This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2018.
Undated ballot measures
- 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 Disambiguate. It's clear from below that these titles are ambiguous. I've drafted dabs for each based on the contents of Category:Massachusetts ballot measures, but would invite others to go over them
I did not create Massachusetts question 4 (only two: Massachusetts Paid Sick Days Initiative and Massachusetts Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Initiative). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Massachusetts has had more than one Question 1/2/3 over its history. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redirects are expensive. This takes up space at the oldest part of the NPP queue, and shamefully so. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Disambiguate. First redirects are not expensive, they're WP:CHEAP and these are all likely search terms. If the proposition number refers to only 1 notable initiative then it should redirect there, if it refers to multiple notable ones it should disambiguate between them. Alternatively a list of such measures would be a good target, but I can't immediately find one. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case we should have a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabify the "Massachusetts question x" titles and retarget the "MA" and "proposition x" titles as appropriate. Each is ambiguous but a plausible search term, and we don't seem to have more than around five articles for any one of them (or a handful more if we also link to the relevant "Massachusetts ballot measures, yyyy" articles) so disambiguation pages wouldn't be too unwieldy (unlike Question 3 below). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2018 (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.
Animal 57
- 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. 10:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/joke not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Chris Troutman (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's possible that the urban legend is notable, but it isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia so the redirect could only be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2018 (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.
Question 3
- 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) 14:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not the only question 3 in the world! ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redirects are expensive. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, so I explicitly do not endorse Chris Troutman's rationale, but this search term is hopelessly ambiguous and should be left to search engines. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In 2016, the Massachusetts Conditions for Farm Animals Initiative was the best-known (and maybe the only known) timely "Question 3" in the world. However, it was a 2016 ballot measure, which year is fading farther and farther into the past. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has a different "Question 3" on the ballot this year (https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_3,_Gender_Identity_Anti-Discrimination_Veto_Referendum_(2018) ). Time to move on. Mksword (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2018 (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.
American Society of Neuroradiology
- 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 Neuroradiology#Professional organisations. Deryck C. 10:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading redirect, makes as much as to have a redirect from IEEE to Engineering. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Should still be a redlink so the article gets created, like the other societies in that section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there scope for a full article? I haven't looked in great detail, but my initial searching leaves me sceptical. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well compare to say Physics, Radiology, Botany, .... None of them have sections on professional organizations. Neuroscience has them, but again, no redirect to that section.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer the question I asked. Is there scope for a full article about this professional organisation? Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and refine. The discussion at the target is unsourced, but it's substantial enough to provide some useful information to someone who searches for this, and I don't think the ASNR is likely to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG, so there's no reason to delete the redirect in order to encourage article creation (though if someone wants to create an article over the redirect they're of course free to do so). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2018 (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.
American Journal of Neuroradiology
- 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) 14:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading redirect, makes as much as to have a redirect from IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging to Medical imaging. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The journal is mentioned at Neuroradiology#Professional organisations, but only in passing so it's probably not enough content to actually justify a redirect, but if expanded it would certainly be an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that the mention in the target is too insubstantial to provide any benefit; the target is also completely unsourced. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2018 (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.
T:TT
- 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) 17:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
A cross-namespace redirect of a format that is strongly discouraged (see this RfC), confusing as an abbreviation, and almost entirely unused (not even one pageview per week). – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Approximately 1 use a week is signficant enough to demonstrate that this is a useful redirect. It's not conflicting with any articles - almost every page beginning T: is a redirect out of the article namespace, and all but two others T:kort and T: The New York Times Style Magazine) are redirects to articles (and I'm about to nominate one of them for deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 1 view a week is incidental, and no other use as a shortcut or any other utility. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidental views of unused redirects don't get above a single digit total in an entire year. Claiming redirects that get more views than that in a month are unused is fallacious. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we can possibly have any universal thresholds on how many pageviews can be considered incidental. The pageviews only tell us how many times a redirect was used, not how many times it was used intentionally, and they don't tell us how many of the people who used it did find what they were looking for. These will depend on how similar the redirect is to terms that people use, how likely it is that it will show up in the search box drop-down suggestions, etc – and all of that varies from case to case. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:27, 22 October 2018 (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.
Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. See you in 5 years, though? --BDD (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been up for speedy deletion for quite some time but no action. Hence nom it for deletion. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no ambiguity in naming. Also, CSD C1 does not apply to category redirects. --Danski454 (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct CAT is Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–23. --Saqib (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The history here seems to indicate some dispute about the correct category: In July Störm created Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–. Two days later Saqib created Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–23. One day after the –23 category was created, Störm redirected it to the – category. 4 days after that, Saqib reversed the redirects. Whatlinkshere does not identify any discussion about the naming. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: See Category talk:Pakistani MNAs 2018–2023. --Saqib (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:25, 22 October 2018 (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.
Warfist
- 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. It seems that no content from the former article at this title survive in any current English Wikipedia articles, so deletion is the appropriate course of action. Deryck C. 16:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No info at target, and no other plausible redirect. Killer Moff (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Pending result of the Mandarin's Avengers merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:13, 22 October 2018 (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.
China dossier
- 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No primary topic: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22china+dossier%22 DrKay (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've just learned about the "China dossier". It was censored at the time. Thank God we know have Wikipedia to provide "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" I have aided this with an appropriate redirect. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't censored. It doesn't exist. DrKay (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google results do indeed suggest that the phrase is more commonly used to refer to topics other than the dossier relating to Wallis Simpson: she isn't mentioned in the first two pages of results for "China dossier" and results for "China dossier" + Simpson number less than a tenth of the results for "China dossier". This isn't necessarily a problem in itself – we don't need to disambiguate topics that aren't notable and aren't discussed anywhere in the encyclopaedia; most titles and search terms could plausibly refer to something of which we have no coverage – but in this case the paucity of relevant content in the target article, combined with the strong possibility that someone who searches for this is looking for something else entirely, suggests this does more harm than good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment China dossier is relevent to the topic of Adoption in China. Is it a valid disambiguator for Dang'an = Document (China), Dossier (China) - The current English title seems mismatched? Public records in China? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or disambiguate. For better or worse, Special:Search/"China dossier"~ shows that Wallis Simpson is the only article on the English Wikipedia that uses the term "China dossier" verbatim, so this is the primary topic as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, and the redirect is useful to readers. If Arms & Hearts or DrKay can come up with a list of topics to disambiguate with, I'm happy to accept that too, but I don't think deletion is the best outcome here. Deryck C. 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Deryck. We need more than conjecture that another topic would be known simply as "China dossier". --BDD (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2018 (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.
Emulators
- 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 all. The discussion appears to be divided over two points: whether these are plausible search terms of the target article, and whether any article history needs to be preserved for attribution. Although we're evenly split on numbers, editors arguing for deletion have confirmed that no mention of any of these emulators exist in the current article, and no content of these merged articles survive in the current article either. The corpus of precedents hence sway this towards a decision to delete all these redirects. Any editor interested in the page history may ask me or any administrator for userfication. Deryck C. 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, the list of video game emulators was a bit of a link farm/software directory, including lots of non-notable titles. Some time ago, those were removed, but we still have all of the redirects from those titles which are no longer mentioned on the page. First time with a bundled RfD. Tagging/notifying as soon as I save this — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: All pages tagged, creators notified. Is there really no way to semi-automate a bulk nomination? That took a whole lot longer than just doing a bunch of individuals would have... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, these are some of these are notable emulators at least enough for a redirect. Valoem talk contrib 06:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain in regards to gnuboy. I co-programmed the emulator and later wrote its Wikipedia article before it was changed to a redirect. This all happened years ago. I was still relatively new to Wikipedia at the time, and I was neither aware of WP:COI, nor did I anticipate conflict of interest issues. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; plausible search terms for their target articles. 