Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2019.

Venzuela Iron Mines[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. kingboyk (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete this redirect for two simple reasons: there is no a country called «Venzuela» and El Florero is just one of hundreds of iron mines in Venezuela. —Vercelas (quaestiones?) 20:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The best target would perhaps be Mining in Venezuela, but even without the typo it's a bit vague and generic. PC78 (talk) 20:44, 2 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.

Template:IPL[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 deprecate. There is a rough consensus that it'll be unhelpful for future editors to keep a fully functional template shortcut at {{IPL}}, but we should carry out any migration with the least possible disruption. It seems that the middle ground here is to deprecate all existing uses of this template shortcut to {{Persian Gulf Pro League}}, then replace with a deprecation notice. Deryck C. 11:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPL is widely used to refer to Indian Premier League. As stated even in the article page of Persian Gulf Pro League, it was formerly known as IPL but currently I think it needs to point to IPL. Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 'IPL' is too broad (see IPL disambiguation page) so retargeting is not appropriate. GiantSnowman 09:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Indian Premier League. The cricket league is absolutely the highest profile organisation that uses this abbreviation, so it makes sense for this redirect to follow suit. – PeeJay 07:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The target for this page is only relevant for editors. It makes more sense to keep the existing target, which predates the Indian Premier League navigation template by two years, barring a compelling reason to change it. - PaulT+/C 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the current target no longer uses the IPL abbreviation, it would make more sense for this redirect to be used as shorthand for something that actually does use that abbreviation. If an editor types in {{IPL}} these days, chances are they're going to expect an Indian Premier League template to be transcluded. – PeeJay 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no primary topic for the term. See IPL. - PaulT+/C 17:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split all over the place
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace all existing uses and disambiguate. Clearly this is ambiguous and could easily refer to other templates, e.g. {{Indonesian Premier League}}, {{Israeli Premier League}}, maybe others. Best not to use it at all and offer users a dab page instead. PC78 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you even have a disambiguation page in the template namespace?! (I can't find any info one way or the other, but I admittedly didn't search very hard either.) - PaulT+/C 21:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can: see {{Template ambiguous}} and Category:Template disambiguation pages. They aren't common, but it may be the best solution here. PC78 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, TIL. I saw that category but I somehow assumed they were disambiguation templates like {{disambiguate}}. Thanks for the info. In light of this, I have struck my "keep" !vote above. I concur with disambiguate per PC78. - PaulT+/C 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Whether there's a primary topic for "IPL" matters some, but not nearly as much as mainspace. Any change here is disruptive, and for little benefit IMO unless we've had a lot of problems with people blindly adding it to pages for other IPL topics. Regardless, it would probably be helpful to replace the transclusions with the right template name—and, of course, that's absolutely a requirement if we do make a change here. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace all uses: navboxes should never ever be invoked using shortcuts like that: given that they're used at most once per article they aren't saving anyone any typing time, and a cryptic template abbreviation only adds confusion for whoever looks at the wikicode. As for what happens to the redirect after orphaning, my preferences aren't similarly strong, but keeping is off the table (we wouldn't keep things that shouldn't be used even if they were unambiguous). Deletion is probably best: I'm a great supporter of template dab pages, but we need a clear use case before creating one. Here, even under generous assumptions for new article creation in this topic area, we're looking at something like half a dozen uses per year at most. – Uanfala (talk) 02:00, 22 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.

Remote location[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Remote location

Dr. Salvador[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. kingboyk (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor character that isn't mentioned at the target nor at Resident Evil 4. The only mention is at Salvador (name) which should be removed. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Not mentioned at the target or other articles, so this is a worthless redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's age and history for some of these — namely the first and last — so worth getting a little more input. Content was in what is now List of creatures in Resident Evil 4
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:08, 2 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.

