March 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2017.
🔞
- 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.
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Create the proposed redirect. The proposed redirect has been indefinitely create protected, only administrators can create it. Making this a redirect to
Content rating makes sense because it literally is content rating. The proposed redirect provides many examples of content rating which may be useful. It was previously deleted and salted due to this
[1] discussion.
Gamebuster19901
(Talk║
Contributions) 14:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Create the proposed redirect. Someone proposed the redirect to List of age restrictions. I feel this is a much better alternative, as it is an age restriction more than it is a content rating. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC) (added 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC))
- The following comment by
BDD was posted while the discussion was closed by me to "wrong forum" since the redirect doesn't currently exist. (This discussion is for creation of the redirect; emojis cannot look like red links, so it is impossible to tell that the page doesn't exist by looking at its link.) I reopened the discussion in this edit (which also included my response to
BDD.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Steel1943, I'm not sure about this. Given the past RfDs, I wouldn't want to see some admin just recreate this at AfC without realizing what's going on. You could argue that this doesn't exist right now, and thus isn't a redirect for discussion, but this seems like a more appropriate place to build consensus. AfC isn't really built for that. --
BDD (
talk) 17:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ BDD: I could present the exact opposite counter-argument and say that RfD is only for pages/redirects that currently exist. I mean, the fact that an administrator has to view the deletion log at the top of the page before creating it could provide some hint of why the page was deleted. But unfortunately, to my knowledge, an administrator cannot see the protection log unless they manually navigate to it. Anyways, I'll reopen this for now pending further discussion. (Hmm ... I wonder if the "Draft:" namespace could get utilized in some way for proposed redirects ... just an idea.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was assuming since the argument was not "the close was made in error" that DRV would not be appropriate, but I suppose this fits WP:DRVPURPOSE #3. I suppose I was more familiar with MRV, which has no equivalent of this. -- BDD ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Steel1943, I'm not sure about this. Given the past RfDs, I wouldn't want to see some admin just recreate this at AfC without realizing what's going on. You could argue that this doesn't exist right now, and thus isn't a redirect for discussion, but this seems like a more appropriate place to build consensus. AfC isn't really built for that. --
BDD (
talk) 17:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- On the substance of the proposal, the emoji is "U+1F51E NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" and it has a wider use than content ratings - the last time I saw it in the real world was at the entrance to the gambling machine section in an amusement arcade. I firmly believe that (almost) all single unicode characters should be bluelinks so the question is where to target it. Wed don't have a general age restriction article but we do have a List of age restrictions (which is more like a set index than a list article) which I think will be the best target. I've added a link to content rating as a see-also to that list. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted (1st preference), create a disambiguation page (2nd preference) per the fact that ... referring to the previous RfD discussions, this will now be the 3RD different target this redirect will target between the nominator's suggestion and the 2 different targets it had in its previous 2 existences (not counting the instance that was deleted per
WP:G4.) Either way, I'd think that it not being recreated would be more helpful so that readers can attempt to determine themselves what they are looking for instead of being forced to determine their intended target based on a narrow and defined set of choices on a disambiguation page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that a search returns zero results (not even this or any of the previous discussions), which doesn't allow anyone to determine what they are looking for. I wouldn't object to a disambig, but I don't think that it would be any more helpful than List of age restrictions given that the defined meaning of the emoji is an age restriction, especially as the nominators suggestion, and at least one of the previous targets appear on that page. I'm not sure what would be listed on a dab page for this emoji that isn't on that page. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I would not know how to get to this title from my browser's address bar and do not think that many other people would know how. So it is simply not needed. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) 12:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ RHaworth: I don't think that's a valid reason to prevent creation, one could say the same about characters like Ɑ, but we still keep them. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Copy and paste is a thing. And it is also possible to enter any unicode character using the keyboard if you know the codepoint and the method (this varies by operating system) or other input method. Just because you do not know how to enter it does not mean that the same is true of everybody, and so it is not a valid reason for deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Comments before this were created prior to the additon of the second proposal
Gamebuster19901
(Talk║
Contributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Second Option: I think the second option, which was proposed by @ Thryduulf:, is much better than my original proposal, as this is an age restriction more than it is a content restriction. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted It is an emoji but it is not tied to any specific rating system.
