This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 10, 2019.
GoKev
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) 00:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target, ironically this would appear to be promotional marketing. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Completely unclear what it refers to.
CycloneYoristalk! 06:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
bd2412T 03:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete bordering on
WP:G11. Created with the edit summary "GoKev is all about self promotion." Now, exactly what it is "promoting" I have no idea. Regardless, it has no place here. -
PaulT+/C 02:47, 16 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.
New Body
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 single is still speculation and isn't mentioned at all in the target.
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:CRYSTAL, etc. apply. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
No, it's not a speculation. The song was confirmed by
Kanye West. I changed the target to
Yandhi (the album where the song is included) which contains a sourced mention to this song.
Lichtt (
talk) 22:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as retargetted and add a hatnote to
Hahn Rowe who released an album called "the new body". I'll add one to
Yandhi there.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf.
PC78 (
talk) 11:32, 18 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 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.
AFAIC a bad redirect, as the redirect term is only mentioned peripherically but actually not at all explained within the given target article.
Hildeoc (
talk) 16:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The redirect seems totally appropriate; "twin" is listed in the main table as one of a number of bed sizes. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Deacon Vorbis. The word "Twin" appears on the page 12 times, 1 is in the title of a reference, 1 is definitely peripheral and 2 more are arguably so but that still leaves 8 mentions that are clearly not peripheral.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Very common North American terminology, and a very likely search term.
Meters (
talk) 20:35, 10 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.
Single bed
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.
AFAIC a bad redirect, as the redirect term is only mentioned peripherically but actually not at all explained within the given target article.
Hildeoc (
talk) 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Deacon Vorbis and above. Anyone searching for encyclopaedic information about single beds will find what they are looking for at the target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Very common North American terminology, and a very likely search term.
Meters (
talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Single bed has the potential to be an article in the future, and we lose nothing from it redirecting until that time.
Josh Parris 04:00, 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 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. Thanks to all those involved with histmerging where it was necessary. As always, I can restore if there's anything we forgot. --
BDD (
talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I held these over from the
previous discussion due to them all having some history; in each case the page was initially created as a duplicate article and then redirected, however no content was merged so there is no need to retain this history for attribution. I'm not sure if it was necessary to make this distinction, but better safe than sorry. Delete all per
WP:RDAB and concensus across multiple recent discussions. The history for most of these is largely trivial, and none are linked from mainspace.
PC78 (
talk) 13:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all- I agree with the nominator.
ReykYO! 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All I don't know that these actually meet RDAB, but they are simply not useful. The ones I've checked have zero page views before the nomination and the histories are just minor things such as converting a restatement of the title (the proper title) into a redirect.
Meters (
talk) 21:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment is there any reason why history merging any content with the correctly formed pages would be a problem? For example, Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode) (merge from
Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode) is the one redirect I checked and it seems to be possible without any major issues. I'd prefer history merging and then deleting over just straight deleting. -
PaulT+/C 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That might work for some of the above, and I've already taken care of the one you highlighted. Is it really worth the bother to preserve a revision
like this or
this though? Most of it looks like junk to be honest.
PC78 (
talk) 22:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
This nomination is odd. Have you actually looked at the history for each of these entiries or are you simply looking to mass-delete them? A bunch more of these have valid history and if you haven't reviewed each page then you shouldn't have put it up for debate. -
PaulT+/C 14:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I most certainly have looked at each of these pages, and like I said most of it is junk. I don't know what you find "odd". If you truly think any of these histories are worth preserving then it would be constructive if you could point them out and we can take it from there.
