This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2018.
Palace law
- 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. Consensus is that a broad-concept article would be ideal, but this is better than nothing.
(non-admin closure)
feminist (
talk)
09:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
"Palace law" is a historical class of laws, which used to comprise much more individual laws than the one regarding royal succession. Since there is currently no article on the subject, it should be a red link.
Paul_012 (
talk)
13:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Unopposed, but given it has been here since late 2006, I think it warrants at least one relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - This seems as if it merits a general concept article, as stated above.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
05:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, I did a fair bit of searching but the current target is the only "Palace law" I can find. If there are others, the target would be the primary topic as far as I can tell. Unless someone can find sourcing to support the creation of a general article, I don't see any problem with the status quo. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Tavix. I agree there's likely more to be said in the general, but this appears to be all we've got at the moment, so in the absence of more material, it's useful. Perhaps worth tagging with {{
R with possibilities}}. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
14:53, 14 May 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.
Doyle Lee Hamm
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 25#Doyle Lee Hamm
The Evil / The evil / Suck evil / Suck Evil
- 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. Some interest in retargeting the first two to
Evil (disambiguation), but unconvinced of the utility given the options at that page and no clear evidence of usage beyond the general. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
None of these terms are mentioned at the target article. In the least, "The evil" is ambiguous unless it specifically refers to something, which it doesn't seem to in the current situation.
Steel1943 (
talk)
12:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or redirect "The Evil" and "The evil" - Keep per
WP:CHEAP, since during certain 2018 concerts, the band has referred to themselves as "The Evil". If this can not be kept, the term can be redirected to "
Evil" or some other suitable target. --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
18:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep "Suck Evil" and "Suck evil" - Keep per
WP:CHEAP, since the band has been referred to in some circles as "Suck Evil". --
Jax 0677 (
talk)
18:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget - Since a variety of entities titled 'Evil' can be also known as 'the Evil', I'd rather that we go over to the page '
Evil (disambiguation)'.
The latter two redirects I'm not sure about, so I guess I'm just neutral on them.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
20:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Nicknames(?) that are not attested in the article. --
Tavix (
talk)
20:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. No articles to show use of these phrases, not even t-shirts and merchandise, which have stuff instead about "Evil Sucks" or "Running Sucks"
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Still awaiting the source that uses this officially as a nickname.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:45, 7 May 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.
M22 graph
- 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
Mathieu group M22. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
The redirect is factually incorrect (it is associated with the
Mathieu group M22), and the graph itself may be notable enough for a standalone article. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
20:47, 6 May 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.
Untitled Blade Runner project
- 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, unopposed; Keep Untitled Boyapati Srinu project and Untitled blink-182 album. Deleting all as unopposed redirects, except
Untitled blink-182 album per Tavix below, as well as
Untitled Boyapati Srinu project, which has some history. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Useless redirects as all these projects now have titles
69.118.34.147 (
talk)
20:45, 6 May 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.
Arsenacho
- 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. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
WP:FORRED, most likely. Not mentioned in article. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
20:28, 6 May 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.
Glamour (Charmed)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Glamour (Charmed)
Glamor
- 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
Glamour. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Since this isn't the "US-pedia", this redirect should probably be retargeted to
Glamour.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:43, 6 May 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.
Jeffrey Reinking
- 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. Middle names only don't make for good redirects, and let's do no harm. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
The Waffle House shooter was known as Travis Reinking, not Jeffrey Reinking. Searching Google gave several results for
a professor at UCF (possibly notable? his page lists several publications), so it is not a good idea to connect him to a shooting. --
Tavix (
talk)
13:39, 6 May 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.
Unused redirects for Template:Stnlnk
- 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. Not convinced there's an advantage to deleting these, especially as it seems folks find them useful (as evidenced by using them) ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
14:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Unused redirects. The first one was probably created accidentally, as it was only used on a single page. The second one was only on ten pages (of which one was a duplicate) out of over 12,000 uses of {{
Stnlink}} and its aliases. Use of the third one was discontinued almost a year ago, with all instances replaced by {{
RWS}}.
Useddenim (
talk)
10:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- ...Since this was relisted, keep all since no rationale for confusion or ambiguity is present in this nomination, considering that these are redirects in the "Template:" namespace.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- So, Steel1943, in your opinion it's a good thing to encourage mis-spellings and forking?
Useddenim (
talk)
18:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment If the third one was widely used, doesn't that mean the redirect preserves the formatting of old versions of many articles when looking through history? Or am I misremembering an old reason to keep template redirects? --
Qetuth (
talk)
23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
Qetuth: The consensus is to not preserve old versions of
WP:Route diagram templates, and at it this point it would be near-impossible because the redirects for mis-named and obsolete icons have been purged. (Take a look at just about any template that
JJMC89 bot has been through –
like this, for example.) This nomination was an attempt to do the same for a few of the auxiliary templates.
- Also,
{{
Cn-stalink}}
was used only on diagrams for Chinese lines (primarily metros), so I don't think that was really "widely".
Useddenim (
talk)
10:58, 10 May 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.
