This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2020.
Flight of the Conchords: Live in Concert
- 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
Flight of the Conchords#Appearances.
Consensus was unanimous here that retargeting to the broader
Flight of the Conchords topic was preferable to deletion. Though not mentioned exactly, as noted by the nom, it's mentioned as Live In London (an alternative name), as
AngusWOOF noted. I've refined the target to the section where it is mentioned, and added applicable rcats. Anyone may feel free to add additional, or alter any of the, rcats
boldly post-close.
(non-admin closure)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
01:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target. An internet search would suggest that Hamilton directed a film titled Flight of the Conchords: Live in London, but not by the name of the redirect. I would suggest deletion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:48, 2 February 2020 (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 speedy delete.
WP:G7 per
this edit signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target. I would suggest deletion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:44, 2 February 2020 (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 delete. --
BDD (
talk)
22:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:59, 2 February 2020 (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 delete. --
BDD (
talk)
22:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not actually mentioned at the target by name, delete unless a justification can be provided. Search results would suggest that Frankie is the name of one of Cuneta's daughters, and is not a nickname for her husband,
Francis Pangilinan signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Francis Pangilinan would not be a suitable target, because all sources say that his nickname is "Kiko". "Frankie" is Simone Francesca Emmanuelle Pangilinan (no article, born 2000, not obviously notable), daughter of Francis and Sharon.
Narky Blert (
talk)
20:37, 3 February 2020 (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.
Singing in the Rain (song)
Girl's Talk (Lil' Kim 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.
- The result of the discussion was delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target. Can find no evidence of this supposed song's existence.
ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε
💬
20:45, 2 February 2020 (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 delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target. Can find no evidence of this supposed album's existence.
ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε
💬
20:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Looks like speculation and a reason why editors, past and present, should not create unsourced stubs based on rumours.
Ss
112
07:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I couldn't find any connection at all.
Narky Blert (
talk)
13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I'm genuinely surprised that this exact title has never been used in any music context: no albums, no music videos, no songs, nothing... interesting! Anyways, as stated above, deletion is the right call.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
18:24, 5 February 2020 (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 speedy deleted via
G7.
(non-admin closure)
J
947 (
c), at
22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
A google search for Shai Zamanian brings up a non-notable lawyer, and no result of
Annahita Zamanian, a footballer
Willbb234
Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies)
20:35, 2 February 2020 (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 retarget to
Glossary of botanical terms#Incomplete flower.
(non-admin closure)
feminist (
talk)
07:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in target article, thus the target article makes it unclear in what "incomplete" is meant to refer to.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Glossary of botanical terms#I, to which I've just added it (with two hidden citations).
Narky Blert (
talk)
19:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Glossary of botanical terms#I per
Narky Blert's find, but add rcat
s {{
R without mention}} (possibly, since it's not mentioned exactly), {{
R from synonym}} (possibly since Narky added it as "imperfect flower"), and either of {{
R to list entry}} (preferred) or {{
R to section}}. Note: I Like that Narky is consistently using
WP:RFFL now, which is also my preferred shortcut for foreign-language redirects.. --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
19:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Ooops. It's mentioned exactly now, in line with the sources. I agree with {{
R to list entry}}.
Narky Blert (
talk)
19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds good. I've struck out that portion of the rcat then.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Glossary of botanical terms#Incomplete flower per Narky; always best to use an anchor for these purposes. Noting that there is a
Wiktionary entry. {{
R to list entry}} and {{
R to anchor}} are both applicable, as well as {{
R printworthy}}.
J
947 (
c), at
22:47, 5 February 2020 (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 delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
22:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely use of capitalization.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or weak retarget to
Rose (disambiguation). It's a plausible contraction and stylisation of something like Robert Sessions, Inc. (made-up example), but I can't find a match in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian or Spanish WPs.
Narky Blert (
talk)
20:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep as not implausible typo in capitalization or retarget to the dab page, per
Narky Blert, which I think is actually the best outcome here actually based on Narky's analysis (that's just one example, but I'm sure we can think of multiple others—made up and real). --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Narky Blert's hypothetical is all the more reason to delete, I think. If a user capitalizes the S, they're likely looking for something specific, and after browsing the disambiguation page, I don't think we have it. --
BDD (
talk)
22:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
BDD: The dab page doesn't have that capitalization mentioned, specifically, but could we not retarget there with {{
R from miscapitalisation}}? --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
22:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Possibly, though if we treat it as a miscapitalization, it would be better to keep. --
BDD (
talk)
22:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per BDD. "RoSe", with capitalization in the middle of the word, is an intentional capitalization. Someone would therefore be looking for something we do not have. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:29, 10 February 2020 (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 delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Bad capitalisation, and the target article doesn't mention the etymology of the word "fantasy". Delete.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
13:20, 2 February 2020 (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.
