Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 12, 2019.

Vietnamese language (dialect)[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible title that features two mutually exclusive disambiguators. WP:XY also applies: judging from the history, there has been some disagreement about whether it should target Vietnamese language or Tây Bồi Pidgin French. – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wherever it targets, the title is self-contradictory and thus incorrect. ComplexRational (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP 4 and WP:Redirects are cheap. This redirect has been around since 2005 and it is possible there are links to it that we may break if it is deleted which is why I retargeted it and categorized it instead of sending it to RFD. It isn't actively harmful and while it doesn't make a ton of sense, it's obviously referring to some linguistic classification of Vietnamese and isn't much different from other {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} or {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we want to respect potential external links, then it would have been more sensible to keep the redirect pointing to the article it used to target from 2005 until earlier today, wouldn't it? – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Respecting external links does not mean redirects are immutable, it means that someone following a link to Wikipedia should get article content rather than a blank page. Nothing about the redirect title or target makes it obvious why the reader was redirected to Tây Bồi Pidgin French, but it is very obvious that someone typing this string is interested in some information on the varieties of Vietnamese. Re Kwami below, it's difficult to know whether links outside Wikipedia exist, and it has received traffic since 2015 that suggests it is being linked to from somewhere. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're conflating two separate sets of considerations here. Plausibility is one of them, and if you see the redirect as plausible then yes, your retargeting to Vietnamese language was the best option. Now, if someone links to wikipedia, they intend a particular article, and unless you assume people would create a link without looking where that link goes (for such a bizarre title, that's difficult to imagine), the intended article is precisely the link has always pointed to, and not any random page on wikipedia. If we're not going to respect the intended targets of potential external links, then it doesn't make sense to respect external links at all; if anything, landing on a non-existent page is less misleading that landing on the wrong page. As for the page views, I don't think 30 of them a year is indicative of meaningful use. – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no incoming links to worry about, but there is an odd page history. Is it worth saving? If so, the article should be moved to a more accurate RD name and the current title deleted. The original content was
Vietnamese French is a dialect of French spoken in Vietnam.
with the 'Varieties of the French language' nav box at the bottom -- but also with 'Vietnamese French' in the 'See also' section! So this was incoherent back in its 2005 conception and IMO the history isn't worth saving. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 12 September 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:BITEy[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) Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No real purpose when one can simply write [[WP:BITE]]y Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Plausible redirect. Lmatt (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is in use as I used it in an edit summary. [1] Lmatt (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Lmatt is the creator of WP:BITEy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with having multiple ways to write this, especially because not everyone knows that [[WP:BITE]]y is a valid format. In fact, I didn't know this until recently. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that you were unaware that any text which appears immediately after the right-hand double square brackets of a Wikilink is automatically appended to the link as it apprears, so that one can write "[[Dog]]s" which will appear as "Dogs" but still link to Dog, and one doesn't have to write "[[Dog|Dogs]]"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. That's not intuitive to me, so it wasn't until I was copying someone's comment that used the shortcut that it clicked for me. Before I would always pipe it or create the redirect if I thought it plausible enough. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 17 September 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.

AMF Records[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) 06:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. An internet search would suggest that AMF Records is the name of an independent label based in London with no relationship to UMG. I would suggest deletion unless a proper justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 12 September 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.

DSFL[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#DSFL

List of new dinosaurs[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) 06:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series? "New" is undefined at the target, so this redirect may be confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The original revision of this page was a half-baked attempt at listing all known dinosaur and non-dinosaur "groups", so in that context the title doesn't even make sense. But if we assume "new" to mean recent discoveries then the target article is of no help, nor does there appear to be any suitable alternative. PC78 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extinct There is no evidence that listing "new" dinosaurs has a well-defined scope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 16 September 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.

Lines (punishment)[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 Writing lines. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not explain what writing lines is. Unless content is added (re-added?) to the article on school discipline, the redirects would seem illogical. Note that Writing lines also redirects to School discipline, and should share in whatever action is taken about this. Magic9mushroom (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to think that this should be covered at the target article, lines is acommon form of school punishment (or at least it was in my day). Writing lines used to be an article but it was completely unsourced and it doesn't look like anything was merged. Google books search suggests that there is usable material on the subject. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:REDLINK. At this point, someone either needs to add content or we need to give up on it for now. I don't see this discussion going anywhere else. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this version of Writing lines, and retarget all variant redirects to it (this redirect, Lines (Punishment), and School lines) . It had a sourcing problem, but was a decent start at the topic, and I feel it would be easier to get that article up to snuff than starting from scratch. -- Tavix (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close a sizable (46 discussions!) log page. Per WP:RELIST, this may be closed at anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to writing lines per Tavix; I've restored the article, cut it down, and started rewriting it based on the sources mentioned in PC78's comment. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 16 September 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.

List of awesome dinosaurs[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) 06:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Apparently this redirect was created because "dinosaurs are inherently awesome", but that is subjective and not encyclopedic. Either way, the target does not distinguish the awesomeness of dinosaurs. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make it extinct. Dinosaurs are certainly awesome but this redirect is just a bit of unnecessary silliness. I'm surprised it survived a previous RfD. PC78 (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much everything could qualify as "awesome". Unencyclopedic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsuitable humor in the main namespace. Not helpful for navigating the encyclopedia. Geolodus (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:12, 16 September 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.

Palestine mountain gazelle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Palestine mountain gazelle

Saint Frances E.[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) 06:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song from an album that is only mentioned in a discography, so redirect is no more than a dead end. Richhoncho (talk) 15:55, 12 September 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.

One-party participatory democracy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#One-party participatory democracy

Dilshad Karim Elita[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) 06:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no mention of "Dilshad" anywhere. Possibly unsourced. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:33, 12 September 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.

One third (fraction)[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) 06:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, no usage history. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 12 September 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.

Draft:3.1415926535897932384626433832795[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 speedily deleted per CSD G7 by Alexf. (non-admin closure) –Sonicwave talk 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an alternative redirect. 14.207.202.115 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (weak) keep: Also a plausible redirect typo, I got plenty of hits on the urban dictionary here and I got many uses on the internet. Don't delete this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.207.202.115 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an inappropiate cross-namespace redirect. Redirects from the "Draft" namespace to main namespace are unlikely to aid in searching or linking. Writing the word "Draft:" at the beginning of one's search is not a plausible typo at all. 46.132.191.26 (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move namespace to article per Wikipedia:Namespace. 14.207.202.115 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD R2 14.207.202.115 (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated for speedy deletion per CSD G7, as the user who nominated the redirect for RfD was the creator of the redirect. 85.76.21.79 (talk) 06:58, 12 September 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_September_12&oldid=919277042"