Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 8, 2019.

Eurovision Song Contest 2100[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) 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created a bit WP:TOOSOON... -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 8 March 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.

Multiplayer[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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Game#Multiplayer games, consistent with the minor variants multi player and multi-player. This is a followup to the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#Multiplayer game. Harshrathod50 converted this to a disambiguation in October, and then started running AWB to pipe links, but was obligated to stop that after objections were raised on their talk page. Making this a disambiguation was the wrong move, as multiplayer (games) is a broad concept, but they should be allowed to finish piping the links, if they wish to. Game § Multiplayer games should probably be expanded to give a broad summary of multiplayer video games, and that article should also cover every notable topic that was included on the reverted disambiguation, if it doesn't yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per the earlier discussion. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would all the multiplayer links in game articles have to be redirected towards multiplayer video game as a result? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That would doubtless be preferable if you want the most-specific link relevant to the particular article. --Izno (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Game#MPG and fix links. This is for consistency and to match the previous RfD and to undo the mess with the DAB-related changes (unless a new discussion is made for the whole lot of the redirects). However, I would have definitely said that video games is the primary topic. Without looking much into it (for this RfD), is there actually significant use of this term in reliable sources other than in the context of video games? Previous discussion looks very split and there wasn't really a source survey either way. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, if the result is to keep the current target, then we should also redirect the other two variants. Otherwise, we're back where we started with no consistency. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The primary topic is overwhelmingly related to video games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current target. Note that multiplayer has never been used to refer to anything but video games. Game#Multiplayer_games references Oxford dictionary but if you go there https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/multiplayer it only defines it as something related to video games, not other types of games. Dream Focus 14:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary topic. For consistency, instead change the less used multi player and multi-player to match. These two are actually the outlier, once you consider the related trio of singleplayer, single player, single-player. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merriam Webster has a more general definition, and says the word dates to 1936. Billboard magazine in the 1950s had advertising for coin-operated pinball and bowling games that supported both single- and multiplayer games. wbm1058 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Webster definition also says often and then list how its most often used. The other link you give I see "multiple players" but not "multiplayer". The common use of multiplayer these days is always video games. Dream Focus 15:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But almost all contemporary sources talk about video games. Google's News, Books and Scholar hits are all about video games. It had use historically that isn't about video games, but primary topics can change and it certainly seems to be the case here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:52, 11 March 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.

WikiPediaBugs[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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very unlikely cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from CamelCase}} and {{R with old history}} - this has been around since July 2001. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have to remember that back when I created this (28 July 2001, getting close to 18 years ago), namespaces didn't exist yet, and links still in CamelCase :) Wow, this redirect is almost old enough to vote. And it is amazing to think back on how much life changes over that time period, but some redirect I don't even remember creating sticks around. (And a thousand years from now I'll be long dead and forgotten, but some bunch of Wikipedia articles will still have my name in the revision history.) SJK (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ❤ I know, right?  — Scott • talk 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (Class of 2002)[reply]
  • Keep, part of project history.  — Scott • talk 12:25, 13 March 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.

Ministry of Environment and Forests IIndia)[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) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unusual typo substituting an opening bracket with a capital I. Obviously created in error and not a useful redirect or likely search term. PC78 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 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.

Istorychniy Muzeikiv Metro)[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) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomplete parenthesis, but also apparently nonsense. "Muzeikiv" does not appear to be an actual word or name, instead it seems to be an odd and presumably unintentional contraction of the article's proper title, i.e "Istorychnyi Muzei (Kharkiv Metro)". PC78 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 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.