PC78 (
talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Some examples:
Undressed(TV series merged to Undressed (TV series);
Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi moved to Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi). I'm sure there are more, but my point is that you are nominating lots of pages (
hundreds in some previous cases) without evaluating each on their own merits. It is human nature to want to group them and find patterns, but mass deletion when there is relevant history (and when these links date to 2006 or earlier in some cases) does not seem appropriate or fair. Furthermore,
WP:G6 deletions for some of these pages seem to violate the exception present in
WP:R3Page moves are excluded because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them. Such redirects must be discussed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion before deletion. However, redirects that were obviously made in error can be deleted as G6, technical deletions. The "obvious" error was made over a decade ago, not recently as is required by
WP:A10. I understand that it looks like the pages were recently created because of technical reasions, but a number of decade-old links were just speedy deleted without discussion. Is that supposed to be able to happen? -
PaulT+/C 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid you've got it backwards, friend: I evaluated each redirect on it's own merits first, then grouped those I considered like-for-like in a single nomination, and here we are. I've already asserted several times that the history of these pages is junk (IMO) and is not required to be kept for attribution as the content was never merged anywhere; none of them meet the conditions set out at
WP:RFD#KEEP. I've gone and moved
Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi, since the properly formatted redirect did not already exist that was fairly cheap. Can the history of
Undressed(TV series be moved somewhere else? Sure, but why? What's so important about those two revisions that you think it's important or necessary to keep them? For the record,
WP:G6 explicitly covers "redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title", and is not subject to any time limit; see {{Db-error}}. Certainly I've never had any such G6 requests turned down or rejected.
PC78 (
talk) 01:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)reply
From another guideline,
WP:R#KEEP#4: However, avoid deleting such redirects if: ... 4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links 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. G6ing pages that date to 2006 simply because they were moved recently and at first glance look like a recent error seems like a misapplication of the rule and a violation/contradiction in the guidelines to me. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you necessarily did anything wrong, just that there is a discrepancy between these guidelines – I know it is quite shocking because all of our guidelines are *always* perfectly consistent ;).) For the record,
Overture (Def Leppard song,
Ruth Lyons (TV personality,
The Gnome-Mobile (film,
The Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who,
Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi, and
Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode were all
speedy-deleted (I'm fairly certain mostly, if not all, with
WP:G6) while under discussion here. -
PaulT+/C 21:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Your concern was preserving the histories of those pages, which is what I did for those, so... what's the problem, exactly? I'm sorry but it's just not clear what you want. The reasons for deletion are covered above and there is ample concensus across multiple discussions. If you find
WP:G6 a problem then by all means raise your concerns there.
PC78 (
talk) 22:31, 18 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.
Caillou Gets Grounded
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) 00:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)reply
See
Talk:Caillou/Archive_2, as this subject seems to have been discussed on and off for a while, and it concluded that it is not notable enough and doesn't have reliable sources to be (or rather, cringy enough to not be) included in
Caillou article. So redirecting to a section that doesn't discuss anything about the redirect's subject is unnecessary.
NotCory (
talk) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. With no sources on the subject, there is nothing to say about it in the article. With nothing in the article about it, there is no reason to link to it. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:56, 10 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:No Escape
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.
Delete Recreated after speedy; my understanding of
WP:NCTR was that if an article subject's actual name would put it in one of Wikipedia's namespaces (Book:, Module:, Portal:), we do not create a redirect in that non-article namespace, and a hatnote in the article suffices.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 12:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The actual title of the film is definitely a useful redirect to have. If you scroll down in
WP:NCTR to
WP:NCCOLON, it explains that a redirect should be created when an article title interferes with a namespace: For example,
Help: A Day in the Life is located at
Help!: A Day in the Life. A redirect is created at the original title (in this case at
Help:A Day in the Life, which is what the above title resolves to). --
Tavix(
talk) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Also note that I have restored the history of the redirect. Courtesy ping to the deleting admin
Athaenara. --
Tavix(
talk) 13:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. While nothing at
No Escape is really suited to the creation of a Portal, having this redirect prevents someone from creating one, especially if the redirect can be protected.--Aurictalk 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. The correct title of an article subject is always going to be a useful search term and so where technically possible (as it is here) it should always link or redirect to the title our article is located at.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix and Thryduulf. This is very likely to be useful for readers unaware of Wikipedia's technical restrictions, and if we are to delete this, we may also delete the redirects
Wikipedia: The Missing Manual,
Book: A Novel,
Project: Revolution and dozens more.
Geolodus (
talk) 09:54, 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.
Droz (professional wrestling
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. Duplicate nomination, see above.
PC78 (
talk) 13:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
This is a procedural nomination on behalf of
PC78 who added the RfD tag to the redirect about 5 hours ago but did not add an entry here. I guess the nomination is for deletion because of the missing closing parenthesis, but hopefully they'll be along before long to confirm.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:16, 10 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.
Islamic green
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.
Retarget and link per Andy Dingley.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:12, 13 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 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.
