< May 10
May 12 >

May 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 11, 2019.

6.022

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 Avogadro constant. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a particularly useful redirect. A mole is 6.02214076×10^23. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 11 May 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.

Eric gryf

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target doesn't mention "gryf", I checked the corresponding articles in a few other languages (esp. Danish) and couldn't find it there either. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Eric was of the House of Griffin, "also known as the Gryf family" (which is Polish for griffin). – Þjarkur (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but even the Polish article doesn't refer to him that way, referring to the subject as "Eryk Pomorski" and the family as Gryfici or Grifitów. Moreover, there appear to have been multiple Eryks of Griffin. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 11 May 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:XC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Wikipedia:XC

Angela LaFever

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) 21:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 11 May 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:Assessment

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 Wikipedia:Content assessment. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Assessment and WP:ASSESSMENT redirecting to two different page is a source of confusion. To resolve this I suggest retargeting WP:Assessment to Wikipedia:Content assessment Trialpears (talk) 21:37, 11 May 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 Wolf (TV series)

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) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A circular link to a DAB page. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. (The link is in use in Kuo Shu-yao, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same thing all right: see zh:狼殿下, which includes Kuo Shu-yao (郭書瑤) in the cast list. Narky Blert (talk) 05:43, 12 May 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.

Compulsory Military Training

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 Conscription. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad scope - suggest revert to original target conscription and fix all incoming that shouldn't be using the uppercase anyhow (typically bad acro). ping User:Buckshot06 Widefox; talk 13:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding it to the NZ article to fix the problem first? Then this redirect can be kept. If it can't be fixed because there's no sources then better to not have any of these targeting the NZ article. Widefox; talk 09:05, 12 May 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.

Bosniaknity

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) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. There is no such word as "Bosniaknity", zero hit on the Google Search; I moved it to Bosniakness. Sorabino (talk) 12:18, 11 May 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.

Bosnicism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Bosnicism

George Francis (supercentenarian)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#George Francis (supercentenarian)

Close to the Sun

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Close to the Sun

Function*

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) 20:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plausible reason why a generating function would be called a "Function*". Jasper Deng (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I think the redirect should be deleted (i.e., there is no other more plausible target). --JBL (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Jasper--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 11 May 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.

P:A

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe at one point there were only 26 portals, and these redirects were not completely ambiguous, but now there are 1,300, and so pointing to a random target no longer makes any sense. Note: some of the targets are at Mfd, and if that leads to their deletion, the redirects will be deleted before this RfD closes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:04, 11 May 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.

Triple Degree

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite appearing to be semantically similar, Triple accreditation is about a status obtained by certain business schools, while an internet search would suggest that "triple degree" refers to the accomplishment of receiving three tertiary degrees. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:04, 11 May 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.

1 (Dinah Jane album)

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 Dinah Jane 1. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She just ended up calling it Dinah Jane 1, and neither of these.- NØ 22:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:03, 11 May 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.

James Silcox

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. While I can't ignore the participants preferring deletion, I'm convinced the keep !votes make stronger arguments. There are mentions, and while it may be non-standard, the redirects take readers to the relevant content, wherever it may be. Not wild about the argument that reader's will remember the serial murderer's name and not the victim's name, as that somewhat misses the point about the value of redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted serial killers do not need, as a matter of course, to automatically have a permanent redirect from the name of every individual victim they killed. The victims are not famous in their own right, and are extremely unlikely to ever actually be searched for by users expecting to reach an article that way. And we doubly don't need such redirects to be categorized for life trivia, like their birth year and birthplace or their prior occupation, that isn't even reflected or sourced in the article at all. (Category:Tinsmiths, for example, is supposed to contain people who were notable as tinsmiths, not non-notable tinsmiths like Maurice Granat who exist only as redirects to notable murderers.) While Category:Canadian murder victims does contain some other redirects, those are from "Name of Victim" to "Murder of Victim", not from "Name of Victim" to "Name of Murderer" -- the Wettlaufer batch are literally the only ones that are doing the latter thing at all. So these simply aren't serving any genuinely useful purpose. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no, it is profoundly unlikely that anybody outside of a victim's own family would remember the name of a serial killer's victims more readily than the actual name of the actual killer — if the killer is famous enough to actually have their own standalone Wikipedia article at all, then their name will be well-known to the public. In any case where the murder victim is genuinely more famous and notable than the killer, such as Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena, the article is by definition located at either "Name of Victim" or "Murder of [Name of Victim]", and never at "Name of Killer" — and neither Shepard nor Teena were victims of serial killers, their fame as murder victims accrued because they were standalone murders. But for serial killers, go ahead and name me just one of Jeffrey Dahmer's or John Wayne Gacy's or Bruce McArthur's or Ted Bundy's victims without looking them up first.
Secondly, most serial killers do not have redirects from the name of each individual victim. So no, it's clearly not standard "Wikipedia practice" to do so, if we verifiably usually don't.
Thirdly, it is also not standard practice that redirects always have to be categorized like regular articles, either. Redirects may be categorized if there's a navigationally useful reason to do so, such as the redirect represents a title that people might actually be looking for in a category where the target page would be out of place, but there is no rule that redirects are always or even usually required to be categorized at all. And even if they are being categorized, redirects should certainly still not be categorized on points of information, such as their pre-death occupation or their place of birth, that are not actually reflected or sourced in, or even really relevant to, the target article. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I’ve contributed to all kinds of articles concerning such crimes and so often it’s such a complex picture. In some instances almost impossible to decide whether the murderer or the victim(s) is the most notable of the two and might as well be a toss of a coin, hence the huge importance of redirects for the other party. In some cases we don’t even have either party’s name as part of the article title, but again it’s standard practice (and certainly good practice) to have redirects for both murderer and victim. You’re quite correct that redirects are missing from some other serial killer articles and in fact all kinds of other Wikipedia articles but that’s primarily down to those articles being incomplete. The increased use of these redirects is a relative recent practice on Wikipedia, hence most older or less viewed articles may not yet be up to standard. We shouldn’t lower the quality of one article down to that of another, and the solution here is to add the missing redirects. As for the degree to which we categorised these victims, it obviously goes without saying that they belongs in the Canadian murder victims category, and I’d argue that their date of birth was indeed quite defining and relevant, particularly as they were killed mainly because of their age. It goes without saying that the date of death is defining and the dementia diagnosis was also a key factor in many cases so again that should be categorised, as should other major illnesses they led to the murders. As for their place of birth, that may be less clear, but it certainly merits inclusion if it’s in the vicinity of the locations of the crimes. Ultimately, if the content pertaining to the victims is within the article (or belongs in it but is not present as of yet) then it should be categorised. The consensus thus far was to only remove redirects when the individual is not mentioned by name in the article (and is not likely to be named should the article be expanded). It's really important to emphasise that the article in question isn't of a particularly high standard and requires considerable expansion and improvement, thus the real solution here is to fix the article, not delete redirects. In fact some recent edits have even involved people trying to censor the a names of the victims and details of the murders entirely! I made a few improvements previously and I'll try to improve it this week if I find the time.Shakehandsman (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:03, 11 May 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.
More