Do A Barrel Roll[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 Star Fox. Seems this is the best target per discussion. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete An unlikely search term that is not a type we want to encourage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Star Fox, where it is mentioned a couple times. It's also discussed at List of Star Fox characters#Peppy Hare but I don't think that is as prominent of a target. I have added two variants to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Google Easter eggs as the suggestion was popularized. Peppy Hare would be okay too if mentioned or discussed in detail, but the Google one is the most common usage. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate mentions in articles via the search engine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Google Easter eggs per AngusWOOF. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Star Fox article mentions its use in the series as well as it's use as a Google doodle in the reception section. It should target the original use for contextual reasons, but I have added a link directly to the Google Easter eggs list there. That should resolve the above comments advocating for deletion due to multiple targets and for retargeting to the Google Easter egg list. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a clear consenus in favour of retargetting, but no consensus (yet) on what the best target is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to relevant section in Star Fox, since that's the origin of the meme. The Google Easter egg is merely one, albeit prominent, incarnation of this meme. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Similar to the previous relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retaarget to Star Fox as it provides context to the easter egg. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Star Fox, it’s origin and the primary place a person would go to read about it. (Google would not had done it had it not been popularized through Star Fox first) Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting it to Google. The phrase and its description is obviously a reference to Star Fox from the Nintendo 64, so why would it lead to a reference and not to the original? --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least two, as we do no need to have every capitalization of every sentence (Do A Barrel Roll seems to be the oldest, so the most likely to be kept, if any) - Nabla (talk) 12:33, 16 March 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.

Human-readable interpretation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Human-readable interpretation

The Alien Chicken (in pilot)[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) 13:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What even is this supposed to be? The Chicken from Outer Space? That's a pretty far-off redirect. Paper Luigi T • C 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Current wording not a plausible search term. If kept, should probably be retargeted to the subjects separate “list of characters” article, though honestly, that should probably be deleted too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The search engine should be able to deal with that. The history is not relevant because Chicken from Outer Space was already men tioned in the target article at that time (so it looks like the content from this was not copied to the target) - Nabla (talk) 13:00, 16 March 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.

File:Tapasya.jpg[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 WP:R4. Note that this is also a redirect at commons, so what is now shown is File:Tapasya Nayak.jpg. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, Local file moved? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 8 March 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.

File:Alec.jpg[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 WP:R4. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, Local file was moved? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 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.

File:Masquerades.jpg[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 WP:R4. -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing Commons, Local file was moved? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 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.

File:Warpaint.jpg[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 WP:R4. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, Local file was moved? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 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.

File:Maa.jpg[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 WP:R4. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File redirect shadowing commons? Local file was apparently moved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 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.

File:AHNU.jpg[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 WP:R4. Note that this is also a redirect at commons, so what is now being shown is File:Gate of AHNU.jpg. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, Local file was moved? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 8 March 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.

File:Fowler.jpg[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 WP:R4. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons, File was re-titled. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but brought here because I was unaware that R4 was now an established CSD. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 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.

NSB Class 14[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 by Anthony Appleyard although which criterion it met is unclear. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the article redirects to the electric class 14, however the name suggests it's a steam class 14. Tony May (talk) 04:35, 8 March 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.

Duggardesh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Duggardesh

Mao Buyi[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 procedrual close. The page is no longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request for deletion of the redirect since it makes no sense to redirect an artist name to a list of number-one singles. There appears to be a corresponding page on Chinese Wikipedia. 210.6.196.245 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was not tagged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it can be turned into an article as the artist will likely be notable WP:MUSICBIO for having that number-one single. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How does it not make sense? It's a legitimate target for a redirect (doesn't matter what type of article it is), and it can be expanded. I might even do so myself, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted until then. Ss112 02:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This doesn't strike me as being a natural or intuitive redirect. It would be better left as a red link IMHO. PC78 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF and Ss112. The redirect goes to a legitimate place as Mao Buyi is referenced there (though the link in the actual table should be removed). The creation of the redirect seems to have been done to represent a topic that might or will likely have notability in the future for an article. The argument on whether or not a redirect is "natural or intuitive" seems a little odd to me. I do not necessarily see why a red link would be preferable to a redirect, as this may be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Mao Buyi is a person and the target article is a list of songs from a particular year. If he makes it on to next years list for example, where then would you target the redirect in the absence of an article? So a valid search term, yes, but I think it's better left as a red link to show that an article is needed rather than redirecting readers to a list article that is only tangentially related. It just seems like an odd choice to me. PC78 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that argument, but I also think that it is too soon to say whether or not he will make an appearance on future charts or not. My vote to keep it is primarily due to it being a viable search term (in my opinion) and it may be helpful to have it link somewhere, but I can understand your point of view as well. Hopefully, there will be more discussion on this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have made this into an article now, so this discussion no longer really applies. Ss112 16:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This should be withdrawn now that an article has been made. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 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.

Copernicium(IV) fluoride[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Copernicium(IV) fluoride

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_8&oldid=888190414"