This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2018.
- 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 deleted as G6/G7 by
RHaworth. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
I wanted to see whether or not
New Jersey coast already existed, so I typed in "New_Jersey_coast" and seeing that it didn't exist, created it as a redirect to
Jersey Shore. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that I had accidentally typed "New+Jersey coast" (plus instead of underscore) until after I had created the redirect, so I moved it to
New Jersey coast. Unfortunately, it automatically created a redirect from
New+Jersey coast to
New Jersey coast. I want to know whether or not this falls under
R3 or not because it's a plausible typo when typing in the URL bar but not when typing in the search bar. If consensus here is that
R3 applies, I'll request the redirect for speedy deletion under
R3 and
G7 (because I'm the one who made the redirect). If consensus is that
R3 or not because it's a plausible typo when typing in the URL bar but not when typing in the search bar. If consensus here is that
R3 doesn't exist, then I won't request it for speedy deletion. I want to know whether or not this case falls under
R3 or not before making my mind about whether or not it should be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Nth User (
talk •
contribs)
23:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Though I have done this myself in the past, I would say it's not plausible for simplicity sake (we don't need a hundred "Two+Word" redirects). ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖
00:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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
Facebook malware.
Facebook malware has since been created and retargeting there appears to be the most appropriate course of action at this time. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this close, please do leave me a message
on my talk page (please
be civil) and I will respond as soon as possible.
(non-admin closure)
TheSandDoctor (
talk)
04:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
A Facebook worm does not exclusively refer to
Koobface, there are also ones like
Dorkbot (malware). Note that
Facebook malware and the like do not exist. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
23:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Could this be brought to or become a disambiguation page? Would that be appropriate?―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖
23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, how about someone creates
List of Facebook worms or
Facebook malware or something like that, makes
Facebook worms redirect to it, and and adds things like
Koobface and
Dorkbot (malware)? Maybe a category for all of the pages in the list, like
Category:Facebook malware, should be created.
The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here.
Care to differ or discuss?
00:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Peter Whitehead (sport shooter)
- 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)
15:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Propose deletion per
WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (i.e. potential confusion) - his first name was Percy, not Peter (and I couldn't find any evidence that he used "Peter" as a nickname). An example of potential confusion is that an editor recently re-added this redirect to the
Peter Whitehead disambiguation page after it had previously been removed.
DH85868993 (
talk)
22:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Irish general election, 2017
- 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)
15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
There was no general election held in Ireland in 2017. --
Nevé
–
selbert
21:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. Nomination withdrawn.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Building complex is not referred to as CityPoint. Neither are the other
City Point (disambiguation) locations. The only one that is combined like that with the capital P is
CityPoint in London.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
20:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Nomination withdrawn in light of articles provided below showing that this stylization is useful.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Seems harmless enough, {{
R from modification}}. Someone must have thought this was the name, perhaps having their mind driven to camel case via its location on DeKalb Avenue. --
BDD (
talk)
20:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep As page creator, multiple sources (especially when it was new) called it and still call it "CityPoint",
1,
2,
3, etc. Yes, it's not the official name, but that doesn't mean people aren't often wrong. It's a common association like MetroCard and there are frequent mistakes made, like in NetFlix or DeBlasio, to ascribe camel case to obvious portmanteaux, even if incorrect -- like City Point, Netflix, and de Blasio. Doubt its cognitively derived from DeKalb, but it's common and needed. Unless the contention is that people confuse Brooklyn as being in London?
JesseRafe (
talk)
22:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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 Indexify. I'll relist if contested; but should be uncontroversial.
(non-admin closure)
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
03:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
There are multiple people with the given name Jessee or family name Jessee. This shouldn't go to Darren Jessee as he is not a mononym or primary topic, but I could be wrong, hence the RFD. There is also a
Jessee/Miller Field.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
20:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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.
Involved close per
WP:SNOW.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
20:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages. This is
a clear attempt to undermine the
explanatory statement(WP:RFOREIGN) to
WP:R#DELETE. Only created a few days ago and provides no obvious use to the Encyclopedia. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖
20:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Creation of this is obviously a pointy edit. Also it's not reasonable to expect the English language Wikipedia to have redirects for foreign languages. What next, do we need to add the French, German, Urdu, Tamil, Japanese, Swahili, Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Turkish, South African, Ukrainian, Esperanto and Klingon terms as redirects?