Robbie Williams (band)
- 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
Robbie Williams#Robbie Williams Band. Keep/refine ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Robbie's been in a band but he's not a band .... It's no different to having
Gary Barlow (band) ?, Anyway created in '09 by an editor who only created this redirect and another, IMHO pointless redirect, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- (
edit conflict)Maybe it's my logic (or lack of) but I thought "tour band" would kind of make more sense than just "band" ? as band indicates he's a band whereas tour band would kinda .... no that isn't making sense either .... I just feel having it at "band" just gives the impression he's a band and could confuse readers I suppose..... –
Davey2010
Talk
01:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- (
edit conflict) It's worth noting that the sources I found all refer to "Robbie Williams Band" (with varying capitalisation of the last word) and never "Robbie Williams tour band" (with any capitalisation), so changing the header in the article will almost certainly go against
WP:V. Also, when he is performing with other musicians as he does on tour they are collectively a band called "Robbie Williams" or "Robbie Williams Band".
Thryduulf (
talk)
01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- So create
Robbie Williams Band (I just did). Robbie Williams is not a band, he is just one person. A
band is a group of musicians who perform together as an ensemble, usually for a professional recording artist (in this case, Robbie Williams).
wbm1058 (
talk)
03:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Don't delete - This can be tweaked, sure, but I don't think deletion is the right call. It's perfectly reasonable for somebody interested in the performer's touring to type in something like '
Robbie Williams (tour band)', and this redirect here is a plausible permutation of that.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
03:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment given that his article has a section with members about his studio or touring band, then this is plausible, but it would be sufficiently covered by
Robbie Williams Band
[4] without the parentheses.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and re-target to
Robbie Williams#Robbie Williams Band, a plausible search aid. Redirects are cheap, no one will die. Make Robbie Williams (tour band) a redirect to the same place.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
00:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep just about all suggested variants as possible search terms. I can understand the issues with having an article titled "Robbie Williams (band)" when no such band exists, but I don't see that issue here as a redirect, especially considering it seems that any misconceptions should be pretty much immediately cleared up by the prose at the redirect target.
Sergecross73
msg me
20:07, 8 May 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.
Modern Mathematics
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 16#Modern Mathematics
Global language
Tortilla
- 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. Finding myself generally in agreement with
BDD (
talk ·
contribs) and
Amorymeltzer (
talk ·
contribs) that no decisive close feels right here. My initial read of the consensus is that probably a disambiguation page is correct here given the overall lack of agreement on a primary topic between
Wheat tortilla and
Corn tortilla, and the other options muddying it further - but given the vast number of incoming links and the already-existing disambiguation page at
Tortilla (disambiguation) I don't think it's either likely or correct that we can settle this decisively at RfD. A requested move on the disambiguation page may well be the best route forward. ~
mazca
talk
20:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
As a Brit, the only meaning I had heard of before today for tortilla was
Spanish omelette. Unless Wikipedia is USApedia, there is no
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and this should be a DAB page.
Narky Blert (
talk)
02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Wrong forum. @
Narky Blert:
Tortilla (disambiguation) already exists, so this should actually be posted at
Wikipedia:Requested moves to move
Tortilla (disambiguation) to
Tortilla.
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- ...Since it seems that I may have not been clear, I have no opinion (Neutral) on moving
Tortilla (disambiguation) to
Tortilla.
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Move disambiguation to Tortilla per
Steel1943
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Move
Tortilla (disambiguation) to
Tortilla since there is no primary topic. I guess since we are already here, we might as well have the discussion here (
WP:NOTBURO and all that). --
Tavix (
talk)
21:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The very first hatnote goes to
Spanish omelette, which incidentally doesn't suggest "tortilla" alone as a valid name. I would absolutely argue that this is the primary usage (Not just USA, but at the very least Canada and Mexico as well), but that conversation should definitely happen in a larger, more focused venue. There are hundreds of incoming links here, and a move/PRIMARYTOPIC debate history. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- FWIW,
corn tortilla would be the primary topic in Mexico. Flour tortillas are more of a
Tex-Mex thing but corn tortillas are a staple of
Mexican cuisine. In fact, if I were to make a primary topic claim, I'd choose
corn tortilla over
wheat tortilla due to the historical significance. --
Tavix (
talk)
02:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, I don't disagree there — an earlier draft of my comment said as much, but I left the corn V flour debate off in deference to the previous decision (wherever that was) and somewhat offtopic. I think that's a valid question, potentially worth discussing once more, but again, I don't think we should be covering that here. As far as this redirect goes, this is just fine. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
14:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not personally comfortable closing this. While I agree with NOTBURO and that an RfD can result in a move, I'd like to see broader input. The idea of a disambiguation page at "Tortilla" is unsatisfying. To me, there is a primary topic in a theoretical sense, but it's split between
Corn tortilla and
Wheat tortilla. Should they be separate articles? I see them as two ways of making the same food, though I can understand the argument for treating them separately. A
WP:CONCEPTDAB about the flat bread seems like the best answer for now. --
BDD (
talk)
21:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, this is pretty much exactly why I chimed in as well. I think anything other than keep/no consensus is likely to get brought elsewhere, and whomever does it would be totally justified in doing so. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
14:14, 18 May 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.
Limulus darwini
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Limulus darwini