This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2015.
The Fat Kid from Stand By Me
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 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.
Anelloni
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.
Someone prodded this page, but prods don't apply to redirects, so it was declined on procedural grounds. The prod rationale was "Anelloni" is a distinct pasta style that was recently invented by the
University of Warwick. It is no longer appropriate to redirect Anelloni to the Anellini article. I'm neutral, coming here just to help the ill-informed prodder.
Nyttend (
talk)
15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment there's multiple different kinds of "anelloni", there's the recently invented pasta, but there's also another one similar to rigatoni. Suggest conversion to set index. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
02:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I was going to create a {{
polymer-stub}} article for the "recently invented" one, as it has several mentions in reliable sources. But they all boil down to quoting from this article in December's Physics World, which is essentially primary source (written by its inventors):
Michieletto, Davide; Turner, Matthew S. (December 2014).
"A taste for anelloni"(PDF). Physics World.
IOP. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 3 January 2015. So we decided to create our own "ring spaghetti" — or "anelloni" as we've decided to call it (anello in Italian meaning "ring").non-primary source needed
Raisfeld, Robin; Patronite, Rob (31 January 2011).
"Bowled Over". New York Magazine. The Underground Gourmet. Retrieved 3 January 2015. The pièce de résistance, though, is a dried tubular pasta called anelloni, a fashion-forward shape that dares to wear its sauce-clinging ridges on the inside of the loop instead of on the outside [...] pasta innovation at its finest.
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.
Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (Australia)
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.
Delete as an extremely implausible search term. This exact title doesn't appear on the redirected article, which makes it unnecessary. The fact that there is a disambiguator makes it even more unneeded. Tavix |
Talk 07:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Discussion prior to nomination update
Comment: There seem to be a bunch of other similar redirects:
Keep Australia's Minister for Education. The name format is completely different from the rest; it should not be included in this nomination. Please withdraw it and open a new RFD.
Nyttend (
talk)
15:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
keep all. Several of these are included on the page as former or lesser ministerial titles, and unnecessary disambiguation is never a reason to delete a redirect. The disambiguation is not always unnecessary either - for example Russia, Ukraine and Latvia also have ministries for Education and Science.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)reply
An unnecessary disambiguation is a reason to delete when it's an implausible search term. In my opinion, there's no way someone is going to type in the full name of some of these and add (Australia) to the end of it. On the other hand, I could see someone using the full title without (Australia). There's a difference here. Therefore, having a redirect of the full title could be useful, but including the disambgiuator is not. Tavix |
Talk 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix: full names are always likely search terms. If someone is looking for one of these and knows or suspects that the title is not unique and are familiar with Wikipedia's disambiguation style (i.e. potentially anyone who regularly reads Wikipedia) they will think to try these terms with the disambiguator so there is nothing implausible about them - doubly so for those where disambiguation is actually required. On top of all this, the redirects are not misleading or otherwise harmful meaning there is no benefit to deletion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:24, 2 January 2015 (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.
¯\ (ツ) /¯
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.
Redirect to EmoticonList of emoticons which actually describes it, following RFD result
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_19#.29:-o, and all the
other redirects. I would add that there should be discretion, as the possibilities for emoticons and other ASCII art are as endless as peoples' imagination and keystrokes, and every random combination need not default redirect to Emoticon or any other article: <*)))>< need not redirect to
Fish for instance (assuming the wikimarkup even allowed it!), as this is English Wikipedia, not Pictographic Wikipedia.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
22:18, 2 January 2015 (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.
Yumiko Fukushima
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.
Keep (I'm assuming you meant "This redirect should be deleted") This is standard procedure for a spouse who isn't independently notable; we even have the {{R from spouse}} tag for such redirects. If there's a circular link at the target article, that's easily dealt with—just remove it. --
BDD (
talk)
03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep the circular redirect can easy be dealt with and there is no rule stating that a non notable spouse can't be redirected to the more notable spouse's article if they have a different profession, so the fact that she is not a baseball player is irrelevant.--
69.157.253.160 (
talk)
21:22, 2 January 2015 (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.
File talk:Bluebirds.jpg
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.
Confusing redirect. Commons has a file with this name, but the redirect points to the talk page of a different file which is hosted locally on Wikipedia.
