Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 1

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

February 1

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2019.

Pazuzu (comics)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Pazuzu (comics)

Joseph Pike

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) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no links in any namespace. It should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Mini blind

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. 14:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left behind after moved from a subpage of a now-inactive project page to another of the same. No links or substantive history. I propose it be deleted. Bsherr (talk) 23:06, 1 February 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.

Template:Falsche ISBN

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) feminist (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED since this redirect is in German. The redirect has transclusions, but they can be bypassed with its target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may exist for when articles on the German Wikipedia are brought over and translated here on the English Wikipedia. I'm guessing they have a template with this name? --Bsherr (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The German Wikipedia probably does, but this redirect existing on the English Wikipedia is somewhat akin to importing articles in German to the English Wikipedia and leaving them in German. Steel1943 (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: Imagine the process from the perspective of the translator. He or she takes the article from German Wikipedia and pastes it here on English Wikipedia, maybe using a translator tool or script, then diligently creates or proofreads the translation. Now he or she has to relabel the template transclusions. With redirects like this, it's easy, of course, because your work is done, albeit still in German, but better than nothing. But let's say this is a really persnickety editor like us, Steel, and he or she goes through and bypasses all the template redirects! The work is so much easier if these redirects exist, because after the preview, they'll be in italics in the "Templates used in this preview" list and, with popups, one can easily see the redirect target and then go back up and bypass it. Otherwise, he or she has to either know the German template or examine it, and then either know the corresponding English template or find it. That could be a killer workload when the goal is to bring over translations from other languages rapidly. Maybe we should think about an exception to WP:FORRED for this? --Bsherr (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bsherr: You, probably without realizing it, identified one of the primary purposes of Wikidata. (Before Wikidata existed, such a task of identifying pages with the same subjects, templates, etc were performed by interwiki links ... which were then integrated into Wikidata when the project was created.) If a template by this name exists on the German Wikipedia, then in theory, the template should have a link in Wikidata which can lead the translator to the correct page/template to use in the English Wikipedia. In addition, the possibly most prominent discussion on RfD regarding alternative-language convenience links happened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#Redirects to Main Page. In addition, there is always the issue of the two templates, albeit the same but on two different language Wikipedias, having parameters with different names. If the templates have different names, but then the parameter names from the other Wikipedia are used, then the template fails to function on the Wikipedia which the template was transferred. If an editor is going to take the time to translate the article, then they also need to take the time to ensure that the templates function correctly in the Wikipedia which the article has translated to ensure that not parameters are broken. So, in a nutshell, no, I do not that this should be an exception to WP:FORRED for the aforementioned reasons, and because the different naming of parameters in templates always has the potential to result in human error. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To add a bit, upon me looking at Template:Listed Invalid ISBN, I viewed the language links on the left side and was able to locate the equivalent of this template on the German Wikipedia: de:Vorlage:Falsche ISBN. In addition, the German page has a linkback to Template:Listed Invalid ISBN listed as well. The links being there are due to the connections set up for this template's Wikidata page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, I hadn't considered Wikidata. It's not as convenient as a redirect is, but it does save time in identifying the equivalent template. You make a very good point about situations in which the parameters are different. On the other hand, where the parameters are the same and are numerical—and they don't often change with these templates—a redirect seems even more justified. The RfC I find less compelling for this case, in which the redirect seems to have more utility than pure convenience. Well, I feel reassured in having waited before !voting. I'm going to give it another several hours to see if there are any last comments. --Bsherr (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I think it should be bypassed ideally, but better a foreign-language template redirect than a broken transclusion. So, a very close call for me, but better with it than without it, I think. --Bsherr (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously useful for translated articles. Has 13 transclusions right now in article space. Redirects are cheap. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bsherr is exactly right. It saves repetitious work when importing German-language articles. Bermicourt (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others. No point in randomly creating other-language redirects, but when we import pages from elsewhere, other-language aliases for templates can save a good deal of work. WP:FORRED applies to reader-facing pages, particularly in mainspace; your average reader is never going to see the name of the {{Listed Invalid ISBN}} page (and won't even see the template itself, just its output), and won't know that it's not a part of the article, so WP:FORRED just doesn't apply. Nyttend (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, WP:FORRED applies to all namespaces, not just "...reader-facing pages". Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you need to get community consensus for expanding the page and applying it to other namespaces. All of the page currently addresses encyclopedic content: The presence of foreign language redirects creates the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language...In addition, having redirects from foreign languages gives readers the impression that a page exists in their native language...Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. None of this matters one bit for a redirect that exists to simplify the transwiki import process. In case you've not seen, retaining a maintenance template's foreign-language alternate name is just slightly different from importing a foreign-language article and leaving it written in the foreign language. It's tempting to request a speedy-keep on option #2, since your arguments are so off-base to suggest that this is a frivolous or vexatious nomination. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • "...Then you need to get community consensus for expanding the page and applying it to other namespaces..." It already does. Read what you typed again. The word used in that excerpt is "page", not "article". And I should know about the section you cited: I wrote the original version. There's a very specific reason why that passage was updated to "page" instead of "article": In Wikipedia, "page" refers to any page in any namespace, whereas "article" refers only to pages in the "(article)" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • In case you haven't seen, the examples refer to people looking for articles, e.g. "there's a redirect for my language to this completely unrelated thing, so my language should have a redirect for this", or typos. It's altogether unrelated to in-house processes, as any idiot can see. It's time for an uninvolved admin to shut down this bad-faith nomination with a stern warning not to violate WP:WL. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/History and Culture

