This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2019.
Bumper (Transformers)
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. A couple articles with minor mentions have been surfaced, but nothing significant enough for a redirect. --
Tavix(
talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The various Transformers articles are an impenetrable maze of nonsense, so I could be mistaken, but I think there's no coverage of this character. It gets a few brief mentions but there's nothing to point this redirect to.
Xezbeth (
talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
After a second look, retarget to
Cliffjumper#Toys, the character is most notable for a mix up in the original 1980s toyline which is covered in that first bullet point titled "Generation 1 Mini-Car Cliffjumper (1984)". I would also retarget
Bumblejumper and
Bumblejumper (Transformers) there for the same reason.
PC78 (
talk) 23:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BDD (
talk) 21:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete With no one clear place to point this, let the search engine do its job. --
BDD (
talk) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
delete, as BDD said. -
Nabla (
talk) 18:18, 15 June 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.
Stars(Mario)
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 00:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Length of existence is not an argument. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't be silly. Length of existence *is* an argument; quoted from
aboveLinks that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also
Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. -
PaulT+/C 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
See the "in case" part. This doesn't apply to
WP:RDAB stuff. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You also missed the preceeding ...without good reason. No page gets a free pass just because it is of a certain age.
PC78 (
talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)First of all,
WP:RDAB doesn't apply because this isn't a disambiguation page. (I think you mean
WP:UNNATURAL but in any case, neither reason is a guideline; please cite something from
WP:R#DELETE that doesn't contradict
WP:R#HARMFUL.) Second, the "in case" (and/or "good reason") part doesn't negate the "links that have existed for a significant length of time" part. Over 10 years is significant. And lastly, please mind
WP:LISTGAP (both of you). -
PaulT+/C 08:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) ...It's also a very hypothetical concern for a page that existed as an article for just a few weeks well over a decade ago.
PC78 (
talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:RDAB covers errors in the act of disambiguating/disambiguated titles, not errors in disambiguation pages. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 08:27, 7 June 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.
Contributions
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.
This redirect does not really make sense to me. Why should its lemma only be referred to the target in question?
Hildeoc (
talk) 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Hildeoc: I don't necessarily disagree, but I assume you are not proposing that this become a redlink? What other targets should be included if this should be converted to a disambiguation page?
VQuakr (
talk) 20:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Contribution and reword the link there to
Fundraising. This is an important enough use to still include, but the status quo is
SURPRISE-ing. As the self-referential hatnote there alludes to, we're making contributions now, and it's not a matter of fundraising! --
BDD (
talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per BDD.
VQuakr (
talk) 02:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per BDD. This redirect's current target is completely illogical.
Geolodus (
talk) 20:50, 5 June 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.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
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) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment further to Uncle G's comment above, Eldis have removed the IJHSS per
this and it does appear on the new incarnation of Beall's List, which is supposedly an archive of the original - see
here, unless the addition of an "s" to the word "science" is more than a typo. If I'm correct then the redirect seems valid to me. -
Sitush (
talk) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
We're not going to have tens of thousands of indiscriminate redirects to Beall's list simply because a predatory journal happens to be named on the list. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The target article (appropriately) doesn't reproduce the list. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of redirecting a journal title there if it was important enough to be discussed there, and if there were not a more appropriate target. --
BDD (
talk) 16:35, 7 June 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.
"Boots" Sheck
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 01:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The character of
Sheck was never called on the show "Boots" Sheck. It seems "Boots" was just a reference name the character was called before he was fully introduced as only his boots were seen. There are no google search results which appear when you search for '"Boots" Sheck"'.
Gonnym (
talk) 18:29, 3 June 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.
Fruits Basket minor character redirects
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) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Minor characters that aren't mentioned at the target article or anywhere else. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 18:02, 3 June 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.
Uotani
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 18:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)reply
There are multiple real people with this surname mentioned in Wikipedia. I don't think there's enough substance for a surname article, so the reader is better served by a redlink. Also nominating another for the same reason, there's at least one person with this name mentioned in Wikipedia. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 17:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect actively prevents Search doing its job.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:54, 7 June 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 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.
kingboyk (
talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
An IP changed this to point to the disambiguation page,
Antenna, which I reverted, but it is worth discussing. The premise of the current redirect is that there are two pluralizable forms on the disambiguation page, and the biological sense is properly pluralized as antennae (which redirects to the disambiguation page). However, I can see an argument for "antennas" being equally ambiguous.
bd2412T 04:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the disambig page. I agree with the IP.--Esprit15d •
talk •
contribs 05:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the disambig page, per
Esprit15d and the IP. Neither plural is exclusively used in one context, thus making the disambig page the most useful target.
ComplexRational (
talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. There's only one use on the disambiguation page that applies, and it's
Antenna (radio). I'd change the hatnote at
Antenna (radio) to {{
Redirect|Antennas|other uses of "antenna"|Antenna (disambiguation)}}.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:05, 7 June 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.
Bad Force
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 01:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Excessively generic term, could plausibly refer to any evil force anywhere. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. According to IMDb, Bad Force was the title of this film in West Germany, so it's a plausible search term, and since it gets very few page views (just 4 last year!) it doesn't seem to be confusing many people. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that "bad force" (uncapitalised) makes a plausible search term for the broader concept of evil. There's also an argument for disambiguation,
search results indicate that "Bad Force" is/was also the name of a group in Japanese wrestling.
PC78 (
talk) 11:07, 3 June 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2019.