Video game content rating system and
Motion_picture_content_rating_system has a bunch of articles with specific icons, graphics or logos. Otherwise it could mean anything like "No on Proposition 18" for a political slogan. Note there is no
No one under 18 or
No one under eighteen search topic. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary unless you can dig it out of the
Emoji page.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ AngusWOOF: you appear to have missed that the proposal has changed - it is now proposing to target the "No one under eighteen symbol" to List of age restrictions which links to all the encyclopaedic things it can relate to, including content ratings (which you are correct this is not correctly used for). Any use for political slogans can be added as see alsos if there is encyclopaedic use (I can't find any in a quick search). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well here it is in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs where it is pointing to Age of majority#Age 18. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted I declined an AfC request for this, and didn't have an opinion then, but I actually quote agree with RHaworth: I know we have emoji redirects, but I think they are ridiculous. Add on top of that that this one can mean no one under 18, or just no 18, who knows... I would have no clue what it meant if I saw it in real life unless I had seen it here. Even if the proposal has changed to list of age restrictions, I doubt it would be a common or useful search term, and don't see any need for this.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- IDON'TLIKEIT is not, and has never been, a valid reason to delete something. If we have this redirect then you could search it and be taken to the encyclopaedic topic about it's meaning. So you would be educated - exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. As for "who knows" about the meaning, well every emoji that makes it into unicode has a defined meaning, in this case "NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" not "no 18" (which is not the sort of thing that anyone will use this to mean, because it doesn't mean that).
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason that emojis should be included in encyclopedias as redirects. Some people think they should be, and we do have others, but I am arguing against that view. Also, I don't care if there are official meanings for emojis: the vast majority of the public does not know them unless they are something painfully obvious like the flags or Santa. This emoji, like the vast majority of other emojis can be used to mean virtually anything and is not clearly defined to the public. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary and creating redirects for the symbols based either on their official meaning or their unofficial perceived meaning does nothing but cause confusion in most case.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- But the meaning of 🔞 is quite obvious, it means something is age restricted for people under 18 years old. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason that emojis should be included in encyclopedias as redirects. Some people think they should be, and we do have others, but I am arguing against that view. Also, I don't care if there are official meanings for emojis: the vast majority of the public does not know them unless they are something painfully obvious like the flags or Santa. This emoji, like the vast majority of other emojis can be used to mean virtually anything and is not clearly defined to the public. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary and creating redirects for the symbols based either on their official meaning or their unofficial perceived meaning does nothing but cause confusion in most case.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- IDON'TLIKEIT is not, and has never been, a valid reason to delete something. If we have this redirect then you could search it and be taken to the encyclopaedic topic about it's meaning. So you would be educated - exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. As for "who knows" about the meaning, well every emoji that makes it into unicode has a defined meaning, in this case "NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" not "no 18" (which is not the sort of thing that anyone will use this to mean, because it doesn't mean that).
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Recreate to List of age restrictions per Thryduulf. Good find! -- Tavix ( talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Recreate and target to List of age restrictions, seems reasonable. I object to disambiguation: this is not a title match for anything, being an icon, and so there is no technical need to disambiguate. The list does a pretty good job of it anyway. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - If I wanted information on an age restriction I would search "age restriction" and I assume 98% of the world would do this too, Well unless you were born in the 00s. –
Davey2010
Talk 17:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- People may be searching this symbol to find out what it means, or they may be using it search for information about age restrictions - even if your theory that only people born after 1999 will use this (any evidence to support this?) is correct, we don't do age discrimination on Wikipedia so that is not a reason to delete this. Just because you wouldn't use this does not mean that nobody will - see WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- But that's my point - If someone wanted to know what the symbol meant they would just search age restriction either here or on the web?, Most people would (or atleast should) know what the symbol means ?, I agree with that but again other than children who would honestly use it ? ... No one?. – Davey2010 Talk 14:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't know what the symbol means, how would you know to search "age restriction"? Even if you do know what the symbol means (not everyone can see what it is, they might just see a box or question mark), why do you assume that people will know what we call our article? Why do you think only children will use it (the person I know who uses emojis most often is in the early 50s)? Even if it is only children who use it, why does that mean it should be deleted? Keeping something if it is used by adults but deleting it if only children use is age discrimination and something I firmly oppose. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point, But then if someone didn't know what a symbol meant they'd search on Google or whereever ?, I appreciate we're an encyclopedia & everything but I just can't see anyone searching for a symbol here?, The first place anyone would go for info is their search engine surely?, We all do things differently I get that but I honestly can't see anyone searching for a symbol on a Wikipedia website, – Davey2010 Talk 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whether you think people should search for symbols on Wikipedia or not, they clearly do, so it clearly has benefit to take them to the relevant article rather than a search page with no results (our search engine doesn't seem to work with emoji at present). The redirect also helps those who search via google (and probably other search engines too) as they will then see our article in the search results. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect all for we know no one is searching for that symbol, Either way I believe it's pointless and I still stand behind my !vote, You disagree & that's cool. – Davey2010 Talk 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- You may think it is pointless, but that is not a reason to delete a redirect - particularly when multiple points have been explicitly noted. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's every reason to delete a redirect, Many redirects have been deleted in the past due to them being pointless and many more will be deleted in the future, Might I suggest you stop wp:badgering everyone who opposes ?, You may want to read WP:THELASTWORD. – Davey2010 Talk 18:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted This has a more specific meaning than age restrictions. It beggars belief that someone would search for it looking for List of age restrictions. -- BDD ( talk) 22:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ BDD: The more specific meaning is a sub-set of "age restriction" and as noted above we do not have a single article about the concept of age restrictions, but rather a set of articles about different age restrictions organised by topic not by age. I don't think it likely that someone will be looking for a list of age restrictions when they search using this title, but what they will find is a list of the encyclopaedic topics we have which cover what they most likely will be looking for. This is no different to the many other cases where searches for titles that don't correspond to the way our articles are organised are redirected to the relevant list, set index or disambiguation. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. As a preliminary matter, I don't think we should be in the business of creating redirects from emojis. We are not emoji-pedia (see also
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed"). I disagree with
WP:EMOJI (note that it is neither a policy nor a guideline), but even if we did follow WP:EMOJI here, then I think that would also recommend deletion because there are multiple plausible meanings for this symbol ("The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear, or its meaning is difficult to determine, or there is no consensus on a target."). --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- The meaning of this emoji is clear, and we have a perfectly good list that deals with all the encylopaedic topics related to it (if it were called a set index rather than a list then there would be no argument about this despite the relevant content being identical). There is also no dispute about the target - the consensus of those who support having a blue link here is clearly that list of age restrictions is the correct target. The only disagreement is between those who think a term readers are likely to search for should lead to encyclopaedic content relevant to what they are searching for and those who prefer to make that content significantly harder for readers to find (at least some because they simply don't like emojis). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Recreate and target it to List of age restrictions per above. I would note that not being able to easily type this or preferring to search "age restrictions" fail as deletion reasons if people are copy pasting this from a chat application/page that uses emojis and when people don't know what this emoji means.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Martin Pagel
- 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.
- Martin Pagel → Cheetham Hill ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
No mention of this person at the current target. He was a city councilman in Manchester, so is mentioned in a few election articles. But the only article on him (see history) was one sentence long; he was deemed not notable and turned into a redirect. I don't know what to do with this redirect: Retarget to an election article? (If so, which one?) Delete? Restore the stub? — Gorthian ( talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't even see his name in Manchester City Council. What articles still have him as a featured subject? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Other than that this individual served in office and commented on various issues (such as this bit of political intrigue in 2010), there seems to be nothing truly 'notable' about him. I also agree that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Mankri
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Mankri
Khalol the largest clan
- 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.
- Khalol the largest clan → Baloch people ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
Inane title, implausible as a search term (only 4 views last year). It was originally created as an article, but there's nothing to preserve there as its text was an exact duplicate of Khalol. – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I also find the "The largest clan" term as a bit peacocky and confusing at the same time -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Dixon Hill
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was disambiguate. As the redirect has history, I'll be moving the page before creating a fresh disambiguation page at the title. -- BDD ( talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dixon Hill → Jean-Luc Picard ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
Redirect target does not mention redirect topic -- EEMIV ( talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Mention of target was formerly present in the Picard article, but removed in this edit. Mention of target was formerly present in the List of Star Trek characters, but removed in this edit. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 07:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There's a paragraph where it says Picard is fond of detective stories. If that were expanded to include Dixon Hill as a favorite character to role-play on the holodeck (along with episode sourcing or book analysis), then that would suffice to attract the redirect. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. I'd probably use The Big Goodbye for the Star Trek usage, as it's the episode in which "Dixon Hill" is first used prominently. Dixon Hill is also mentioned at Thomas Dixon (architect) as a neighborhood of Baltimore. It's also known as "Dixon's Hill", where it's mentioned as such at Mount Washington, Baltimore. Finally, Dixon Hill is a settlement (with a lighthouse!) on San Salvador Island. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per Tavix. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Nerukku Ner (2015 film)
- 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.
