< January 4
January 6 >

January 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2016.

沙盒

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 and salt with an edit summary directing users to Wikipedia:Sandbox. This seems to be the emerging compromise in the latter part of this discussion. Deryck C. 17:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Steel1943 very helpfully pointed out that you can put up an edit notice on a non-existent page: Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒 Deryck C. 20:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Requesting delete and salt per WP:R#D6. It was created due to the fact that Chinese editors were using it as a sandbox, but the proper solution to that problem would be to WP:SALT it instead of creating an ill-suited cross-namespace redirect. Since it's also a foreign-language redirect and sandboxes have no affinity for the Chinese language, WP:RFOREIGN also applies here. -- Tavix (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If seven+ years is "too recent", then I would be forced to agree with you. It was created in September of 2008. That's longer than I've been a registered user. Are you certain that seven+ years is "too recent"?  Paine  05:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally there was no project namespace, so pages had titles such as Wikipedia utilities. Most of the redirects were deleted in 2006 but some survived, and it's sometimes suggested that old redirects such as these are grandfathered in (although they are probably no more useful than the deleted redirects). Creation of new cross-namespace redirects has been discouraged since then. Peter James (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for the history lesson. This is not a "new" CNR, is it? Other-language redirects are generally deleted because Wikidata makes them unnecessary. That is not the case here, as its usefulness that saved it at the previous RfD makes this one still necessary. Until another solution is found, to delete this redirect would slam the door on the editors who still use it. Happy holidays! Paine  11:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be reasonable if the Chinese users weren't consistently thinking it was the Sandbox. I created the redirect as I did for a reason. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most are probably learners/new editors, so their usefulness may grow just like yours/ours did. Happy holidays! Paine  11:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never state the obvious This is a long-standing CNR that is an exception to the rule, and it should be kept until it's no longer useful. It's usefulness saved it at the previous RfD and should save it now. Happy holidays! Paine  11:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And then, there will be other foreign language redirects created towards one of the "sandbox" titles. Keeping a foreign-language redirect that does not have a historical connection to its target is misleading and actually a bit harmful. For example, a Chinese-speaking person could be looking up this term to direct them to create a sandbox article in their native language, but then thanks to this redirect, have their search engine direct them to the English Wikipedia. Imagine if that happened to English words. Let's say that the term "Sandbox" existed on a Wikipedia whose language is not English and the native English reader did not understand that language: The reader would possibly be directed to the foreign language Wikipedia with no way of being able to figure out how to get to the page in their native language due to lack of understanding the page they are reading. We do not want to cause our readers in any language this confusion; it doesn't benefit anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem worried about something that "might" happen, but as yet it "has not" happened? The stats show that this redirect got about 70 hits a month over the past 3 months, which is just a little less than it was getting prior to the previous RfD linked above. Doesn't this say that it does indeed benefit people?  Paine  19:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that information actually doesn't show if anyone is actually benefiting from this redirect. That information just shows that people are searching the term, not if they are arriving at their intended destination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel, did you look at the previous deletion log for the title? Almost all of it is Chinese users using the page as a sandbox. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Jeremy v^_^v, but even if I did (I still haven't), it would not change my opinion. I strongly believe that this redirect should have the same fate as the foreign redirects to Main Page for similar reasons as why they were deleted, as stated above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct in that this redirect should have the same fate as the foreign redirects to the English Main page, eventually. Those other-language redirects were no longer needed because Wikidata places links on the other-languages' Main pages directly to the English Main page. That is not the case with this redirect. People still use this redirect to get to its target, and when this redirect is no longer used by people to get to its target, only then should it again be renominated for deletion.  Paine  05:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • English Wikipedia is not the International all-languages Wikipedia. If we need such a thing, The WikiMediaFoundation should create an all-languages index site at mul.wikipedia.org (possibly just listing interlanguage links from WikiData) If the sandbox needs a Chinese language link, it should be an interlanguage link off of Chinese Wikipedia. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will refer you to my comment above about zh.wp and Wikipedia's general spottiness in China. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 11:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that English is de facto lingua franca in many parts of the world, and also the largest Wikipedia, it doesn't surprise me greatly that people try to edit here in foreign languages, and I think that we can be a little more accommodating, and especially so here since Chinese is also spoken by oh quite a few people. Not that we should just keep all of these foreign-language cross-namespace redirects nor provide separate sandboxes in hundreds of different languages, but in a situation like this where editors are frequently doing the same thing, we can come up with a solution that's better than whatever is the Chinese for fuck off. What I'm saying is I'll bet the Gothic Wikipedia doesn't have this sort of problem with Inuktitut-speakers. (Also we do have two interlingua wikis: Interlingua Wikipedia and Interlingue/Occidental Wikipedia) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided the soft-redirect is full-protected, that's reasonable. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why full protect? Seems to me that creating the redirect solved the problem of Chinese users using the page as a sandbox, and ((nobots)) prevents it from being "fixed" by the double redirect robots (and they ignore soft redirects anyway). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, creating the hard redirect did. If a soft-redirect was put in its place, they may very well resume mistaking it for the actual sandbox. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, but I think it's better to apply protection if there's a new problem, not in anticipation of there being one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extensive deletion log on the title, I'd sooner have it full-protected if it turns into a soft redirect. If it gets deleted again, odds are it's going to be salted. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I understand that, but I believe we ought to discourage it. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discourage it how? When was the most recent CNR from mainspace to project space created, and why? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, I don't understand your second question. If you're asking about this CNR, you were the one who made it, so you'd be the one to answer. If you're asking about the most recent such CNR that exists, we'd have to go looking for what it is and who created it, which doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could support that, along with create protection. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe it could be mentioned in the salting comment? I considered this before but thought it unlikely because someone trying to access the Sandbox this way might not even have enough English skill to follow such a notice. But I suppose if they don't even speak that much English, we really don't want them editing (cf. WP:CIR). Sounds a bit harsh, but that's part of the reason we have so many other Wikipedias. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better off in the deletion summary. The protection log isn't visible when a regular user encounters a create-protected redlink, but the deletion log is. Actually I don't know what happens if we click on a create-protected title that hasn't already been created and deleted, I don't know of any examples. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2016 (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.

