This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 4, 2019.
Wikipedia:MORDOR
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. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe(talk)13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. This is a relatively new redirect (created last year) and isn't usefully linked anywhere. We can't know about edit summaries, but given its relatively recent creation and lack of other uses, I think we can presume there aren't many. We have
a wikiproject on Middle-earth which appears to at least not be inactive. That seems like the perfect target for something like this, and would certainly be more useful. Not to attempt to side-step the discussions around all these, but regardless of whether a redirect to ANI is funny or not, we ought to first favor a more useful option if available. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The arguments for keeping are significantly stronger than those for deletion, but Amory's late and comprehensive argument for retargetting deserves further consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:17, 4 March 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.
Effects on law and order
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 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 phrase "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports" is not found in sources and is not a plausible search phrase.
RexxS (
talk)
18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Assuming this is an accurate translation, we should have a way to access this topic in English. If there's no official English name, a direct translation is fine. --
BDD (
talk)
15:19, 5 March 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.
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 and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Assuming this is an accurate translation, we should have a way to access this topic in English. If there's no official English name, a direct translation is fine. --
BDD (
talk)
15:19, 5 March 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.
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.
List (abstract data type
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.
Draft:List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender
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. While I don't find the pseudo-namespace argument particularly strong in this case, I do think the delete arguments, in particular the call to confusion, still have the day. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)23:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all as they are mostly leftovers from moves (precisely because the titles were bad), they continue to serve as opportunities for confusion, and they're unnecessary. Two of them had incoming links from other articles but I've fixed those articles to skip the redirect.
Largoplazo (
talk)
18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep the non-Draft ones. These all take people to exactly the content they are looking for without any risk of confusion. This is a key difference to the "quote" and "slogan" redirects which did not take people to articles about and/or lists of quotes or slogans. Simply having a colon in the title does not mean that it is impersonating a namespace - the existence of
ABBA: The Album and
Access:d does not imply we have "ABBA" "Access" namespaces.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This formatting is not well-enough used to give the expectation that one find a list by searching with this formatting. It is misleading to suggest that
List:Foo would lead you to
List of foo, so there is no utility in these redirects. --
Tavix(
talk)20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. Unintuitive and misleading pseudo-namespace. There should be a very clear and obvious distinction between these and the examples given by
Thryduulf.
PC78 (
talk)
14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to unpick all of those examples, but the first few represent common usage. Again, they are not the same as what is being nominated here. This use of "List:" quite clearly emulates "Category:", "Template:" and other namespaces. I doubt anyone would seriously be confused into thinking there is a "PBA Bowling Tour:" namespace.
PC78 (
talk)
15:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Even if someone is able to distinguish "A:" from a namespace but not "List:", why does it matter? If someone searches for "List: Cities in Afghanistan" what else could they possibly be wanting than a list of cities in Afghanistan? Why should the be required to know in advance that we distinguish categories from articles but don't distinguish lists?
Thryduulf (
talk)
16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The problem is the colon redirects that exist are an
WP:INDISCRIMINATE subset. Someone typing List: is almost certainly NOT looking to get one of only 14 that exist; they are looking to get one of the thousands of List: redirects that (appropriately) do NOT exist.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Just because other potentially useful redirects do not exist, does not mean that we should delete useful redirects that have been created - and if a human created
List:Cities in Japan as a redirect to
List of cities in Japan because they found it useful then absolutely it would be correct to keep that redirect - they fulfil
WP:R#KEEP points 2, 4 and 5 (and 3, but to a lesser extent). There will be no benefit gained from deletion - they're not misleading anybody, they're not in the way of anything, they're not incorrect, or any other reason why they might not be appropriate.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
But these weren't created because someone found them useful; they were created because someone did not know our article naming conventions, and then were automatically created when the article was moved to the correct title, correcting the article creator's error. It is disingenuous for you to suggest someone created them as useful redirects.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Someone created the lists at the title they thought best. Therefore they, and probably other people, will also look for them at this title - making them demonstrably useful redirects. We do not require readers to learn our naming conventions before being allowed to find what they are looking for - we create redirects from the terms they use to the location of our article either directly or automatically following a page move. You are making my point for me.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:03, 5 March 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:WPOOKA
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.
State institution
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. Some public universities are state institutions, but not all are and universities are just one example of things that can be state institutions. We don't appear to have any article dealing with the concept -
Institution is not relevant,
Formal organisation is too broad,
State institutions of Cambodia is too specific and doesn't actually deal with the concept so much as being a list of institutions.
