin M (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm really not. This has already been discussed in an WP:RM discussion at Talk:Amadeus (film). If there had been consensus to move Amadeus (film) to Amadeus this would have been decided there. Redirecting Amadeus to Amadeus (film) is not what we do and seems like an attempt to get around the conclusion there, as if there had been a decision that the film was the primary topic then the correct result would have been to move Amadeus (film) to Amadeus. However, there was not. The only possible outcome here is to move Amadeus (disambiguation) to Amadeus, so this should probably have actually been an RM proposal on the former page or even a speedy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you think this RfD is malformed, or the earlier RM was closed inappropriately, I suggest taking it up with Red Slash. But my !vote is entirely in line with how this RfD was framed. Colin M (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and switch (support) Amadeus (disambiguation) → Amadeus. Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove (disambiguation) – Both the play and the film are based on Mozart's life. However, the film is (partially or fully) fictionalized biopic tale about him and based on the fictionalized bio-play. Regardless of the statistics, enjoyment, and awards, neither the play nor the film can triumph the impact of Mozart and his work. Too bad Mozart is lesser known as "Amadeus", so I guess it couldn't be redirected to Mozart article. Still, I'm wary about making the fictional biopic film the primary topic just because of awards, wide praise, and high pageviews. George Ho (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • George Ho, just because of "of awards, wide praise, and high pageviews"? That's the epitome of meeting both historical significance (awards, praise) and usage (high page views) criteria! If that doesn't establish primary topic, what does? --В²C ☎ 19:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For me, those aren't the sufficient criteria of primary topic specifically for "Amadeus". I was thinking about discussing Tom Hulce's career since portraying the titular character of the film, but I guess that is not convincing enough. Then I found out that F. Murray Abraham won the Best Actor award for (somewhat fictional?) portrayal of lesser known Antonio Salieri and has had appeared much more than Hulce. If actors' careers aren't convincing enough, and if other kinds of popular culture don't surpass the film, then I must say that the film is not viewed as much as the biographical piece about Mozart. Then again, I don't know whether the film's audience primarily focus on accuracy or entertainment value over the other. I believe that once a reader find the phrase "fictionalized biography" next to the link of the Mozart article, a reader can choose to either read further (and be spoiled) or rather click the link of and read the more accurate article about Mozart himself. What do you think a reader wants? What do you think an audience would expect from the film? George Ho (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to mention the incoming external links issue. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait. Are you saying the type of a film is a determining factor in deciding whether the film is the primary topic for its title? And that a fictionalized biography is not worthy of being a primary topic? I really don't understand your reasoning. --В²C ☎ 21:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to change your mind. Well... I should have been clearer, but probably you're right about what you said. However, that's not the only factor. To re-summarize or rephrase what I said earlier, other factors are considering what readers expect from the articles, whether readers are concerned about the accuracy about subjects, whether readers would be concerned about feeling entertained, what readers value from reading various Wiki-articles about topics related to Mozart, and how much of an impact the subjects have on others.

            About the film itself, Amadeus is a fictional derivative as a result of Mozart and his impact on classical music. Somehow, however, the film (despite being fictional) made an impact on the leading actors' careers. However, Hulce's career was... more downs than ups in the film industry, implying that Amadeus may not have made him much successful in the long run of his film acting career. At least Hulce did solid on theatre, like the play A Few Good Men (before the film). Contrast that with F. Murray Abraham's career, which has much more work done in his acting career since the film and winning Best Actor award.