- Nerukku Ner (2015 film) → Vil Ambu ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
That is not the film's name, and it was not released in 2015. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of important opera terminology
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#List of important opera terminology
Ottocento
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#Ottocento
User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre
- 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.
- User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre → Thurmaston Shopping Centre ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
This redirect redirects to Thurmaston Shopping Centre which in turn redirects to Thurmaston, Editor hasn't been on since 2013 and so I see no need to keep this around, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 02:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep a redirect from a user's subpage is entirely harmless and there is no reason to delete if the user doesn't want it. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- It may be harmless but either way it's still pointless having around, The user appears to have retired and I'd imagine no one would be searching for "ser:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre" on any search engine so as I said it seems pointless to keep it just for the sake of it ?, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Convert to a soft redirect to
Thurmaston Shopping Centre to retain this redirect in the spirit of
WP:RDRAFT.
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The nominated redirect currently targets
Thurmaston. When the nomination was opened, the redirect targeted
Thurmaston Shopping Centre.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- ...Which is apparently no longer the case and it currently targets Thurmaston Shopping Centre. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The nominated redirect currently targets
Thurmaston. When the nomination was opened, the redirect targeted
Thurmaston Shopping Centre.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Reasonable {{ r from move}} that should be retained bar the user whose userspace in which it resides seeking deletion. Countless redirects of this nature exist, and there is no more reason to delete this one than any other. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 09:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ Davey2010: Is it okay if this discussion could be reopened? I'm asking since as I stated above, I don't agree with the status quo, and I see that this nominated redirect has since bypassed the double redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete since the shopping centre has since been redirected. I don't see any tangible benefit to Wikipedia by keeping the redirect. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see the point of us sitting here debating at length something that I can't imagine making a fig of a difference either way. If anything, Steel1943's proposal for soft-redirecting seems the most sensible, and the next best one is keeping per
WP:RDRAFT. –
Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I come to think of it, I realise I don't actually realise why a soft redirect should be better than a hard one.
Steel1943 probably does? –
Uanfala (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @
Uanfala: My reasoning is that the content and edit history that were previously at
User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre are hiding in the edit history at
Thurmaston Shopping Centre. In my opinion, redirects in the "User:" namespace usually shouldn't be deleted unless they are either vandalism or blatantly incorrect, which this redirect is neither. And also, if any editor, including
Fatty2k10, ever wanted to locate the content page that was formerly at the title of the nominated redirect, they
could do so and arrive at the proper pagewill see that it refers to Thurmaston Shopping Centre rather than arriving where Thurmaston Shopping Centre currently redirects, which is Thurmaston. (From what I see, User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre redirecting to Thurmaston is obviously incorrect since the content formerly at User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre is not in the edit history of Thurmaston.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)- I see! Definitely makes sense now. –
Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, forgot to mention what may be obvious: No hard redirect since a bot would then automatically "correct" the double redirect and retarget it to Thurmaston, thinking that the redirect needed correcting... Steel1943 ( talk) 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @
Uanfala: My reasoning is that the content and edit history that were previously at
User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre are hiding in the edit history at
Thurmaston Shopping Centre. In my opinion, redirects in the "User:" namespace usually shouldn't be deleted unless they are either vandalism or blatantly incorrect, which this redirect is neither. And also, if any editor, including
Fatty2k10, ever wanted to locate the content page that was formerly at the title of the nominated redirect, they
- Now that I come to think of it, I realise I don't actually realise why a soft redirect should be better than a hard one.
Steel1943 probably does? –
Uanfala (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Columbian Period
- 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.