Foo (word) soft redirects to Wiktionary
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Foo (word) soft redirects to Wiktionary
- 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
There is no information about a Malaysian word "Sakai" at
Manglish, and I cannot identify another suitable target. Delete.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
12:37, 2 February 2020 (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 delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
"Z word" is not mentioned in the article, and the term is potentially ambiguous. I'm not sure this slang expression needs a redirect: delete.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:50, 2 February 2020 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Mason word
- 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
"Chicken nugget" isn't a word. Delete.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:39, 2 February 2020 (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 delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Net worth does not discuss the etymology of "worth". Delete
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
11:31, 2 February 2020 (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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
I initially redirected it to
Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative but it was contested, and redirected to
Wormholes in fiction. However, the only mention of a jumpgate in said article is from
Babylon 5. I'm not sure how a fictional element of a single series is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a work of media that is commonly called that name.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
06:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This was mentioned at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpgate; while both options were discussed, the preference there was for the existing redirect target. Remember that articles are about subjects, not words. The existing target has other examples of synonymns and alternative spellings (eg, "Jump Gate"). Also, Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative seems
relatively obscure.
VQuakr (
talk)
17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep it's a plausible synonym for "wormhole" in science fiction. We may want to reassess, and add to, the rcats here ({{
R from synonym}} and {{
R from fictional element}}, possibly?). --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:47, 3 February 2020 (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 convert to article. It looks like the article has already been started, so I think this RfD is no longer necessary. Early closure; the closure doesn't seem to conflict with any of the !votes given, though - IAR, etc. Please ping me if anyone wants this reopened and I can self-rv.
(non-admin closure)
VQuakr (
talk)
17:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Brazilian Bass is not a notable genre of music and besides, redirecting a music genre to a specific song makes no sense.
Pichpich (
talk)
01:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep.Brazilian Bass is a notable genre. Many famous Dj's and producers are making this style music and have stated this is what the sub-genre is called. There are multiple articles on this.
Nana222222
12:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. IDK if this is a notable genre or not. If it is, write the article; at least in Portuguese, because there isn't one; although a few articles in Portuguese WP do mention Brazilian Bass. I agree with nom that redirecting from a genre (with "multiple articles") to one song is useless.
Alok (DJ) and
Chris Leão also mention Brazilian Bass, so a redirect to just one song looks wholly inappropriate. For present purposes, the miscapitalisation ("Brazilian Bass" is not a proper noun) can be ignored.
Narky Blert (
talk)
02:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
I agree with you guys that redirecting a music genre to a specific song makes no sense. I was never the one to do that. I don't know why that's happened. All I wanted to do was create an English article on the genre as I think it's notable. The music is starting to be produced by artists who aren't Brazilian and it's being played at American and European festivals. I therefore think it deserves an English article.
Nana222222 2:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- 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 delete. signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Trump's family does not constitute an "empire". Also, use of the term "empire" for anything else relating to the POTUS would appear promotional or non-NPOV. —
Naddruf (
talk ~
contribs)
00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Narky Blert Retargeting would only be helpful if this redirect was showing any usage. What likely happened here is two substantially similar templates got merged at TfD, and they don't automatically delete the trailing redirects even after substituting and orphaning them. They leave that for RfD to cleanup, if and when someone nominates it. So, I really look at the transclusion count to see whether or not it's got any usage as I find that's the most helpful. See also
Template:RFL and
Template:Rfl, which were short-hand redirects for
Template:Reflist, which both closed as "delete" at TfD and RfD respectively. --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I'm conflicted. Per
WP:RNEUTRAL if a non-neutral term is sufficiently "established" then it should be redirected to a neutral article. This aids readers who may indeed have non-neutral search queries. But this rational doesn't make sense to me in template-space, since readers hardly ever search for templates. This redirect is almost certainly useless -- no links, transclusions, and almost no pageviews. But I'm not sure this is sufficient to delete it.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
04:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
BenKuykendall No, it's entirely the reason to delete it. Templates are different than articles, where redirects are helpful. If there is active usage for a short-hand or other redirect to a template, then it should be kept, and we could add applicable rcats as necessary. Sometimes with templates that say, "never transclude," it's hard to tell whether or not it's being used, but in this case, it's entirely a transclude-able navbox template redirect, so we can tell exactly how to use it. You were on the right track.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Zero transclusions, which passes my criteria for deleting redirects to templates. It simply has zero usage. Best to delete it as housekeeping and for
WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #10, in the event there becomes a second business magnate named Trump, entirely unrelated to
Donald Trump. --
Doug Mehus
T·
C
14:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Not enough sourcing for a redirect with a loaded word.