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. 14:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created when a section of a now-deprecated list of infoboxes was renamed, resulting in the moving of this subpage and this redirect being left. Because that list was deprecated in 2008, this redirect targets the category instead. There are no substantive links. There is no substantive history. I propose it be deleted. Bsherr (talk) 22:36, 1 February 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.

Louis-Alphonse (anthroponymy)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this set for deletion as a result of a discussion at the Anthroponymy WikiProject, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Ending titles with "(anthoponomy)". Per WP:APOTITLE, the only disambiguation used for name articles are "(name)", "(given name)", and "(surname)" (with demonyms if necessary). Since "(anthroponymy)" isn't used except for this one-off spree, these redirects are obscure and useless. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 1 February 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.

Book:Jehovah's Witnesses

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 Nomination withdrawn given @Nyttend:'s generous offer to fix the issue. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misleading: Jehovah's Witnesses are not part of the LDS movement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and repurpose. This book still covered Jehovah's Witnesses until September 2015, when for a reason I can't imagine, the contents were totally replaced with LDS contents. We need to split up the history and move the JW content back here while keeping the LDS content at the current title. I'm not doing that in the middle of a discussion, but if the discussion's closed as I'm proposing, I'll be happy to do the work if the closing admin notifies me. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 2 February 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.

Old list of infoboxes subpages

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) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are redirects created when these pages were deprecated. Specifically, a list of infobox templates was deprecated and later replaced with a new format at the same base page, and these subpages of the old list were redirected to the base page of the new list. These pages were deprecated and redirected by consensus in 2008. There are no substantive links to these subpages and no real historical or attributive value to preserving them. I propose they be deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 22:25, 1 February 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.

Flow arts

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Flow arts

Complete list of encyclopedia topics

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Complete list of encyclopedia topics

Multiplayer game

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Multiplayer game

12/31/2007

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from days created at random are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per costliness. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:46, 1 February 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.

Telecommunications in Socotra

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. 14:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are misleading redirects because the target article does not cover this subject. Someone wanting to know about (tele)communications in Socotra will not be satisfied by an article on Socotra in general. -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, the closest information I could find in the article was about an archbishop being excommunicated, which is unlikely what anyone searching this redirect would be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 9 February 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.

Template:Pres. Trump USA Travels

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump made trips to USA in 2017, 2018, 2019 (and likely in 2020). B dash (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

. . .and in fact those other templates already exist, at Template:Pres. Trump USA Travels (2018), Template:Pres. Trump USA Travels (2019) So delete the one with no year. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:39, 1 February 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.

Template:CharacterInfoBox

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. 14:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unused and should not be supported. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes requires that the infobox be in the style of Template:Infobox some subject, additionally, en.wiki has moved away from the CamelCase style. This redirects fails both of these points. Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:LO

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LO was short for leftovers, but I doubt anyone remembers that, or would need this cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:10, 1 February 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 the largest waste management companies 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 delete. Deryck C. 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a list of waste management companies of the U.S., it is a category containing some waste companies (potentially worldwide). I suggest delete since this doesn't meet the high bar for list redirects to category space. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: List of waste management companies is not currently a redirect, it has become a list article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Retarget to List of waste management companies#United States, as no American companies except the largest will get enough coverage to have articles in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 6 February 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.

Parturient

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 11#Parturient

Heart pain

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 12#Heart pain

Mind-ray

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. 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect to Parapsychology but there is no evidence that this term is ever used in this context. Certainly not mentioned in the article and searches don't find it  Velella  Velella Talk   01:41, 1 February 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.

1999-94 Burnley F.C. season

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) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 1 February 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.

Westminster paedophile ring

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Westminster paedophile ring

2010- Fed Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group 1 - Pool C

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a stray dash that makes this one an unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:23, 1 February 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.

2010--11 BCHL season

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The double dash makes this a very unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:18, 1 February 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.

2005-04-07

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirects from days created at random are WP:COSTLY UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no logical sense. Just entering the year gets to the right place far quicker.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only these ones, i.e. this can't be precedent for deleting any other redirects without discussion. No point in keeping these, and no point in keeping most other individual days, but useful exceptions exist (e.g. 2001-09-11), so we can't go deleting such redirects without bringing them here first. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 2 February 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.

Shut your eyes and think of England

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Shut your eyes and think of England

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_1&oldid=883523170"