Stefan2 (
talk)
18:59, 2 January 2015 (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.
Pop no 1s
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.
Too generic a title to redirect to specific year of a specific chart. Pop songs and music charts go back decades and this redirect will not help anyone. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
But what about all the pop songs that went to number one in the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany. I think the most generic target would be
pop music. --20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk •
contribs)
Then retarget it to the list that includes Billboard and the UK/Australian/German/etc #1s. Does it not exist? <copypaste>If it doesn't exist yet, we can just put together a simple new page, linking
List of Billboard number-one singles and whatever other lists of #1 singles</copypast>.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Thank you. This is to where I think we ought to redirect it. Why do you believe deletion better than retargeting them there? They're generic titles, and so is Lists of number-one songs.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Partially because pop music is a genre. Most primary no. 1 songs lists/charts cross all genres. Billboard specifically has its Pop Songs (Mainstream Top 40) chart and the Hot 100, two distinct charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete both per
WP:RFD#1 "The redirect makes it unreasonably difficult to find similarly-titled articles",
WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect may cause confusion" — especially since two that differ only by punctuation go to different targets — and
WP:RFD#R5 "the redirect makes no sense" since they could go to any other year, or any other chart.
The following potential variants are all redlinks:
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.
Rights Alliance
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: There's no issue of libel here. The question is whether the Rights Alliance has independent notability or is only going to be known in its relation to the Pirate Bay. If the former, deletion per
WP:REDLINK would be appropriate. If the latter, there's no problem.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BDD (
talk)
16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As a minor topic with connections to a few notable subjects, it just doesn't make sense to redirect to one of them, especially when it isn't mentioned anywhere. --
BDD (
talk)
19:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, wot BDD said. I tried to find non-primary sources but couldn't, delete to encourage creation of the article (good luck!)
Si Trew (
talk)
14:07, 18 January 2015 (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.
1993 LPGA Corning Classic
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.
Comment. Are you saying that the
LPGA Corning Classic is not notable, or just the 1993 edition of it?. If it is the former, then I suggest you take that up at
WP:AFD and, if that deletion is approved there, this redirect should be taken care of as part of the tidy up. If it is the latter, then that would presumably be why we don't have an article on the 1993 LPGA Corning Classic. As stated in
WP:RFDOUTCOMES, there is no notability requirement for redirects, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. --
chris_j_wood (
talk)
18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
It's articles about yearly non major championships. What is there to discuss? How about the reason you created the redirect in the first place?
...William01:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
That still doesn't make any sense - this redirect is not an article, and the target is not about the yearly events. If the championships as a whole are notable (and while I'm no expert they look to be) then redirects from the individual years to the target are good redirects to have. If you disagree the target is notable, then you are in the wrong place and need to nominate
LPGA Corning Classic at AfD. If you think the individual year should have an article then you can just overwrite the redirect with that article.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
And I have absolutely no recollection of creating that redirect nearly three years ago, so I cannot give a definitive answer to why. Unlike articles, I don't spend too much time pondering the creation of redirs; if it seems as if it might help a subsequent user I just do it. Like as not, I fell over a red link to
1993 LPGA Corning Classic in another article I was working on (or even just consulting), discovered that there was an article at
LPGA Corning Classic that seemed pretty relevant to the link, and created the redir. --
chris_j_wood (
talk)
12:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: I'm adding two similar redirects to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BDD (
talk)
15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all, single-use redirects better served by a pipe (or removing the year from the link).
