Trichome

thcscience_admin

May 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2019.

A&l[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is a particularly common initialism for the target, and an internet search indicates that it is used for a lot of unrelated subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, both because of what Rosguill said, and because the lowercase "l" makes it even more unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the A&L initialism is used by the subject but the typo makes it unrelated. My mistake. --Philippe49730 (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A&L redirects to Alliance and Leicester, I've just added a hatnote there to Anderson & Lembke which is the only other subject with an article that seems to commonly use the "A&L" acronym which is not a particle title match. The most prominent use is "A&L Goodbody" but that doesn't have an article (although see Draft:A&L Goodbody) and doesn't seem to be referred to as just "A&L". Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Alliance and Leicester, where A&L goes. Since we have the redirect already, I think it makes sense to keep it for the lazy people typing a&l or linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/a&l for some reason. I can't really argue strongly against deletion as the page has had a whopping 4 views. Daß Wölf 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page has only existed for a month so page views are not necessarily representative of utility (they might be, we just can't be sure yet). Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • All-lowercase redirects are often useful, e.g. mcdonald's, but this is not an all-lowercase redirect from a typing perspective — the & is essentially an uppercase 7 on a QWERTY keyboard, uppercase 1 on an AZERTY, and uppercase 6 on AZERTY. Who's going to hold down Shift for the middle character while releasing it for the third? In other words, this is like redirecting uSa to United States: not something useful. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I do that often on IM for "&", it's easier than holding it down for all three letters. The argument also doesn't apply to mobile and on-screen keyboard users. Daß Wölf 22:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the lowercase L confusing with upper case I. A&L can be a dab or a primary depending on options. Same with A&I (upper case I)AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the appearance of a character in some fonts impact whether a redirect is a useful search term or not? Should we delete Al because it might be confused with AI? Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 3 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.

Chuurchill[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a plausible typo to me, "uu" is not a common letter combination in the English language. Churchhill (i.e. "Church-hill") is fine, but this seems rather unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 15:02, 1 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.

Ophis (comics)[edit]

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 entry at Ophis has been removed as well. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this character is mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, including the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He is supposedly a member of the Neyaphem which redirects to Mutant above, but the article or the section does not mention him at all. If the result is to delete, the entry at Ophis (disambiguation) should be removed as well as dabmention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:47, 3 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.

Malachi-Phree Jasiah[edit]

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. 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi-Phree Jasiah is not mention on the article it lead too. When googling it brings noting relating to the article. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most likely refers to this rapper. Biblical figure is not a good redirect target. Daß Wölf 23:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable rapper. Mentioned in some random discographies but not described in detail. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:37, 3 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.

Božidar Pelegrinović[edit]

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. 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Božidar Pelegrinović is not mentioned in the article. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This lends a clue. Supposedly a modern-day descandant of redirect target. He may or may not be notable for his own article but definitely no point in redirecting to a 500 year old ancestor. Daß Wölf 23:35, 2 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.

Template:Db-unfree[edit]

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 deprecate. There is consensus to deprecate this template redirect, but opinions are split on whether the page should be redlinked altogether. Gauging the opinions expressed, I think the acceptable middle ground is to convert the page to something that shows the deprecation clearly. I have replaced the redirect with a deprecation notice to that effect. There were no transclusions of this title as of the time of this discussion closure and any new transclusions will transclude the deprecation notice rather than a deletion tag. Deryck C. 14:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat convoluted history here, but a brief summary:

