Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 14, 2019.

Asterisk Animation[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) 21:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information at Ace & Son the only connected between the redirect and the target is that the have a (co-)founder in common. Is that enough to keep it? Would it be better going to The Ink Tank, since there's just as much information there? Primefac (talk) 21:16, 14 June 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.

Students' Unions redirects for articles that don't mention them[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Students' Unions redirects for articles that don't mention them

¬[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. Be bold if desired, though consider pinging other participants in this discussion if you do so. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this redirect. (1) Is it printworthy or unprintworthy? It's tagged with both {{R from Unicode}} and {{R with possibilities}}, so something is not quite right here. (2) Should it (a) be tagged {{R avoided double redirect|Negation (symbol)}} or (b) retargeted to List of logic symbols#¬? (3) Would it realistically be worthy of an article at all? I am having my doubts on that front. Maybe a dab page?

This is quite open ended to say the least. Slightly curious if I can even successfully nominate this page with Twinkle. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. all users who have edited this redirect have been notified of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say not printworthy, should redirect to List of logic symbols#¬. Someone typing in ¬ who is unaware of its meaning would most benefit from seeing it in the context of other logical operators (and the link to Negation is right there in the entry for anyone who wants to investigate further). signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above suggestion. As for printworthiness, both have been automatically added by other templates. I disagree with the choice of automatic (un)printworthiness for many templates. That's something that needs to looked into generally with these templates; it's not specific to this redirect. M.Clay1 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that Negation#Notation is ultimately the best target, even if it could do with a bit of expansion to incorporate for example the Unicode value or the Latex symbols currently listed in List of logic symbols. I don't think retargeting to the list article is best: the relevant entry is pretty far down the list (so inconvenient for readers arriving at the top) and adding an anchor for this entry won't do because of the peculiar structure of the table (which makes it confusing for anyone who hasn't first seen the table headings). Categorising as "R with possibilities" isn't as far fetched as it may seem. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favour the status quo, but I have no great objection to redirecting to the list. Could the symbol support an article? Well, the symbol does have a history (Reddit user lcarroll's summary is sound AFAIK https://www.reddit.com/r/logic/comments/4l5993/negation_operators_symbol/d3msgbn/ ); if we had the story behind why Frege used the vertical dash to indicate negation, then maybe it could be fleshed out to more than a stub, especially if it could be combined with an article on the main alternative, '~'. If we were to try to grow a baby article about the symbol(s), then doing so in the negation article rather than in the list would be altogether better. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:24, 14 June 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.

ХхьӀв[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. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At best this appears to be an example of a pentagraph in a language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet. The creator was blocked/retired, but it didn't seem appropriate to WP:G5 as their block was for completely unrelated behavior. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 14 June 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.

Xbox compatible[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Xbox compatible

Unai Emery League[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) 19:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the Europa league has jokingly been called the Unai Emery League, this isn't a real alias for the league, and anyone hoping for an explanation of this phrase would be better off at Unai Emery signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 14 June 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Management[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) 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is 3 months old and just odd. I'd be expecting to find a WikiProject about "management" if I looked up this redirect, not WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it, the creator (who is known for having been on a bent of deleting things they find unnecessary, like small portals and apparently substandard WikiProjects) intended this as a redirect instructing on the "management" (i.e. deletion) of WikiProjects. Well, no, WP:POINT describes what this is, as well as being WP:RFD#D2 confusing as everyone commenting here is demonstrating, and probably D1, D5, and D10 also apply. Delete it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector and the others above. If there is a WikiProject about management or a page about the management of WikiProjects it would be better for everyone concerned if a new page or redirect was created without legitimising the creation of this one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 15 June 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.

Untitled Deadwood film[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) 19:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 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.

VV Vinayak's Untitled 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. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "Keep" may have been the correct outcome in 2012, but this redirect serves no purpose for a film that was released six years ago. No significant history, no significant usage. Could easily refer to a future project by the director. PC78 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per PC78. This had 19 hits in the year preceding the nomination. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 14 June 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.