Medical Foundation

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many medical foundations exist. No need for disambiguation, as they are referred to by specific names, not just "the medical foundation". —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which, if any, of the organizations identified by Notecardforfree are referred to simply as "Medical Foundation"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2016 (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.

Monobook

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. This is a tough close, because there really isn't strong consensus for anything, but a typical "no consensus" verdict where nothing changes is clearly unsuitable, as no one has expressed support for the status quo. In general, we're advised to look for alternatives to deletion, so I won't typically delete in the case of no consensus; instead, I'd usually go with where most editors wanted to retarget. But here, there was no agreement on that either. And since relisting once only led to one further comment, I doubt another one would really lead to solid consensus.
This remains a weak decision, but I'd encourage editors to think twice before attempting to recreate either of these. With Wikipedia:Monobook and Wikipedia:Monobook.js* in existence, it might be best to just let deleted pages lie. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Oh dear. Those don't even go to the same place. That might be worth another discussion... --BDD (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook is one of the four skins available on Wikipedia, the other three being Vector (the default), Modern, and Cologne Blue. However, the target is about skins in computing in general rather than specifically the MediaWiki skins. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Monobook.js to the nomination as well, it fits the same rationale.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-editors aren't going to be searching for "monobook.js". Editors are, and those editors are going to have a harder time learning about "the technical aspects of sure appearance skins" and "how to change the layout" if this redirect is removed. Leaving this redirect harms nothing but keeping it does. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment makes the assumption that no regular "fly-by" Wikipedia reader would ever look up this term: The redirect is in the article space, so there's no way to prove that, even with the ".js" at the end (since they could very well be looking up an article about the significance of this subject.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a fly-by user search for monobook.js and be unhappy and surprised with the content of the cross namespace redirect? A scenario where that'd happen is not obvious to me. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (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.