Jdcomix (
talk)
16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Comment These are all interesting arguments for deleting or keeping, but the strongest argument is that it is simply unused. As an entirely transcluded template, this redirect has no transclusions. Personally, I think we should have a larger conversation at the
village pump about instructing
TfD to delete the trailing redirect when the result is "merge" or "redirect." The redirect should only be kept when (a) there is significant history worth keeping, but even then, there are other history merge options that can be explored or (b) it hasn't been orphaned and there are remaining transclusions.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
16:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - A great deal of people clearly perceive Trump's general business operation as an "empire", but that's not precisely the issue here. As stated above, this isn't about articles. I also don't find what we have here helpful in terms of template-space.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
18:10, 5 February 2020 (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.
Episode 1 (disambiguation)
- 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 keep. Early closure, per
WP:SNOW, with thanks to
Narky Blert et al. and others for explaining the purpose of having redirects with the (disambiguation) parenthetical qualifier to dab pages without them to
Connor Behan. Essentially, Connor, there are times when one needs to link to the dab page (especially in hatnotes or on dab pages themselves), but linking to the dab page directly without the piping will cause it to show up on an error report and DPLbot will notify you via your talk page to update to a piped link. The reason for DPLbot's existence is because we don't want to have people click through to a dab page, from a wikilink in an article, where's no clear,
primary topic. Hope that makes sense. If not, ask via
my talk page,
Narky's talk page, or at
The Teahouse.
(non-admin closure)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
Episode I through
Episode VI are disambiguation pages.
Episode I (disambiguation) through
Episode VI (disambiguation) are redirects to them. We do not need yet another redirect. The above three are safe to delete because they have the shortest possible edit history and nothing links to them.
Connor Behan (
talk)
00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep. Redirects to DAB pages through the (disambiguation) qualifier are required by
WP:INTDAB. That includes redirects from variant spellings such as these.
Narky Blert (
talk)
00:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- So
Episode one (disambiguation),
Episode two (disambiguation),
Episode three (disambiguation),
Episode four (disambiguation),
Episode five (disambiguation),
Episode 2 (disambiguation),
Epsiode 3 (disambiguation),
Episode 4 (disambiguation) and
Episode 5 (disambiguation) should all be created?
Connor Behan (
talk)
02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- It would do no harm to do so.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
10:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep These are all plausible search terms and are very relevant to the targeted pages.
Hog Farm (
talk)
05:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I'll take this chance to learn about different Wikipedia habits. Do people actually search for "X (disambiguation)"? Every time I've needed to go to such a page, it has been enough just to type "X".
Connor Behan (
talk)
14:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Connor Behan:. I imagine that some readers may go through the (disambiguation) qualifier, but the principal purpose of those redirects is the one explained in
WP:INTDAB: to tell bots (notably
User:DPL bot) that a link to a DAB page is intentional and not an error. Variants (spelling, capitalisation, etc.) can be useful in making a link in e.g. a hatnote or a see-also look more natural in any given article. Also,
WP:CHEAP applies.
Narky Blert (
talk)
15:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Ok, so the idea is that if linking to these disambiguation pages becomes popular, people will save time typing See also [[Epsidoe 1 (disambiguation)]] instead of See also [[Episode I (disambiguation)|Episode 1 (disambiguation)]].
Connor Behan (
talk)
21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Connor Behan: I'd put it a slightly different way. A reader types
XYZ One into the searchbox, and finds themself looking at an article about a TV station with that name. If there's a hatnote saying "For other uses, see
XYZ 1 (disambiguation)", a natural reaction would be: Why the hell should I? I'm reading about the name I typed in! On the other hand, a hatnote saying "For other uses, see
XYZ One (disambiguation)" might alert them to the fact that they might not be reading the article they were looking for!
Narky Blert (
talk)
23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Well, my point was that the top of the page can display "XYZ One (disambiguation)" even when only "XYZ 1 (disambiguation)" exists. The benefit of having both, IMO, is simply that editors don't have to remember to keep typing the pipe.
Connor Behan (
talk)
01:11, 3 February 2020 (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.