Details: each is only used, once, in
List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross#Others, and not even the full name of the competition. The article is unbalanced as no other competition listed in it has the year in the link, except these in the Others section. These other redirects were also created by
User:Chris j wood on the same day as those nominated, 10 April 2012:
Comment. Well thank you for doing that piece of industrial archaeology, although to be honest I do not know why you are taking so much trouble over a redirect. I still don't recall these edits, but if you compare the
article as it was before I edited it on 10 April 2012 and
after, you can see that I was doing exactly what I said in my edit comment. Before there were a mixture of links to dated tournaments (eg. 2004 Women's British Open) and undated (1993
LPGA Corning Classic). This offended my sense of aesthetics, so I standardised the article so all the entries that had tournament details had dated tournament details, and where that changed a blue link to a red link, I fixed that up by creating a redirect. I see nothing wrong with that as a process, nor do I see anything wrong with single-use redirects; just to repeat there is no notablity requirement on redirects to cast doubt on that. Obviously
List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross has moved on significantly in the last two-and-a-half years, and if you want to tidy it up in a different way to me, I have no problem with that. But I don't see any reason to do anything about the redirects, even if that means they end up as zero-use redirs; their existence harms no-one, and if a user were happen to search on them, or another editor add a link, they would still be useful. --
chris_j_wood (
talk)
20:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all, as per my previous comments, and because lack of notability (the headline proposed reason for deletion) is immaterial for redirects. --
chris_j_wood (
talk)
20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)reply
If we didn't take "so much trouble over a redirect" we might as well just shut down RfD altogether. As for their existence causing no harm, I would generally agree, but I feel that the absence of redirects for other years means it's a
WP:SURPRISE that these sparse few exist – (from there: "Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place") and that does not help a search or other editors adding links.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes it is slightly surprising that only these years exist, but if these are kept then that is easily fixed. I wont create them now though as this is (surprisingly to me) not a snow keep discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:34, 4 January 2015 (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 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.
Appear to be a series of redirects left over from botched moves. The ones with extra words after the disambiguator and should be deleted, but "Rebirthing Breathwork" may be an alternative name for this fringe therapy and should be kept. Note that I recently moved the target to
Rebirthing (breathwork) and if any of these are kept they should be retargeted if the bot hasn't got to them already.
Ivanvector (
talk)
15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I keep getting edit conflicts when trying to add the Rfd templates to the new redirects I've listed, so I've stopped. The redirects are not tagged.
Ivanvector (
talk)
15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep
Rebirthing Breathwork as a plausible search term for the article due to essentially matching the title and current disambiguator. Delete the rest as highly unlikely search terms with malformed disambiguators that were created as a result of botched title moves.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:03, 2 January 2015 (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 Cheek to Cheek Tour
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
Cheek to Cheek Tour. Si Trew's right on this one—if the article on the tour is deleted, this will be as well. If it's not, then this is a helpful redirect. --
BDD (
talk)
21:16, 9 January 2015 (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.
Snowball clause
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 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 21st Century
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.
Redirect makes no sense. If this page is meant to refer to the 1967-1970 TV series (hosted by Walter Cronkite), well it redirects to one about the Mike Wallace-hosted 1990s-2000s remake of
the preceding 1960-67 series also hosted by Walter Cronkite. Unless and until someone creates an article about the 1967-1970 TV series, this redirect should be deleted.
SJK (
talk)
10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
NOTE There's a VERY BIG PROBLEM with the current target article. From 2004 until 2014, it was about the Walter Cronkite TV show
[1] And included information about a TV show called "The 21st Century". The Mike Wallace show overwrote the older article. This should not happen. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
22:45, 5 January 2015 (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.
2014 Iranian Airstrikes on ISIL in Eastern Iraq
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 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.
National Flag Anthem
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 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 Flag Song
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.
Keep: the nominator has provided rationale to keep in their nomination statement as "
Flag Song" is a very similarly-titled redirect, so deleting could be harmful. (However, if
Flag Song was bundled with this nomination, my vote would actually be(Part of statement crossed out due to no longer being valid for the current nomination.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Delete both due to being overly ambiguous to a point to where they are not helpful to readers.
Steel1943 (
talk)
02:44, 2 January 2015 (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.
Harry's Mom
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.
Delete. Since none is {{
R to section}}, I had to search to find they mean Lily Potter (which is an {{R to section}}): so they are hardly an aid to searching. "Mom" does not exist in the target article at all, and "mum" only once ("In a Mother's Day article Molly was also voted the third greatest celebrity mum by The Flowers and Plants association").
Harry's Mum,
Harrys Mum and
Mum of Harry are red. The
Harry Potter article only mentions "mother" twice ("mom" and "mum" not at all), and never names her. Perhaps I am odd but I have never read a Harry Potter book nor seen a film, so I come genuinely ignorant to this one.
Si Trew (
talk)
02:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Harry Potter is clearly not the only notable Harry and I see no evidence that someone typing any of these redirects would be looking for this character's mother specifically.--
69.157.253.160 (
talk)
04:39, 2 January 2015 (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.