28bytes (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valoem and 28bytes: I'm not sure I understand. @Valoem if you think these emulators that have been deleted/redirected or which we otherwise don't have any information about at all are notable, you are making a great case for deletion underRFD#DELETE #10. @28bytes We have redirects from the names of specific software applications to a list article that makes no mention of those specific applications. Presumably a search for any specific website should then go to lists of websites, then, regardless of whether it's covered anywhere on Wikipedia? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Targeting an emulator without its own standalone article to a list of emulators is a whole different kettle of fish from having redirects for every conceivable website. I'm not seeing anything in RFD#DELETE that would apply to these emulator redirects, and quite a few things in RFD#KEEP that would argue against deleting them (#1, 4, 5 and 7 in particular.) 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The target article contains no information on any of these, so a reader who searches for them is taken only to irrelevant information. Some are mentioned in other articles and could plausibly be retargeted, and I haven't looked in depth at the mentions for each, but the vast majority seem to be very brief mentions that are almost as unhelpful as the current target. As far as I can tell there are no attribution-related reasons for keeping any of these, for the same reasons I noted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 28#Genecyst. I also concur with Rhododendrites' second and third sentences in his comment above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: This is looking like a keep all vs delete all debate, so let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all that aren't mentioned at the target article. A reader searching for one of these is not going to be happy when they're presented with a list that doesn't even mention what they were looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In at least the case that triggered a mention on my talk page (Corn, N64 Emulator), there used to be an article at the title involved before it was moved to another location (Corn (emulator)). Then that page was turned into a redirect. While it is true that there is no mention of this particular emulator, deleting the redirects would remove the article history and break a variety of long-standing internal links. This hits both of the criteria listed at WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Importantly, it was only redirected at AfD because it was, at that time, included in the list. If it were not included in the list, it would not have been redirected. Since the closing admin did not specify (and is now inactive), if you think it would've been kept, I'd urge you to recreate it. If you think it will become notable in the future, I don't think anyone would object to you copying the material in the history to your userspace. But we don't need to keep the histories of pages about subjects no longer represented anywhere on Wikipedia. Keeping the history can't be the sole purpose of a redirect (and we don't redirect things solely for that purpose -- again, it wouldn't have been if it weren't on the list). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all that aren't mentioned per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and because it's a poor reader experience. If readers search for a non-notable subject, we shouldn't redirect them to an article that doesn't even discuss their search query. Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Xezbeth. A red link - an honest admission that Wikipedia has no information about a topic - is not harmful. It is arguably less harmful than a false blue link which sends readers off on a wild goose chase for information that is not contained in Wikipedia. Any history that needs to be retained for WP:ATTREQ purposes could be moved out of mainspace to a subpage of Talk:List of video game emulators or somewhere. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all until someone checks all of the redirects for copyright issues. E.g. Little John Palm and PocketGBA has both been merged into List of video game emulators. Therefore, theese two should not be deleted unless we delete "List of video game emulators" too (they could be moved, though). Probably more than just those two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian75 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:10, 22 October 2018 (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.
Black Hole
- 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) feminist (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Title case isn't normally used when writing about black holes, so I'd imagine that if a reader is specifically using title case in their search query, they will be much more likely to be looking for one or another of the proper nouns known as "Black Hole", and these are listed at Black hole (disambiguation), which would appear to be a better target. – Uanfala (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google searches show that the current target is by far the primary topic for the term, and not everybody knows Wikipedia article titles don't use title case. There needs to be a good reason why different capitalisations lead to different places, and I'm not seeing that here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If there was a particular film or something like that that was especially prominent and likely to be searched for (comparable to Red Dwarf, for example) then I might agree, but none of the handful of items listed on the disambiguation page with this particular title stands out. Also note that some astronomical entities are commonly referred to in title case (e.g. Milky Way, Solar System, Alpha Centauri), and it wouldn't be unreasonable of a less astronomically-literate reader to assume that black holes are in the same class of things and referred to with the same capitalisation. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (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.