In short, from late 2005 to mid 2016, Template:Db-unfree redirected to F5, and from 2016 to present it has redirected to F9. This was brought to my attention by JJMC89; I'm opening this to discuss where it should point, either Template:Di-orphaned fair use or Template:Db-f9. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates and Template:Db-multiple/doc still note this as referring to F5. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{db-unfree}} is ambiguous, so I lean toward deleting it. I've created {{db-f5}} to handle the immediate deletion part of WP:F5, like {{db-f7}} does for WP:F7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't necessarily the place for this, but while I likely favor doing so, it's not immediately clear to me that {{db-f5}} should be the immediate rather than seven day version given that it has pointed to {{Di-orphaned fair use}} for a decade. Might need a discussion on that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. This has long existed, so there are many people who will likely continue to use it. I suggest replacing it with a notice that (a) lists the different criteria under which non-free images may be speedily deleted, (b) requests taggers to replace it with a specific tag for the criteria they mean, and (c) places the page in an appropriate category so that the nomination isn't lost if the tag is not replaced. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Thryduulf's proposal above. Since there is ambiguity, requesting users to choose a more specific template seems best. Killiondude (talk) 04:51, 23 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) 06:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Watchers of Wikipedia talk:Twinkle have been notified here in the case this discussion ever broke something. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: If this used to be I5 when files were still images, the current final target for F5 {{Orfud}} per CSD policy is {{Di-orphaned fair use}}. I couldn't care less about this, but "requires sysop rights to get the full picture" isn't necessary for this nit. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Amory is not saying you need to have Special:Undelete access to get the whole picture. Please try to assume good faith. Killiondude (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone could draft a page to show the deprecation, I think we have agreement here. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How about #REDIRECT [[Template:Db-f9]] <noinclude>{{Deprecated template|Db-unfree|Db-f9|note=Do you mean {{Di-orphaned fair use}}?}}</noincude> (Untested, the "noinclude" stuff should be unnecessary.) –84.46.52.129 (talk) 02:36, 1 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) 01:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is not currently transcluded anywhere: [1]. This will only break new uses, which is a Good Thing, because it will force anyone using this template to switch to a different template instead. --NYKevin 20:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not being transcluded anywhere because 1) anything transcluding a csd tag is speedily deleted, and 2) it's been at RfD for just shy of a month, so of course no one is using it. This is a redirect, not a template. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and don't delete. Thryduulf makes a good argument about it being used for a long time, and the absence of transclusions doesn't mean much of anything when the template is meant to be used to request speedy deletion, as such pages will virtually always cease to transclude the template within hours (whether because the page is deleted or the template's removed). I can't envision why we would want to treat this differently from {{Wikify}}, which was not deleted. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "used for a long time" is why I generally lean toward the F5 usage; {{db-unfree}} had that meaning for near a decade, and we're only here because the second time a user unilaterally took action on the redirect was missed. Basically, 10>3 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it did target F5 the longest, it has had its current target for the last 3 years which is not an insignificant length on Wikipedia, and "db-unfree" is genuinely ambiguous between them and also F3 and (possibly) F7. All these criteria have different requirements for taggers and administrators, and different lengths of time they need to have been tagged, so it is best we do not assume which was meant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 9 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.

Ambrose and his Orchestra[edit]

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. Deryck C. 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the name of this redirect to 'Ambrose and His Orchestra', with a capital H, in consistency with other orchestral names, such as Geraldo and His Orchestra. I suggest this redirect with a lowercase h be deleted. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 04:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 04:11, 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) 01:53, 1 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.

Seutula Airport[edit]

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. @Þjarkur, Geolodus, Daß Wölf, and Rubbish computer: Please edit the target article as you see fit. Deryck C. 16:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target. Edit comment says this was an old name (>40 yrs). If true, this would be a reasonable redirect if sourced and added to article. MB 01:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "The airport has also been called Seutula Airport", "It was known for decades as the Seutula airport, on the basis of the village where it was built", "the airfield was commonly called the Seutula airfield", a mention in a few old books. Seems like a helpful redirect, but I don't know if it's too obscure to mention in the article. – Þjarkur (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mention in the target article, with one or more of Þjarkur's sources. This redirect is likely to be useful for readers searching from older media, and I doubt that it's "too obscure" to mention a former name of something if the statement is properly sourced. Geolodus (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Daß Wölf 23:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a mention at the target article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:06, 3 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.

Portal:Scottish Wildlife[edit]

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. As closing admin, I have checked that the page history at "Portal:Scottish Wildlife", while substantial, depended on many other portal sub-pages which have already been deleted, so there would be little benefit in userfying / archiving the page history. Deryck C. 16:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cross-namespace redirects that generate WP:SURPRISE when the reader winds up outside the portal space at an actual article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:44, 1 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.

Andrew McClinton[edit]

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. AngusWOOF has identified a potential target, but he's not currently mentioned there. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a procedural discussion opening because I'm legitimately uncertain what to do in this situation. This is a redirect from the name of a suspect in a criminal case who has now (as of when this redirect was created) pleaded guilty to the crime. However, the redirect target is a Portal:Current events page that uses only one source to support the relevant claims (which at the time did not include an admission of guilt), leaving me concerned that having this redirect would potentially be an (unintentional) circumvention of BLP policies. signed, Rosguill talk 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: WP:R2 is no option, the portal namespace among others is excluded. Delete Portal:Current events for everything older than two weeks, moving all fresh rests to WikiNews or whatever it is called today, is presumably also no option. Maybe get rid of the Andrew McClinton wikilink on the portal page, because it goes straight back to the portal page. The redirect cannot expanded into a proper BLP per WP:BLP1E, but apparently that's not required. Kudos for finding this attack vector: Put crap in Portal:Current events bypassing all policies for articles, then add redirects to it in the article namespace. –84.46.52.129 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting (or even deprecating) Portal:Current events will require a much wider discussion than an RfD discussion, particularly one that isn't really relevant to it. Thryduulf (talk)
ACK, forwarded to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#R2 portal. –84.46.53.51 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should not have these redirects into Current Events, which is not really encyclopedic content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:58, 2 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_1

Leave a Reply