COPYVIO[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) 00:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Copyvio as a redirect, don't know why we have a variant with all caps. funplussmart (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The nominated redirect has a few incoming links, but none in the article namespace. Most likely, all current incoming links meant to link to WP:COPYVIO. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a spot-check and every one I checked looks like WP:COPYVIO was what was intended. I can't see how this link would be helpful.
I would say the same for Copyvio, but let's do this one first. TJRC (talk) 21:57, 2 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:Ignore all consequences[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. kingboyk (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This manifestly does not mean the same thing as IAR, and it has no incoming links whatsoever so there's no utility in keeping it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not the same thing at all, and not something to be encouraged. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely misrepresents the policy. funplussmart (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PC78, apples and oranges. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's misleading and, if used, would encourage a misunderstanding of IAR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments. Station1 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a misdirection. (Apologies to Charles Babbage.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:20, 9 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.

Trade center[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Trade center

Mahala (Kalesija)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Mahala (Kalesija)

Virginia Giuffre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 13#Virginia Giuffre

Lin Ah Tao[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 keep. Sources provided establishing that the redirect is appropriate, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication that this is a name for the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 04:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this source (http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1340_2008-03-05.html), "Lin Ah Tao" (Chinese: 林阿多[1]) was another Chinese name used by Otokichi. --Wright.one (talk) 12:04, 2 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.

Ghost dragon[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) 00:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, what if someone wanted to look up the zombie dragon from Game of Thrones? Better off deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 04:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vague, could also apply to a White dragon.--Auric talk 15:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not too get too nerdy even for this discussion, but an undead entity is not a ghost in the first place. Given that there's no indication this term is actually used in this manner deletion seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 2 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.

WYAY (Flint, Michigan)[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) 00:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WYAY call sign has never been assigned to any station in Flint, Michigan, much less this one. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 2 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.

Winged lizard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 11#Winged lizard

Lava demon[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) 00:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, not to mention that only Peter Jackson's balrogs are explicitly made of lava if I'm not mistaken. signed, Rosguill talk 04:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of a suitable target. There is a lava demon mentioned in List of My Little Pony (1986) characters, and a google books search for the phrase comes up with results across several fantasy novels, as well as references in what looks like an ancient Roman context. It's also possible that one or another of the volcano deities could be perceived as a sort of "lava demon", but there doesn't seem to be anything specific to go by here either. – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even think Peter Jackson's balrog is explicitly made of lava. From what I recall from the book it is described as "both shadow and fire" and the one in the movie is pretty much that. Certainly nowhere in the LOTR mythos is it called by this name. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 2 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 monster[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. kingboyk (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to believe that a mythical beast whose shape is essentially unknown is the best target for "Elephant monster". signed, Rosguill talk 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This one is just silly. I found Mon Colle Knights, but this term is too generic for that target; a couple of Power Rangers-related articles describe certain villains as "elephant monsters", but there is nothing there called an "elephant monster". The term is used nowhere else, as far as I can tell. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heffalump. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too vague. --Auric talk 15:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate? Elephants are mentioned under the "Identity" section of that article, and there is literally an image of the behemoth depicted as an elephant-like creature, so I don't think the target is entirely unreasonable. But clearly there are other things it might refer to, Grootslang, Mumakil, for example. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would Cultural depictions of elephants be a suitable target? PC78 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PC78 I like this suggestion signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 6 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.

Animals (Dragon Ball)[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) 00:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a list that was moved a few months after creation to List of Dragon Ball animal characters. It was later merged into the main list. This redirect is useless as there is no group of characters called "Animals", it was a completely arbitrary grouping in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:36, 2 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.

Wall ghost[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. kingboyk (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar story to fire ghost below, the target never once calls the subject a ghost. signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to be a poor quality translation or approximation, as the article says "said to manifest as an invisible wall". --Auric talk 15:10, 2 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.

Fire ghost[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. kingboyk (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this search term is too vague, and the target article doesn't mention "fire ghost" at any point. signed, Rosguill talk 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This seems to be Original research done by someone, who interpretated the Ifrit as a Fire-Elemental or something the like. This is how they are usually presented in popular culture. But the "real" Ifrit has no special affinity to fire more than all the other jinn, demons, and infernal spirits in Islam and Islam-related lore. And yes, it is too vague. In other Asian lore, there are spirits much closer related to fire, such as the Fire Iye.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Poor quality translation. Unlike the Wall Ghost above, an Ifrit is not considered a spirit.--Auric talk 15:12, 2 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_2&oldid=1138582739"