Retarget to
Bug (disambiguation) per Paul/Psantora below Retarget to
Caterpillar?Although
Emojipedia states that Google and Microsoft depict this as a
centipede or
millipede, the Google/Microsoft renditions shown on Emojipedia clearly most closely resemble caterpillars. A few minor renditions shown on Emojipedia are clearly centipedes/millipedes. Unicode name
bug isn't much help for a redirect target (renditions are certainly not representative of
true bugs).
Plantdrew (
talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Insect - I love them, but
Emojipedia is not the source we should use for this. The source should be
Unicode, which is where Emojipedia gets most of its strength from.
They say the
CLDR short name is
bug. Many vendors use the CLDR name for autocomplete, so we should match that if we can. Vendors can interpret the short name visually how they want, like how Apple can make
🔫 look like a squirt gun, but it's really "pistol." I agree that on many platforms it looks like a caterpillar, but on Gmail and others, it does not. Fewer of them look like members of
Hemiptera, the True Bugs. I think they mean bug as in the generic term for
insect. There is no
Bug (common name) page, and few of the entries at
Bug pertain to insects or friends.
Insect seems like the closest to the intent of Unicode as we can get. --
Nessie (
talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Unfortunately, defining the emoji as "bug" was a bad decision because it's too ambiguous.
wikt:bug, definition n1, uses: Any
insect,
arachnid,
myriapod or
entognath.Arthropod is a bit broader than that, but it is the article that encompasses "bugs" the best without the exclusion of others (eg:
insect would exclude
centipedes), as far as I can tell. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. Not the best choice by Unicode, but arthropod is the best we have.
Bug (disambiguation) leads to
Hemiptera but the lead of that article gives the synonym "true bugs" and notes "Many insects commonly known as "bugs" belong to other orders; for example, the lovebug is a fly,[6] while the May bug and ladybug are beetles." It is most likely that the common meaning of "bug" is intended rather than the narrow scientific meaning, especially given the varying renditions - e.g it looks like a caterpillar to me and most caterpillars are in the order
Lepidoptera but some are in
Hymenoptera, neither of which shares a taxon with Hemiptera lower than Class.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:43, 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) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. At first sight this looks wrong, but Tavix has argued convincingly that a redirect to
Arthropod is the least bad outcome.
Certes (
talk) 23:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment is there something wrong with retargeting to the
Bug#Biology disambiguation page mentioned by
Thryduulf? It includes (an entry I just added)
arthropod per
Tavix but also
insect,
arachnid,
myriapod, etc... It seems like the most acceptable answer but perhaps there is a guideline against a unicode character redirect to a disambiguation page that I'm not familiar with? -
PaulT+/C 16:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I would be fine with that. Thank you for your improvements to make that more obvious. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
centipede. That is, after all, what it looks like to me. It is definitely not an insect. Those have only six legs. It is also surely not a "bug", and "arthropod" is a bit too general. Centipedes are arthropods, but then, so are spiders, all insects and even crabs and lobsters. It looks like a centipede; so I think that retargeting the redirect there makes the most sense.
Kelisi (
talk) 17:18, 16 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 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 is a constructed language that doesn't appear to have any coverage, and is not mentioned at the main article. Furthermore there are instances of "Old Tongue" in other fictional works, namely
A Song of Ice and Fire. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 19:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Wheel of Time precedes the Song books, but it isn't clear that the term is synonymous with the book series as it is not mentioned in the main series article.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 14:58, 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) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep See
how it was before the redirect. A likely result of a merge and subsequent removal of the merged material. The Old Tongue in ASOF would be a different language. I'm not aware that the two series share a common universe.--Aurictalk 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm aware that it used to be an article. But now it's not. The material doesn't exist so the redirect is only going to annoy readers looking for this information. I also doubt it was ever merged, TTN was never that thorough. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 21:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate with links to both ASOIAF and Wheel of Time as well as
ancient language and
extinct language. Also retargetThe Old Tongue to the newly created disambiguation page at
Old Tongue. The term is common and generic enough that I'm willing to bet a redirect page will end up having more than those entries after a year or so. -
PaulT+/C 04:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. I have started building a disambiguation page under the redirect.
bd2412T 16:13, 17 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 10, 2019.
GoKev
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) 00:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target, ironically this would appear to be promotional marketing. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Completely unclear what it refers to.