Implausible not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Columbian Period to the Orosirian article. I think the redirect of Columbian Period to Orosirian should be kept until text can be added to the Columbian Period page to make it an article. GeoWriter ( talk) 14:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as an {{ R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. I'll add a link at Columbian (disambiguation). Thryduulf ( talk) 16:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Little group
- 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.
- Little group → Group action ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
An anonymous ISP tried deleting by blanking page, which I have reverted, but they did make a good point in edit summary that the "target does not explain, nor even mention the term "little group"". Just bringing to discussion as a formality as it seemed a good point and a rather widely ambiguous search term. Mabalu ( talk) 10:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Group_action#Fixed_points_and_stabilizer_subgroups. Little group is physics jargon for stabilizer subgroup. I have added little group to that section with a ref verifying usage. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious refine per the above two !votes. Unless, of course, someone shows that the term little group has an alternative, non-mathematical meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
March 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2017.
🔞
- 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.
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Create the proposed redirect. The proposed redirect has been indefinitely create protected, only administrators can create it. Making this a redirect to
Content rating makes sense because it literally is content rating. The proposed redirect provides many examples of content rating which may be useful. It was previously deleted and salted due to this
[1] discussion.
Gamebuster19901
(Talk║
Contributions) 14:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Create the proposed redirect. Someone proposed the redirect to List of age restrictions. I feel this is a much better alternative, as it is an age restriction more than it is a content rating. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC) (added 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC))
- The following comment by
BDD was posted while the discussion was closed by me to "wrong forum" since the redirect doesn't currently exist. (This discussion is for creation of the redirect; emojis cannot look like red links, so it is impossible to tell that the page doesn't exist by looking at its link.) I reopened the discussion in this edit (which also included my response to
BDD.)
Steel1943 (
talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Steel1943, I'm not sure about this. Given the past RfDs, I wouldn't want to see some admin just recreate this at AfC without realizing what's going on. You could argue that this doesn't exist right now, and thus isn't a redirect for discussion, but this seems like a more appropriate place to build consensus. AfC isn't really built for that. --
BDD (
talk) 17:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ BDD: I could present the exact opposite counter-argument and say that RfD is only for pages/redirects that currently exist. I mean, the fact that an administrator has to view the deletion log at the top of the page before creating it could provide some hint of why the page was deleted. But unfortunately, to my knowledge, an administrator cannot see the protection log unless they manually navigate to it. Anyways, I'll reopen this for now pending further discussion. (Hmm ... I wonder if the "Draft:" namespace could get utilized in some way for proposed redirects ... just an idea.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was assuming since the argument was not "the close was made in error" that DRV would not be appropriate, but I suppose this fits WP:DRVPURPOSE #3. I suppose I was more familiar with MRV, which has no equivalent of this. -- BDD ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
Steel1943, I'm not sure about this. Given the past RfDs, I wouldn't want to see some admin just recreate this at AfC without realizing what's going on. You could argue that this doesn't exist right now, and thus isn't a redirect for discussion, but this seems like a more appropriate place to build consensus. AfC isn't really built for that. --
BDD (
talk) 17:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- On the substance of the proposal, the emoji is "U+1F51E NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" and it has a wider use than content ratings - the last time I saw it in the real world was at the entrance to the gambling machine section in an amusement arcade. I firmly believe that (almost) all single unicode characters should be bluelinks so the question is where to target it. Wed don't have a general age restriction article but we do have a List of age restrictions (which is more like a set index than a list article) which I think will be the best target. I've added a link to content rating as a see-also to that list. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted (1st preference), create a disambiguation page (2nd preference) per the fact that ... referring to the previous RfD discussions, this will now be the 3RD different target this redirect will target between the nominator's suggestion and the 2 different targets it had in its previous 2 existences (not counting the instance that was deleted per
WP:G4.) Either way, I'd think that it not being recreated would be more helpful so that readers can attempt to determine themselves what they are looking for instead of being forced to determine their intended target based on a narrow and defined set of choices on a disambiguation page.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that a search returns zero results (not even this or any of the previous discussions), which doesn't allow anyone to determine what they are looking for. I wouldn't object to a disambig, but I don't think that it would be any more helpful than List of age restrictions given that the defined meaning of the emoji is an age restriction, especially as the nominators suggestion, and at least one of the previous targets appear on that page. I'm not sure what would be listed on a dab page for this emoji that isn't on that page. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I would not know how to get to this title from my browser's address bar and do not think that many other people would know how. So it is simply not needed. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) 12:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ RHaworth: I don't think that's a valid reason to prevent creation, one could say the same about characters like Ɑ, but we still keep them. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Copy and paste is a thing. And it is also possible to enter any unicode character using the keyboard if you know the codepoint and the method (this varies by operating system) or other input method. Just because you do not know how to enter it does not mean that the same is true of everybody, and so it is not a valid reason for deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Comments before this were created prior to the additon of the second proposal
Gamebuster19901
(Talk║
Contributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Second Option: I think the second option, which was proposed by @ Thryduulf:, is much better than my original proposal, as this is an age restriction more than it is a content restriction. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted It is an emoji but it is not tied to any specific rating system.