            About Mozart himself, many generations have loved and praised his music, despite being died at his mid-30s, causing theories, speculations, and rumours about his (unsolved) death. Well, his death was fictionalized in the film (and the play); I can't tell whether Mozart's characterization and relationships are fictionalized in the film/play. --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

            To rephrase (again), I value fact over fiction regarding Mozart. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

            • You really should see the film. I'm pretty sure it's on every 100 greatest films lists. Anyway, I understand what you're saying. But, sorry, predilections like that have nothing to do with primary topic determination. --В²C ☎ 21:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The disambiguation page at primary namespace.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that per WP:PRIMARYRED, Amadeus cannot redirect to any parenthetical form of it such as Amadeus (play), Amadeus (film), or Amadeus (disambiguation), so unless it is retargeted to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (which very few are calling for), it must be deleted. In my opinion the RM close was a procedural error. To implement the RM consensus properly would simply be to move Amadeus (disambiguation) to Amadeus, even though I personally favored the film being primary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there may not be local consensus, given the lack of policy-based arguments for why the film is not primary, the community consensus is that the film is primary, and the articles should be arranged accordingly. --В²C ☎ 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rubbish. The RM discussion was closed as no consensus. Where are you getting this "community consensus" from? This all sounds like an attempt to override the RM conclusion on a different forum, something I don't think I've ever seen before and which is honestly rather disturbing as far as WP procedure is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The closer of the RM said they found consensus to move the play away from the base title, but no consensus about the primary topic for the title. The closer then opened this very RfD for the purpose of determining the primary topic. B2C's recommendation of making the film primary (which I agree with) is explicitly mentioned as a possible outcome of this RfD discussion by Red Slash, the nominator (and closer of the previous RM). If it were anyone else who had initiated this RfD, I would agree with you that there would be a forum-shopping issue. Colin M (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The correct forum is at Talk:Amadeus (film), not RfD. The result there was no consensus to move the film to primary topic. Since when have we ever closed an RM discussion as no consensus and then immediately moved discussion to another forum? I've never seen it before. RMs are generally far more high-profile than RfDs, so while I'm absolutely positive it was done in good faith, this does, I'm afraid, look like an attempt to move discussion away from the place it would be expected to be in, which is odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed apart from deletion, RFD generally concerns the target of a redirect not reversing redirects, a more appropriate way would probably have been to make the 1st move (like with Hearts) and then start a new RM to see if the film is primary but it doesn't matter too much either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • In retrospect, I think the goal here is to decide what the target of the redirect at Amadeus should be. One of the options is to redirect to the article about the film, which, if that's what we decide, and is certainly within the scope of an RFD, would make it a primary redirect. --В²C ☎ 21:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • A primary redirect from Amadeus to Amadeus (film) is absolutely not permitted. If the film is the primary topic of "Amadeus", then it should be moved to "Amadeus". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 11 August 2019 (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.

Hinako Shibuno[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 procedural close. No longer a redirect. --BDD (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question isn't included in the target page. Willbb234 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2019 (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.

QWERTYUIOP ASDFGHJKL ZXCVBNM[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) 03:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not helpful signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why. Don't just say "per nom", and these redirects are also correct if people call the keyboard layout by every row it has. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my reply? Because some people who are too lazy to shorten it call the keyboard that. Barracuda41 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2019 (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.

Los Angeles killings[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, could refer to any high profile murder in Los Angeles. I would suggest deletion, although disambiguation may be an acceptable alternative. signed, Rosguill talk 00:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No way this can be correct since killings took place in Santa Barbara, not Los Angeles. No need to create a Dab page for such a vague term. StonyBrook (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely target per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. signed, Rosguill talk 07:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lenticel I don't see the need to keep an unusable search term just because it exists. It hints to an actual event that occurred rather than a general article about crime. No such search term exists for any other major city, not even Orlando killings. The only one I could find, Columbine killings, redirects to the school shooting and massacre for which that small town is known. StonyBrook (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the redirect shouldn't be left in its current inaccurate state, the lack of a year makes it less suitable for pointing to a specific murder (none particularly stands out from others), and Crime in Los Angeles involves more than just killings. I agree with StonyBrook that this title seems to imply a particular event, so I'd argue against disambiguation as well. –Sonicwave talk 21:27, 8 August 2019 (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.

Associate's Twenty20 Series 2015–17[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page isn't really something that people search up. HawkAussie (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: T20 redirect to ODI page? Doesn't make sense. Please ping me if I missed something, and I'll change my vote. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 20:18, 5 August 2019 (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/2019_August_4&oldid=1072177135"