CycloneYoristalk! 06:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
bd2412T 03:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete bordering on
WP:G11. Created with the edit summary "GoKev is all about self promotion." Now, exactly what it is "promoting" I have no idea. Regardless, it has no place here. -
PaulT+/C 02:47, 16 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.
New Body
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 single is still speculation and isn't mentioned at all in the target.
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:CRYSTAL, etc. apply. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
No, it's not a speculation. The song was confirmed by
Kanye West. I changed the target to
Yandhi (the album where the song is included) which contains a sourced mention to this song.
Lichtt (
talk) 22:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as retargetted and add a hatnote to
Hahn Rowe who released an album called "the new body". I'll add one to
Yandhi there.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thryduulf.
PC78 (
talk) 11:32, 18 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 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.
AFAIC a bad redirect, as the redirect term is only mentioned peripherically but actually not at all explained within the given target article.
Hildeoc (
talk) 16:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The redirect seems totally appropriate; "twin" is listed in the main table as one of a number of bed sizes. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Deacon Vorbis. The word "Twin" appears on the page 12 times, 1 is in the title of a reference, 1 is definitely peripheral and 2 more are arguably so but that still leaves 8 mentions that are clearly not peripheral.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Very common North American terminology, and a very likely search term.
Meters (
talk) 20:35, 10 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.
Single bed
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.
AFAIC a bad redirect, as the redirect term is only mentioned peripherically but actually not at all explained within the given target article.
Hildeoc (
talk) 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Deacon Vorbis and above. Anyone searching for encyclopaedic information about single beds will find what they are looking for at the target.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Very common North American terminology, and a very likely search term.
Meters (
talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Single bed has the potential to be an article in the future, and we lose nothing from it redirecting until that time.
Josh Parris 04:00, 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 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. Thanks to all those involved with histmerging where it was necessary. As always, I can restore if there's anything we forgot. --
BDD (
talk) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I held these over from the
previous discussion due to them all having some history; in each case the page was initially created as a duplicate article and then redirected, however no content was merged so there is no need to retain this history for attribution. I'm not sure if it was necessary to make this distinction, but better safe than sorry. Delete all per
WP:RDAB and concensus across multiple recent discussions. The history for most of these is largely trivial, and none are linked from mainspace.
PC78 (
talk) 13:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all- I agree with the nominator.
ReykYO! 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All I don't know that these actually meet RDAB, but they are simply not useful. The ones I've checked have zero page views before the nomination and the histories are just minor things such as converting a restatement of the title (the proper title) into a redirect.
Meters (
talk) 21:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment is there any reason why history merging any content with the correctly formed pages would be a problem? For example, Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode) (merge from
Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode) is the one redirect I checked and it seems to be possible without any major issues. I'd prefer history merging and then deleting over just straight deleting. -
PaulT+/C 21:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That might work for some of the above, and I've already taken care of the one you highlighted. Is it really worth the bother to preserve a revision
like this or
this though? Most of it looks like junk to be honest.
PC78 (
talk) 22:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
This nomination is odd. Have you actually looked at the history for each of these entiries or are you simply looking to mass-delete them? A bunch more of these have valid history and if you haven't reviewed each page then you shouldn't have put it up for debate. -
PaulT+/C 14:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, I most certainly have looked at each of these pages, and like I said most of it is junk. I don't know what you find "odd". If you truly think any of these histories are worth preserving then it would be constructive if you could point them out and we can take it from there.
PC78 (
talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Some examples:
Undressed(TV series merged to Undressed (TV series);
Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi moved to Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi). I'm sure there are more, but my point is that you are nominating lots of pages (
hundreds in some previous cases) without evaluating each on their own merits. It is human nature to want to group them and find patterns, but mass deletion when there is relevant history (and when these links date to 2006 or earlier in some cases) does not seem appropriate or fair. Furthermore,
WP:G6 deletions for some of these pages seem to violate the exception present in
WP:R3Page moves are excluded because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them. Such redirects must be discussed at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion before deletion. However, redirects that were obviously made in error can be deleted as G6, technical deletions. The "obvious" error was made over a decade ago, not recently as is required by
WP:A10. I understand that it looks like the pages were recently created because of technical reasions, but a number of decade-old links were just speedy deleted without discussion. Is that supposed to be able to happen? -
PaulT+/C 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid you've got it backwards, friend: I evaluated each redirect on it's own merits first, then grouped those I considered like-for-like in a single nomination, and here we are. I've already asserted several times that the history of these pages is junk (IMO) and is not required to be kept for attribution as the content was never merged anywhere; none of them meet the conditions set out at
WP:RFD#KEEP. I've gone and moved
Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi, since the properly formatted redirect did not already exist that was fairly cheap. Can the history of
Undressed(TV series be moved somewhere else? Sure, but why? What's so important about those two revisions that you think it's important or necessary to keep them? For the record,
WP:G6 explicitly covers "redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title", and is not subject to any time limit; see {{Db-error}}. Certainly I've never had any such G6 requests turned down or rejected.