Video game content rating system and
Motion_picture_content_rating_system has a bunch of articles with specific icons, graphics or logos. Otherwise it could mean anything like "No on Proposition 18" for a political slogan. Note there is no
No one under 18 or
No one under eighteen search topic. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary unless you can dig it out of the
Emoji page.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ AngusWOOF: you appear to have missed that the proposal has changed - it is now proposing to target the "No one under eighteen symbol" to List of age restrictions which links to all the encyclopaedic things it can relate to, including content ratings (which you are correct this is not correctly used for). Any use for political slogans can be added as see alsos if there is encyclopaedic use (I can't find any in a quick search). Thryduulf ( talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well here it is in Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs where it is pointing to Age of majority#Age 18. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted I declined an AfC request for this, and didn't have an opinion then, but I actually quote agree with RHaworth: I know we have emoji redirects, but I think they are ridiculous. Add on top of that that this one can mean no one under 18, or just no 18, who knows... I would have no clue what it meant if I saw it in real life unless I had seen it here. Even if the proposal has changed to list of age restrictions, I doubt it would be a common or useful search term, and don't see any need for this.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- IDON'TLIKEIT is not, and has never been, a valid reason to delete something. If we have this redirect then you could search it and be taken to the encyclopaedic topic about it's meaning. So you would be educated - exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. As for "who knows" about the meaning, well every emoji that makes it into unicode has a defined meaning, in this case "NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" not "no 18" (which is not the sort of thing that anyone will use this to mean, because it doesn't mean that).
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason that emojis should be included in encyclopedias as redirects. Some people think they should be, and we do have others, but I am arguing against that view. Also, I don't care if there are official meanings for emojis: the vast majority of the public does not know them unless they are something painfully obvious like the flags or Santa. This emoji, like the vast majority of other emojis can be used to mean virtually anything and is not clearly defined to the public. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary and creating redirects for the symbols based either on their official meaning or their unofficial perceived meaning does nothing but cause confusion in most case.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- But the meaning of 🔞 is quite obvious, it means something is age restricted for people under 18 years old. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║ Contributions) 17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- And
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason that emojis should be included in encyclopedias as redirects. Some people think they should be, and we do have others, but I am arguing against that view. Also, I don't care if there are official meanings for emojis: the vast majority of the public does not know them unless they are something painfully obvious like the flags or Santa. This emoji, like the vast majority of other emojis can be used to mean virtually anything and is not clearly defined to the public. Wikipedia is not an emoji dictionary and creating redirects for the symbols based either on their official meaning or their unofficial perceived meaning does nothing but cause confusion in most case.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- IDON'TLIKEIT is not, and has never been, a valid reason to delete something. If we have this redirect then you could search it and be taken to the encyclopaedic topic about it's meaning. So you would be educated - exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. As for "who knows" about the meaning, well every emoji that makes it into unicode has a defined meaning, in this case "NO ONE UNDER EIGHTEEN SYMBOL" not "no 18" (which is not the sort of thing that anyone will use this to mean, because it doesn't mean that).
