Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 21

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 21, 2017.

Important events in NHGRI history

[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Someone searching for this is looking for a list of events in NHGRI history, which they will find. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (this reply applies to all the nominations the nominator has left the above comment on) I disagree. "Important" in this case clearly means "selected" or what we would usually term "notable" - i.e. not an indiscriminate list. None of the targets are indiscriminate, and highlight only important (for varying definitions) entries. If someone does disagree with the selection of "important" there is nothing we can help them with, but this does not justify forcing everyone else to navigate via unpredicatable search results. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Important education facilities in Pokhara

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Important education facilities in Pokhara

Important viruses

[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) 23:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig The target includes a "Comparison table of clinically important virus families and species" which is a suitable target for this redirect, however "virus" is ambiguous between biological viruses and computer viruses. Comparison of computer viruses seems to be a suitable target for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Are we talking about viral diseases or computer viruses? Is "important" a particular classification like "endangered" or "threatened" ? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the problems with this redirect, I agree that we should just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Important Sikh Personalities

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Important Sikh Personalities

Important milestones in Kannada literature

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Important milestones in Kannada literature

Important Disasters Of 2009-2010

[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) 23:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "important" is subjective. Also, the scope of the target page includes more than just "Disasters Of 2009-2010". Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this was Important disasters of 2009 I'd suggest retargetting to category:2009 disasters, and similarly for any other single year, but we don't have any content about disasters (or afaict any subset of type of disasters) covering periods other than calendar years or centuries. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The disconnect between what the redirect says and what the target is make this unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no such list. The caps on all words is weird too, implying a book title or something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Important Events of 2005

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 8#Important Events of 2005

Important Camorra arrests

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#Important Camorra arrests

Important Graphing Equations

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#Important Graphing Equations

Important battles in medieval Indian History

[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 Withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong (if not speedy) keep per {{R from move}} - there was content at this title from 2012 until you unilaterally moved and then merged it today (worth noting it was kept at AfD in 2012. There will are lots of incoming internal links and will be plenty of incoming external ones too. Per WP:RNEUTRAL the word "important" is not a problem in the title of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment from nominator: (I'm posting this after I withdrew the nomination, but I'm posting this here in case it needs to be referenced.) The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of important opera terminology

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7#List of important opera terminology

N1 Bootis

[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) 23:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. N1 is not an abbreviation for Nu1. In the context of Bayer designations for stars, latin letters refer to completely different stars, so this redirect is confusing and misleading. Given that there is no actual N1 Bootis, there is no more appropriate target. Lithopsian (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Death of Diana

[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) 23:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly ambiguous. Sure, the late Princess of Wales remains mononymously known in Britain, but I am sceptical whether that applies worldwide. --Nevé–selbert 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless there's someone else it might refer to. If there isn't, this redirect is appropriate. If there is, it should be a DAB page. (That said, I can't think of any other event to which the expression "Death of Diana" might apply.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime

[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) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is trying to delete this one but it's not eligible for speedy but the result is redirect to Samsung Galaxy not deleted but it's protected by AustralianRupert lets take the RfD instead. Atorres50 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a reason to delete a redirect, why should it be deleted? Also an AFD for this page resulted in the redirect. - GB fan 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Samsung Galaxy J, adding a sentence there about it (when it was released and what android version it comes with would be sufficient imo). Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment articles are a mess right now as J1 redirects to J, and only the general Galaxy page has all the J models. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Samsung Galaxy J is for one smartphone, not the series as Samsung Galaxy#Samsung Galaxy J implies. Since that's the case, it wouldn't make sense to retarget to Samsung Galaxy J unless the article is reconfigured to be a series article. One thing to note (NPI) is that there's no discussion of what the "Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime" actually is. I'm sure someone searching this already knows that it's a Samsung Galaxy, so they aren't really helped by the current target as they'd most likely want to know specific information about the J1 mini Prime. That leaves deletion, which makes the most sense to me and what I would prefer unless and until specific information about this device can be described somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lina Lansberg

[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 redirect created. Dwanyewest for future reference you don't need to get permission to create redirects like this - you can be WP:BOLD and create them yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name Lina Lansberg should be redirected to Lina Länsberg as it is about the same person Dwanyewest (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gold trade

[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 Gold#Cultural history. --BDD (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the historic gold trade in "Gold as an investment". Most of the incoming links from gold trade are from articles about history. Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

President-incumbent of the United States

[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. Apologies, I accidentally used the canned "keep" text when I edited the redirect, but I'm calling this no consensus. Same result, but not worth a dummy edit IMO. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term, if this should point anywhere, it should go to incumbent. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Small Penis Syndrome

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 8#Small Penis Syndrome

Tau Booetis Ab

[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. Deryck C. 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per yesterday's list, this is another I found today. A bot-created redirect incorrectly treating a Greek diaresis as a German umlaut. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Morpheus (disambigaution)