PC78 (
talk) 01:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)reply
From another guideline,
WP:R#KEEP#4: However, avoid deleting such redirects if: ... 4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links 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. G6ing pages that date to 2006 simply because they were moved recently and at first glance look like a recent error seems like a misapplication of the rule and a violation/contradiction in the guidelines to me. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you necessarily did anything wrong, just that there is a discrepancy between these guidelines – I know it is quite shocking because all of our guidelines are *always* perfectly consistent ;).) For the record,
Overture (Def Leppard song,
Ruth Lyons (TV personality,
The Gnome-Mobile (film,
The Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who,
Waverly Plantation (West Point, Mississippi, and
Won't Get Fueled Again (CSI: Miami episode were all
speedy-deleted (I'm fairly certain mostly, if not all, with
WP:G6) while under discussion here. -
PaulT+/C 21:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Your concern was preserving the histories of those pages, which is what I did for those, so... what's the problem, exactly? I'm sorry but it's just not clear what you want. The reasons for deletion are covered above and there is ample concensus across multiple discussions. If you find
WP:G6 a problem then by all means raise your concerns there.
PC78 (
talk) 22:31, 18 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.
Caillou Gets Grounded
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) 00:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)reply
See
Talk:Caillou/Archive_2, as this subject seems to have been discussed on and off for a while, and it concluded that it is not notable enough and doesn't have reliable sources to be (or rather, cringy enough to not be) included in
Caillou article. So redirecting to a section that doesn't discuss anything about the redirect's subject is unnecessary.
NotCory (
talk) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. With no sources on the subject, there is nothing to say about it in the article. With nothing in the article about it, there is no reason to link to it. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:56, 10 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:No Escape
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.
Delete Recreated after speedy; my understanding of
WP:NCTR was that if an article subject's actual name would put it in one of Wikipedia's namespaces (Book:, Module:, Portal:), we do not create a redirect in that non-article namespace, and a hatnote in the article suffices.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 12:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The actual title of the film is definitely a useful redirect to have. If you scroll down in
WP:NCTR to
WP:NCCOLON, it explains that a redirect should be created when an article title interferes with a namespace: For example,
Help: A Day in the Life is located at
Help!: A Day in the Life. A redirect is created at the original title (in this case at
Help:A Day in the Life, which is what the above title resolves to). --
Tavix(
talk) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Also note that I have restored the history of the redirect. Courtesy ping to the deleting admin
Athaenara. --
Tavix(
talk) 13:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. While nothing at
No Escape is really suited to the creation of a Portal, having this redirect prevents someone from creating one, especially if the redirect can be protected.--Aurictalk 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. The correct title of an article subject is always going to be a useful search term and so where technically possible (as it is here) it should always link or redirect to the title our article is located at.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix and Thryduulf. This is very likely to be useful for readers unaware of Wikipedia's technical restrictions, and if we are to delete this, we may also delete the redirects
Wikipedia: The Missing Manual,
Book: A Novel,
Project: Revolution and dozens more.
Geolodus (
talk) 09:54, 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.
Droz (professional wrestling
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. Duplicate nomination, see above.
PC78 (
talk) 13:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
This is a procedural nomination on behalf of
PC78 who added the RfD tag to the redirect about 5 hours ago but did not add an entry here. I guess the nomination is for deletion because of the missing closing parenthesis, but hopefully they'll be along before long to confirm.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:16, 10 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.
Islamic green
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.
Retarget and link per Andy Dingley.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:12, 13 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 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.