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Recreate to List of age restrictions per Thryduulf. Good find! -- Tavix ( talk) 20:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Recreate and target to List of age restrictions, seems reasonable. I object to disambiguation: this is not a title match for anything, being an icon, and so there is no technical need to disambiguate. The list does a pretty good job of it anyway. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - If I wanted information on an age restriction I would search "age restriction" and I assume 98% of the world would do this too, Well unless you were born in the 00s. –
Davey2010
Talk 17:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- People may be searching this symbol to find out what it means, or they may be using it search for information about age restrictions - even if your theory that only people born after 1999 will use this (any evidence to support this?) is correct, we don't do age discrimination on Wikipedia so that is not a reason to delete this. Just because you wouldn't use this does not mean that nobody will - see WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- But that's my point - If someone wanted to know what the symbol meant they would just search age restriction either here or on the web?, Most people would (or atleast should) know what the symbol means ?, I agree with that but again other than children who would honestly use it ? ... No one?. – Davey2010 Talk 14:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't know what the symbol means, how would you know to search "age restriction"? Even if you do know what the symbol means (not everyone can see what it is, they might just see a box or question mark), why do you assume that people will know what we call our article? Why do you think only children will use it (the person I know who uses emojis most often is in the early 50s)? Even if it is only children who use it, why does that mean it should be deleted? Keeping something if it is used by adults but deleting it if only children use is age discrimination and something I firmly oppose. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point, But then if someone didn't know what a symbol meant they'd search on Google or whereever ?, I appreciate we're an encyclopedia & everything but I just can't see anyone searching for a symbol here?, The first place anyone would go for info is their search engine surely?, We all do things differently I get that but I honestly can't see anyone searching for a symbol on a Wikipedia website, – Davey2010 Talk 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Whether you think people should search for symbols on Wikipedia or not, they clearly do, so it clearly has benefit to take them to the relevant article rather than a search page with no results (our search engine doesn't seem to work with emoji at present). The redirect also helps those who search via google (and probably other search engines too) as they will then see our article in the search results. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect all for we know no one is searching for that symbol, Either way I believe it's pointless and I still stand behind my !vote, You disagree & that's cool. – Davey2010 Talk 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- You may think it is pointless, but that is not a reason to delete a redirect - particularly when multiple points have been explicitly noted. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's every reason to delete a redirect, Many redirects have been deleted in the past due to them being pointless and many more will be deleted in the future, Might I suggest you stop wp:badgering everyone who opposes ?, You may want to read WP:THELASTWORD. – Davey2010 Talk 18:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep deleted This has a more specific meaning than age restrictions. It beggars belief that someone would search for it looking for List of age restrictions. -- BDD ( talk) 22:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ BDD: The more specific meaning is a sub-set of "age restriction" and as noted above we do not have a single article about the concept of age restrictions, but rather a set of articles about different age restrictions organised by topic not by age. I don't think it likely that someone will be looking for a list of age restrictions when they search using this title, but what they will find is a list of the encyclopaedic topics we have which cover what they most likely will be looking for. This is no different to the many other cases where searches for titles that don't correspond to the way our articles are organised are redirected to the relevant list, set index or disambiguation. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. As a preliminary matter, I don't think we should be in the business of creating redirects from emojis. We are not emoji-pedia (see also
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed"). I disagree with
WP:EMOJI (note that it is neither a policy nor a guideline), but even if we did follow WP:EMOJI here, then I think that would also recommend deletion because there are multiple plausible meanings for this symbol ("The outcome is usually deletion if the glyph is unclear, or its meaning is difficult to determine, or there is no consensus on a target."). --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- The meaning of this emoji is clear, and we have a perfectly good list that deals with all the encylopaedic topics related to it (if it were called a set index rather than a list then there would be no argument about this despite the relevant content being identical). There is also no dispute about the target - the consensus of those who support having a blue link here is clearly that list of age restrictions is the correct target. The only disagreement is between those who think a term readers are likely to search for should lead to encyclopaedic content relevant to what they are searching for and those who prefer to make that content significantly harder for readers to find (at least some because they simply don't like emojis). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Recreate and target it to List of age restrictions per above. I would note that not being able to easily type this or preferring to search "age restrictions" fail as deletion reasons if people are copy pasting this from a chat application/page that uses emojis and when people don't know what this emoji means.---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Martin Pagel
- 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.