[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, G7, by GB fan. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled qualifier, delete. If used, User:DPL bot would report an error. NB the correct page Morpheus (disambiguation) exists Narky Blert (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🥙

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥙

🥅

[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) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🥘

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#🥘

🤣

[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) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🥂

[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) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT

[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. I'll add a hatnote at the target page to to Thryduulf's suggested target, though. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused shortcut to a dead-on-arrival policy proposed a few days ago. It's usually better to propose something first and then add all the extras once it's been approved. As there is no such thing as preemptive salting, never has been, and it is explicitly disallowed by policy, this shortcut should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit to that, this is entirely unused and basically unknown, and that target section already has two shortcuts and does not mention create protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the section in its present form doesn't mention creation protection, but it does mention page protection in a general sense. Since creation protection is a form of page protection, targeting this redirect to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Vandalism is akin to targeting a WP:PRECISE title to a more general/ambiguous subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or retarget per Thryduulf. The general consensus on Wikipedia is that we don't pre-emptively salt a title that has never seen a page. Having an all-caps shortcut gives the proposal undue impression of legitimacy. But please don't get to a situation where we need to salt this title... Deryck C. 11:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phoenixes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Phoenixes

Draft:Gorilla City (The Flash)

[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. While current consensus exempts such redirects from CNR-based deletion, consensus for this one in particular is that the speedy deletion criterion still applies. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of WP:CNR. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brojam: WP:R2 doesn't apply here, as its only for redirects from mainspace. This redirect is from draftspace. -- Tavix (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then per Kailash29792. Brojam (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Stretch Armstrong (2014 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) 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failed crystal. The plans to make this film were abandoned. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Manhunt (2014 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) 22:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a 2014 or 2015 film by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Beast (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 retarget to The Beast#Films. Steel1943's concern is noted, though—if there isn't a merge, we may need to revisit this if there's a notable film named simply Beast. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This dab page doesn't mention any films named "Beast". -- Tavix (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

IDKWTI

[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) 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the page resembling a reason for this, as far as I can tell. It's slang for "I don't know [who/what/where] [that/this] is". Possible BLP, even? Eh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The explanation for this, given at [1] is "If you're not familiar with "IDKWTI", it refers to a certain shooting guard from Indiana who was verballed to Illinois for 10 months before flipping to Indiana. When asked about EG flipping from Illinois to Indiana, Deron Williams, who was in the NBA by then, responded with the very dead-to-me "Eric Gordon? I Don't Know Who That Is." As such, IDKWTI refers to Gordon.". This nickname was apparently formerly mentioned in the infobox but a talk page discussion agreed it should be removed. If it was to be mentioned anywhere, it would e in the "Recruitment" or "Aftermath" sections, but including that one quote would seem a bit undue given the coverage already there (but note I know essentially nothing about basketball). If you are using this nickname then you already know who it refers to, but if you see someone else using it Wikipedia's article will not make you any the wiser, so I'm leaning delete here. I'll ping the college basketball project about this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't think of a single reason this should exist. It's a derogatory nickname used by fans of a single team. João Do Rio (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of the usage in notable sports articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Opera basic topics

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 8#Wikipedia:Opera basic topics

连词

[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 Chinese_grammar#Conjunctions. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current target doesn't cover conjunctions in Chinese, so this may be seen as misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deryck. I agree with the retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6 to close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. This is just like any other situation where we have a redirect from a foreign-language term to an article that covers a topic related to the foreign language. Congrats to AngusWOOF for finding an article that already covered the topic. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Theodora FitzGibbon (Cookery writer, model and actress)

[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. The general consensus is that this redirect has too much of a disambiguator to be useful. Deryck C. 15:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary disambiguator which is too unwieldy to be useful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Camila Mendes

[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. In my capacity as a normal editor, however, I'd like to opine that just because we can have redirects like this doesn't mean we should. As soon as she becomes involved with another notable project, this becomes WP:XY and we need to delete or overwrite. In the meantime, this is an improvement over search results—but not by much. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actor articles should not redirect to a singular piece of their work, as it incorrectly represents them. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Expanding per my talk page. Redirects of actors to articles of works of media are misleading, given that an actor/actress typically has starred in multiple works of media, and redirecting them to a specific one is misleading and gives undue weight to that particular work. This is why I request deletions for them. If it's going to be made into an article, then do just that. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a few AFDs about persons which pass borderline notability and the consensus is to redirect now, as there is a chance that the article will be full notable in short time. This actress is popular for playing VERONICA in the Archie TV series, so the redirect is to the TV series. As I said in your talk page other editors creates many such redirects every week where they redirects the actor to the film. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But only in this case since Mendes has not starred in any other works of media, apart from Riverdale, and will most likely take a while to get enough coverage to create an article. For actors with multiple works, it is misleading and should not be used. Brojam (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_February_21&oldid=1138581531"