Retarget to
Bug (disambiguation) per Paul/Psantora below Retarget to
Caterpillar?Although
Emojipedia states that Google and Microsoft depict this as a
centipede or
millipede, the Google/Microsoft renditions shown on Emojipedia clearly most closely resemble caterpillars. A few minor renditions shown on Emojipedia are clearly centipedes/millipedes. Unicode name
bug isn't much help for a redirect target (renditions are certainly not representative of
true bugs).
Plantdrew (
talk) 03:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Insect - I love them, but
Emojipedia is not the source we should use for this. The source should be
Unicode, which is where Emojipedia gets most of its strength from.
They say the
CLDR short name is
bug. Many vendors use the CLDR name for autocomplete, so we should match that if we can. Vendors can interpret the short name visually how they want, like how Apple can make
🔫 look like a squirt gun, but it's really "pistol." I agree that on many platforms it looks like a caterpillar, but on Gmail and others, it does not. Fewer of them look like members of
Hemiptera, the True Bugs. I think they mean bug as in the generic term for
insect. There is no
Bug (common name) page, and few of the entries at
Bug pertain to insects or friends.
Insect seems like the closest to the intent of Unicode as we can get. --
Nessie (
talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Unfortunately, defining the emoji as "bug" was a bad decision because it's too ambiguous.
wikt:bug, definition n1, uses: Any
insect,
arachnid,
myriapod or
entognath.Arthropod is a bit broader than that, but it is the article that encompasses "bugs" the best without the exclusion of others (eg:
insect would exclude
centipedes), as far as I can tell. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Tavix. Not the best choice by Unicode, but arthropod is the best we have.
Bug (disambiguation) leads to
Hemiptera but the lead of that article gives the synonym "true bugs" and notes "Many insects commonly known as "bugs" belong to other orders; for example, the lovebug is a fly,[6] while the May bug and ladybug are beetles." It is most likely that the common meaning of "bug" is intended rather than the narrow scientific meaning, especially given the varying renditions - e.g it looks like a caterpillar to me and most caterpillars are in the order
Lepidoptera but some are in
Hymenoptera, neither of which shares a taxon with Hemiptera lower than Class.
Thryduulf (
talk) 19:43, 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) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. At first sight this looks wrong, but Tavix has argued convincingly that a redirect to
Arthropod is the least bad outcome.
Certes (
talk) 23:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment is there something wrong with retargeting to the
Bug#Biology disambiguation page mentioned by
Thryduulf? It includes (an entry I just added)
arthropod per
Tavix but also
insect,
arachnid,
myriapod, etc... It seems like the most acceptable answer but perhaps there is a guideline against a unicode character redirect to a disambiguation page that I'm not familiar with? -
PaulT+/C 16:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I would be fine with that. Thank you for your improvements to make that more obvious. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
centipede. That is, after all, what it looks like to me. It is definitely not an insect. Those have only six legs. It is also surely not a "bug", and "arthropod" is a bit too general. Centipedes are arthropods, but then, so are spiders, all insects and even crabs and lobsters. It looks like a centipede; so I think that retargeting the redirect there makes the most sense.
Kelisi (
talk) 17:18, 16 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 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 is a constructed language that doesn't appear to have any coverage, and is not mentioned at the main article. Furthermore there are instances of "Old Tongue" in other fictional works, namely
A Song of Ice and Fire. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 19:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Wheel of Time precedes the Song books, but it isn't clear that the term is synonymous with the book series as it is not mentioned in the main series article.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 14:58, 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) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep See
how it was before the redirect. A likely result of a merge and subsequent removal of the merged material. The Old Tongue in ASOF would be a different language. I'm not aware that the two series share a common universe.--Aurictalk 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm aware that it used to be an article. But now it's not. The material doesn't exist so the redirect is only going to annoy readers looking for this information. I also doubt it was ever merged, TTN was never that thorough. —
Xezbeth (
talk) 21:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate with links to both ASOIAF and Wheel of Time as well as
ancient language and
extinct language. Also retargetThe Old Tongue to the newly created disambiguation page at
Old Tongue. The term is common and generic enough that I'm willing to bet a redirect page will end up having more than those entries after a year or so. -
PaulT+/C 04:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. I have started building a disambiguation page under the redirect.
bd2412T 16:13, 17 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.