Canterbury Tail
talk
20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - only used by a user wikilinking foreign terms in untranslated excerpts from references; the excerpts themselves should not be used in English-language articles as they are of no use to English readers.
WP:RFD#K5 does not apply as it seems obvious the creator was doing so deliberately to
make a point about the foreign-language redirects essay, and got themselves blocked.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
20:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- (
edit conflict × 2) Delete
WP:POINTy. See also
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosley John Bosley (
permalink). --
BDD (
talk)
20:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete - Created as purely
WP:POINTy disruption. -
The Bushranger
One ping only
21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and salt, created to disrupt RFOREIGN as noted above. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete absolutely, at least unless someone demonstrates that the Dutch (or Afrikaners) invented climate change.
Largoplazo (
talk)
00:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Death of Pope Benedict XVI
Coronation of King Charles III
- 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 deleted per
G7. --
Tavix (
talk)
17:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. If he dies before his mother or he is passed over for whatever reason, he won't have a coronation. Additionally, there is no information about his potential coronation, so the redirect is misleading from that standpoint as well. --
Tavix (
talk)
19:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Delete. I don't see a reason for Redirects like this to exist other than to just confuse the reader. Maybe this needs a Policy debate on RfC to update Speedy Delete criteria for redirects that violate
WP:CRYSTAL for events that haven't happened yet. Thoughts? ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖
22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Excellent point,
SarekOfVulcan. Though, according to that article Charles does not have a coronation in the film as it seems he starts it as
King of England. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖
22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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 deleted per
G7. --
Tavix (
talk)
17:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Per
WP:CRYSTAL. --
Nevé
–
selbert
18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Followup note
Shouldn't
Prince William of Wales and
William of Wales also get RfD'ed for exactly the same reason? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
08:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Well, not G7 obviously, but...
ah, heck, if there was ever a case for
WP:IAR... Actually, I'm not going to delete them -
Prince William of Wales is linked all over the place.--
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- But
William of Wales wasn't, so he's gone. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
18:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
SarekOfVulcan: See
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge#Titles and styles. Before marriage, William was "Prince William of Wales". William of Wales seems to me to be a plausible variant of that, so I'd at least like to see an RfD if that one is to be deleted. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Fair enough, restored. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)
18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Not in target article.
Lordtobi (
✉)
18:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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
Micronation#Effects of the Internet.
(non-admin closure)
Ben · Salvidrim!
✉
16:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
I found this redirect after someone had blanked it, with the edit summary "Virtual nation is not the same as fictional country." Though blanking wasn't the appropriate way to address that (and I've restored the redirect), I agree with that comment. While that isn't dispositive—synonymy is hardly the only grounds for redirection—the term "virtual" doesn't appear in the redirect target,
fictional country, and "virtual nation" implies to me something like an online community that simulates the operation of a country, which is completely different from anything covered at the redirect target. Therefore, I consider the current redirect to be inaccurate and misleading, decidedly unhelpful. I also don't know of an obvious place to point it at, so maybe it should be deleted.
Largoplazo (
talk)
16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
LAG Manufacturing Company
- 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 per
G7. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
I just created this, but in retrospect, solution should be: This should be title of article, the target should be the redirect. I can rename target when this is removed. Current main article (target of this redirect) is named after a division, not the main company.
Doprendek (
talk)
16:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Paging
User Tavix, Paging User Tavix. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖
22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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 deleted per
G5. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Created by a blocked sock. Unlikely search term with and ampersand in the title, users searching for redirect target would probably use full term rather than shorthand
Night
fury
15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. --
BDD (
talk)
15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
A redirect name in Chinese.
333
-blue
14:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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 to delete as deletion was not suggested. @
Arms & Hearts: I guess you can do what you like with it.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in the target, so the reader who searches for this looking for a definition is left none the wiser. I think this either ought to be a soft redirect to Wiktionary (which has the definition), or the unsourced stub previously at this location ought to be restored. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
13:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 11#Celestial bureaucracy
- 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
WP:SNOW. This was clearly meant to be temporary (it looks like the page creator was attempting a round robin page move), so it wouldn't be a stretch to call this
housekeeping. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
This was created way back in 2005 by a new editor apparently trying to delete a redirect after
Brickfilm was moved. It doesn't seem to have any reason to exist.
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs
04:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.