Mitch Martin

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 procedural close. The article has been created. Thanks, Ivanvector! --BDD (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a fictional character in a film to the title of the film he was in; the character is not particularly "famous" outside the context of that film, and would be in no way expected as a potential search term or a potential article in his own right. But much more importantly, this is actually sitting on top of a real-world automobile racer (see F1600 Championship Series) who would have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name than the fictional character does — if correcting this wrong link requires us to dab the autoracer while leaving the fictional character as plain title, then that's exactly bass ackward: if any redirect from the character's name is warranted at all, then the character should be dabbed and the auto racer undabbed, not vice versa. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would have to be somebody knowledgeable (or with access to adequate sourcing) to do the overwriting. I am not that person; I know nothing of the sport, and have access to no sources that would help me write anything more than "Mitch Martin is a dude who exists, the end." But until the Wikipedian who is equipped with the knowledge and the reference tools to do it comes along, it's not appropriate for his name to remain in F1600 Championship Series as a link to the wrong topic — but dabbing him so that he's a redlink in that article is not appropriate either, as he's the primary topic for the name and the existing redirect is not, and unlinking him entirely so that the fictional character still has the undabbed title and the auto racer has nothing isn't appropriate either. So until the time comes that the article in question is ready to be written by somebody, in the interim the name needs to be a red link rather than a redirect to a minor, non-primary topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2016 (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.

Hello Cthulhu

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. Deryck C. 21:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a nonexistent section, this Cthulhu/Hello Kitty mashup isn't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (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.

Swartvlerksprinkaanvoël

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) 15:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This bird has no specific affinity for Afrikaans. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2016 (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.

List of most massive stars

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 wrong forum - see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Known" should be removed from the article title, per this WP:AST discussion. I'm unable to move "List of most massive known stars" to "List of most massive stars" because this redirect exists, and I'd rather do a proper move than a copy & paste move.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:15, 5 January 2016 (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.

Kshatriya Kunbi

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) 15:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another self-glorifying vanity redirect: the only people who use this name are POV-warriors etc from the caste itself who are trying to use Wikipedia to legitimise their mythological claim. A similar issue arose recently with the Andhra Kshatriyas redirect, which was deleted. Sitush (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2016 (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.

Al-Anbaat

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 Al Anbat. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled Arabic word for these people, who are Arabs Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:13, 5 January 2016 (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.

Googology

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be used, but very rarely. See WP:MADEUP. A more common use seems to be studies of Google. MathWorld, often the first to create terms for quasi-mathematical concepts, doesn't have it. The redirect is the result of an article move and revert in August 2015, and has no history, in spite of the tag ((R from move)). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2016 (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.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

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. There is clear consensus to change something and each of the non-deleting solutions (retarget / disambig) only has minority support. So closing as "no consensus on alternative, default to delete". Deryck C. 22:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I want to get the community's feedback about whether this is truly a useful redirect. Although this redirect receives a few hundred visitors every month, I wonder if either English alphabet or Letter (alphabet) are better targets? At the moment, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (song) redirects to Alphabet song. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a nonsense search. Redirects aren't meant to catch every conceivable search to a target, only those which are likely or useful in some non-technical logical purpose. I highly doubt any of our readers are going to look for an article on the alphabet by typing the entirety of it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2016 (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.

Aaron Goldstein (rabbi)

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. This became a bit of a mess. The target article was redirected to Reform Judaism, but I can't find Aaron Goldstein mentioned in the history of either page based on the time stamp of Steel1943's comment. The redirect is clearly no longer functional, but I declare no prejudice against recreation if the subject is mentioned somewhere later. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, a most redundant redirect. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:DABRL. We shouldn't do that unless another article already links to Aaron Goldstein (rabbi), which is not the case. We could satisfy MOS:DABMENTION and include a link to Liberal Judaism, but at that point we're really better off keeping this as is unless there's another rabbi by this name. (You have Samuel Aaron Goldstein, but that's only worth a hatnote unless he actually goes by Aaron.) --BDD (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:13, 5 January 2016 (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.

LSNSW

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 Law Society of New South Wales. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not abbreviated this way Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually searching just "Linnean" brings up only pages related to the society in the first 10 results, so that proves nothing. Search "LSNSW" and I found that any association with Linnean is largely mirrors or extracts from Wikipedia. https://www.lawsociety.com.au/ is the top result. I don't doubt someone might have used LSNSW for the society at some point, it does not appear to be a common or primary use of this acronym, Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:13, 5 January 2016 (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.

Angelic speech

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 Angelic language. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:13, 5 January 2016 (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.

Zappa:References

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect just doesn't make any sense. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2016 (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.
More