Thryduulf (
talk)
00:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:46, 4 March 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.
Concordia Lutheran Church (denomination)
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 and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:35, 4 March 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.
Theodoros Tawadros
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.
Requesting deletion per
WP:RDEL #2 (might cause confusion) and #8 (obscure synonym). This is a compound phrase made up of two different transliterations of the same name 'Theodore' ('Theodoros' is Greek, while 'Tawadros' is Coptic). I initially changed the redirect from the article
Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria to the disambiguation page
Tawadros because it was not unambiguous that this phrase would only refer to a specific Coptic Pope, but I have realised that it is not even clear whether this phrase should redirect to the article on the Greek form (which is at
Theodoros) or the disambiguation page on the Coptic form (which is at
Tawadros). In addition, it is unlikely that any reader would search for these two different transliterations of the same name in the same phrase. This redirect has never been linked to, and has only received 5 page views in the last 30 days, so its deletion will unlikely be missed.
Epistulae ad Familiares (
talk)
15:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have no opinion one way or other. I would had created the redirect because some English based news article I was reading when Tawadros II became pope named him as Theodoros Tawadros. If no one is using it, then delete it, but on the other hand
redirects are cheap. --
KTC (
talk)
16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:35, 4 March 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.
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 Per nom, it was only there for a minute before being moved to its current title. I think this could be deleted under R3 but considering its been here over a year that probably doesn't meet "recent". Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
"Recent" for R3 purposes doesn't have a strict definition, but the consensus is definitely somewhere in the 1-4 week range.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no firm consensus certainly, but nothing longer than about 4 weeks has ever come close to getting consensus in any discussion I've been involved in. Things such as 3 months have be been suggested a time or two, but they've been outliers and not supported by almost everybody, and certainly not 1 year.
Thryduulf (
talk)
00:41, 5 March 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.
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. On this one at least, the advocates for keep have stronger arguments ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: Nominator has failed to specify why it is not a valid redirect.
WP:R gives a listing of reasons why redirects should be deleted or kept, so there is something of a burden on those nominating something for deletion to specify why it meets an accepted criteria for deletion. —
Tom Morris (
talk)
08:51, 25 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:PITCHFORKS
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. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe(talk)13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep and retarget our own pitchforks toward the editor responsible for all these time-wasting RfDs. No, I am not actually serious (aside from the part about keeping the redirect).
Lepricavark (
talk)
20:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I already !voted "retarget" above, just elaborating. In the past I've gone looking for a shortcut describing the mob mentality that occurs in discussions at ANI, basically to use as a shortcut on ANI to refer to a discussion in which participants have abandoned logic and reason and are instead gathering torches and pitchforks, and found it disappointing that the shortcut was circular. So, the retargeting argument is this:
Wikipedia:Witch hunt describes the mob behaviour, it just happens to occur most often at ANI. A shortcut to the essay would be much more useful. In any case, the two shortcuts should target the same page.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
16:51, 5 March 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:IMAGE
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.
Unused redirects to Template:Commons category
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 not sure what negative impact it has on regex, could you please elaborate. As far as the redirects themselves, there perfectly plausible, both because the project is commonly known as "Wikimedia commons" (that is the location of the article
Wikimedia Commons and what the main page is called) and is an accepted long name due to the existence of
Commons which Wikipedia doesn't have a generic meaning. And the categories are frequently abbreviated as C cats. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: here's the obscenely long
regular expression needed to match a link to commons: {{([Cc]ategory[ _]+commons|[Cc]cat|CC|[Cc]c|[Cc]ommonscategory|COMMONSCAT|[Cc]ommonscat|[Cc]ommonsimages[ _]+cat|[Cc]ommons[ _]+category|[Cc]ommons[ _]+Category|[Cc]ommons[ _]+cat|[Cc][ _]+cat|[Ww]ikimedia[ _]+commons[ _]+cat). It's from
rdcheck. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BrownHairedGirl: Sorry but having tried to read the
Regular expression article I still don't really understand how that works. Unlike category redirects (which as I have suggested on Commons the software should be changed), template redirects just function like normal redirects and generally don't clutter up the search results/suggestions. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Crouch, Swale. Authors of automated tools need to deal with the encyclopaedia as it is, we don't alter it for their convenience - even if that means complicated regexes.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:12, 4 March 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.