A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a[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) 21:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the username of the editor reponsible for the "Bicholm Conflict" hoax article, which is mentioned in the target section, but the username is not mentioned anywhere in article space that I can find. The hoax was discoved in December 2012 (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-28/In the media#Wikipedia hoaxes draw media attention: Bicholim conflict, Legolas2186 for the full story) and the redirect was creted in February 2013, but neither I nor Wikiblame can find the username was ever mentioned in the article. The options as I see it are either deletion or retargetting to the Signpost article - the latter will educate people searching for this (it got 121 hits last year, which is far from trivial) but it is crossnamespace (and arguably a WP:SELFREF violation too). I'm not immediately sure which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no suitable target since retargeting to Signpost is inappropriate, and page views are trivial anyway. It'd be easy to add to the target, but I don't think it's a good idea to give recognition to this hoaxster. -- Tavix (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 121 hits a year is two orders of magnitude more than trivial! Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Arbitrary definitions of "trivial" aside, there is no suitable mainspace target to redirect to. Anyone looking for information on the hoaxster rather than the hoax won't find it here. PC78 (talk) 07:04, 17 June 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.

Untitled Annabelle film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Untitled Annabelle film

"Upcoming" redirects[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) 20:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More "upcoming" redirects whose subjects are no longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the list and only saw "2019", but I see that you're right. Still, many of these are registering pageviews in the 1000s or 10,000s for the past 30 days. If they're not inaccurate (they don't redirect to the wrong film and they're not ambiguous with a different film which has not been released) they're harmless, serving a function, and should be kept. The ones that have practically no pageviews should be deleted as a matter of housekeeping. Accordingly, delete:
Also delete Hellboy (upcoming film) for probable ambiguity. Keep the rest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally happy to delete per past precedent; outdated, inaccurate dismabiguation is not useful but is potentially confusing, so there should be no reason to keep any of these in the long term. That said, it appears that some of these films have only been released in the past few days so I can see the argument for a temporary short term reprieve, particularly if the film remains "upcoming" in certain territories; The Dead Don't Die won't be released in the UK and Ireland until next month, for example. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. My guess is that the thousands of hits we have been getting over the last month were a result of external search engines caching our redirects. From that perspective, it is actually harmful to keep these redirects after the films cease to be "upcoming" (have been released in all markets where a release is planned), so downstream data users don't continue to think that the films are still "upcoming". Deryck C. 14:21, 25 June 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.

Growing elephant ear plants[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Growing elephant ear plants

Tank (for storing liquid in)[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 Tank (disambiguation)#Storage vessels. Deryck C. 14:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't normally used as a disambiguator. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or weak retarget to Tank (disambiguation)#Storage vessels. Turns out this redirect is ambiguous per the existence of Water tank; however, due to the oddity of the disambiguator, I believe that deletion would better help our readers in this case since the search results would provide more useful than redirecting to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, per Ivanvector this is useful. There is nothing that search results could find that is both relevant and not listed already at the disambiguation page, and per the many times I've explained previously search results are not reliable and may be several clicks away so where a suitable page exists (as here) it is always the better choice. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there are a couple of links from mainspace which probably account for the pageviews. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? That just demonstrates the utility of the redirect. Those links will also be present in mirrors which may or may not get updated if our article does (and if they do they aren't necessarily going to be updated soon). Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blimey, cool your beans... It was simply an observation, the links are probably left over from when this was an article and they may need updating, particuarly if the term is to be considered ambiguous. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever eaten cold beans? Gross. Warm your beans! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and added it. It was a redirect from this page having been moved through it, it makes sense to treat both the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:09, 14 June 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.

Elephant ear plant[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 Elephant ear. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are apparently many plants called 'elephant ear', not all of which are in the genus Colocasia. The redirect should perhaps point to Araceae, the family that contains Colocasia and other genera called 'elephant ear'. Alternately, perhaps it should point to Elephant ear, which is a disambiguation page. Cnilep (talk) 04:20, 14 June 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_June_14&oldid=943961031"