Bumper (Transformers)
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. A couple articles with minor mentions have been surfaced, but nothing significant enough for a redirect. --
Tavix(
talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The various Transformers articles are an impenetrable maze of nonsense, so I could be mistaken, but I think there's no coverage of this character. It gets a few brief mentions but there's nothing to point this redirect to.
Xezbeth (
talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
After a second look, retarget to
Cliffjumper#Toys, the character is most notable for a mix up in the original 1980s toyline which is covered in that first bullet point titled "Generation 1 Mini-Car Cliffjumper (1984)". I would also retarget
Bumblejumper and
Bumblejumper (Transformers) there for the same reason.
PC78 (
talk) 23:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BDD (
talk) 21:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete With no one clear place to point this, let the search engine do its job. --
BDD (
talk) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)reply
delete, as BDD said. -
Nabla (
talk) 18:18, 15 June 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.
Stars(Mario)
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 00:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Length of existence is not an argument. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't be silly. Length of existence *is* an argument; quoted from
aboveLinks that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also
Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. -
PaulT+/C 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
See the "in case" part. This doesn't apply to
WP:RDAB stuff. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
You also missed the preceeding ...without good reason. No page gets a free pass just because it is of a certain age.
PC78 (
talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)First of all,
WP:RDAB doesn't apply because this isn't a disambiguation page. (I think you mean
WP:UNNATURAL but in any case, neither reason is a guideline; please cite something from
WP:R#DELETE that doesn't contradict
WP:R#HARMFUL.) Second, the "in case" (and/or "good reason") part doesn't negate the "links that have existed for a significant length of time" part. Over 10 years is significant. And lastly, please mind
WP:LISTGAP (both of you). -
PaulT+/C 08:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) ...It's also a very hypothetical concern for a page that existed as an article for just a few weeks well over a decade ago.
PC78 (
talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:RDAB covers errors in the act of disambiguating/disambiguated titles, not errors in disambiguation pages. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 08:27, 7 June 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.
Contributions
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.
This redirect does not really make sense to me. Why should its lemma only be referred to the target in question?
Hildeoc (
talk) 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Hildeoc: I don't necessarily disagree, but I assume you are not proposing that this become a redlink? What other targets should be included if this should be converted to a disambiguation page?
VQuakr (
talk) 20:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Contribution and reword the link there to
Fundraising. This is an important enough use to still include, but the status quo is
SURPRISE-ing. As the self-referential hatnote there alludes to, we're making contributions now, and it's not a matter of fundraising! --
BDD (
talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per BDD.
VQuakr (
talk) 02:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget per BDD. This redirect's current target is completely illogical.
Geolodus (
talk) 20:50, 5 June 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.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
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) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment further to Uncle G's comment above, Eldis have removed the IJHSS per
this and it does appear on the new incarnation of Beall's List, which is supposedly an archive of the original - see
here, unless the addition of an "s" to the word "science" is more than a typo. If I'm correct then the redirect seems valid to me. -
Sitush (
talk) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
We're not going to have tens of thousands of indiscriminate redirects to Beall's list simply because a predatory journal happens to be named on the list. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The target article (appropriately) doesn't reproduce the list. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of redirecting a journal title there if it was important enough to be discussed there, and if there were not a more appropriate target. --
BDD (
talk) 16:35, 7 June 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.
"Boots" Sheck
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 01:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
The character of
Sheck was never called on the show "Boots" Sheck. It seems "Boots" was just a reference name the character was called before he was fully introduced as only his boots were seen. There are no google search results which appear when you search for '"Boots" Sheck"'.
Gonnym (
talk) 18:29, 3 June 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.
Fruits Basket minor character redirects
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) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Minor characters that aren't mentioned at the target article or anywhere else. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 18:02, 3 June 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.
Uotani
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 18:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)reply
There are multiple real people with this surname mentioned in Wikipedia. I don't think there's enough substance for a surname article, so the reader is better served by a redlink. Also nominating another for the same reason, there's at least one person with this name mentioned in Wikipedia. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 17:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This redirect actively prevents Search doing its job.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 16:54, 7 June 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 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.
kingboyk (
talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
An IP changed this to point to the disambiguation page,
Antenna, which I reverted, but it is worth discussing. The premise of the current redirect is that there are two pluralizable forms on the disambiguation page, and the biological sense is properly pluralized as antennae (which redirects to the disambiguation page). However, I can see an argument for "antennas" being equally ambiguous.
bd2412T 04:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the disambig page. I agree with the IP.--Esprit15d •
talk •
contribs 05:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the disambig page, per
Esprit15d and the IP. Neither plural is exclusively used in one context, thus making the disambig page the most useful target.
ComplexRational (
talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. There's only one use on the disambiguation page that applies, and it's
Antenna (radio). I'd change the hatnote at
Antenna (radio) to {{
Redirect|Antennas|other uses of "antenna"|Antenna (disambiguation)}}.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:05, 7 June 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.
Bad Force
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.
kingboyk (
talk) 01:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Excessively generic term, could plausibly refer to any evil force anywhere. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. According to IMDb, Bad Force was the title of this film in West Germany, so it's a plausible search term, and since it gets very few page views (just 4 last year!) it doesn't seem to be confusing many people. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that "bad force" (uncapitalised) makes a plausible search term for the broader concept of evil. There's also an argument for disambiguation,
search results indicate that "Bad Force" is/was also the name of a group in Japanese wrestling.
PC78 (
talk) 11:07, 3 June 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.