- Martin Pagel → Cheetham Hill ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
No mention of this person at the current target. He was a city councilman in Manchester, so is mentioned in a few election articles. But the only article on him (see history) was one sentence long; he was deemed not notable and turned into a redirect. I don't know what to do with this redirect: Retarget to an election article? (If so, which one?) Delete? Restore the stub? — Gorthian ( talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't even see his name in Manchester City Council. What articles still have him as a featured subject? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Other than that this individual served in office and commented on various issues (such as this bit of political intrigue in 2010), there seems to be nothing truly 'notable' about him. I also agree that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Mankri
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Mankri
Khalol the largest clan
- 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.
- Khalol the largest clan → Baloch people ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
Inane title, implausible as a search term (only 4 views last year). It was originally created as an article, but there's nothing to preserve there as its text was an exact duplicate of Khalol. – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I also find the "The largest clan" term as a bit peacocky and confusing at the same time -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Dixon Hill
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was disambiguate. As the redirect has history, I'll be moving the page before creating a fresh disambiguation page at the title. -- BDD ( talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dixon Hill → Jean-Luc Picard ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
Redirect target does not mention redirect topic -- EEMIV ( talk) 02:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Mention of target was formerly present in the Picard article, but removed in this edit. Mention of target was formerly present in the List of Star Trek characters, but removed in this edit. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 07:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There's a paragraph where it says Picard is fond of detective stories. If that were expanded to include Dixon Hill as a favorite character to role-play on the holodeck (along with episode sourcing or book analysis), then that would suffice to attract the redirect. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. I'd probably use The Big Goodbye for the Star Trek usage, as it's the episode in which "Dixon Hill" is first used prominently. Dixon Hill is also mentioned at Thomas Dixon (architect) as a neighborhood of Baltimore. It's also known as "Dixon's Hill", where it's mentioned as such at Mount Washington, Baltimore. Finally, Dixon Hill is a settlement (with a lighthouse!) on San Salvador Island. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per Tavix. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Nerukku Ner (2015 film)
- 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.
- Nerukku Ner (2015 film) → Vil Ambu ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
That is not the film's name, and it was not released in 2015. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of important opera terminology
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#List of important opera terminology
Ottocento
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#Ottocento
User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre
- 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.
- User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre → Thurmaston Shopping Centre ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
This redirect redirects to Thurmaston Shopping Centre which in turn redirects to Thurmaston, Editor hasn't been on since 2013 and so I see no need to keep this around, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 02:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep a redirect from a user's subpage is entirely harmless and there is no reason to delete if the user doesn't want it. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- It may be harmless but either way it's still pointless having around, The user appears to have retired and I'd imagine no one would be searching for "ser:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre" on any search engine so as I said it seems pointless to keep it just for the sake of it ?, Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Convert to a soft redirect to
Thurmaston Shopping Centre to retain this redirect in the spirit of
WP:RDRAFT.
Steel1943 (
talk) 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The nominated redirect currently targets
Thurmaston. When the nomination was opened, the redirect targeted
Thurmaston Shopping Centre.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- ...Which is apparently no longer the case and it currently targets Thurmaston Shopping Centre. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The nominated redirect currently targets
Thurmaston. When the nomination was opened, the redirect targeted
Thurmaston Shopping Centre.
Steel1943 (
talk) 21:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Reasonable {{ r from move}} that should be retained bar the user whose userspace in which it resides seeking deletion. Countless redirects of this nature exist, and there is no more reason to delete this one than any other. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 09:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ Davey2010: Is it okay if this discussion could be reopened? I'm asking since as I stated above, I don't agree with the status quo, and I see that this nominated redirect has since bypassed the double redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete since the shopping centre has since been redirected. I don't see any tangible benefit to Wikipedia by keeping the redirect. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see the point of us sitting here debating at length something that I can't imagine making a fig of a difference either way. If anything, Steel1943's proposal for soft-redirecting seems the most sensible, and the next best one is keeping per
WP:RDRAFT. –
Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Now that I come to think of it, I realise I don't actually realise why a soft redirect should be better than a hard one.
Steel1943 probably does? –
Uanfala (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @
Uanfala: My reasoning is that the content and edit history that were previously at
User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre are hiding in the edit history at
Thurmaston Shopping Centre. In my opinion, redirects in the "User:" namespace usually shouldn't be deleted unless they are either vandalism or blatantly incorrect, which this redirect is neither. And also, if any editor, including
Fatty2k10, ever wanted to locate the content page that was formerly at the title of the nominated redirect, they
could do so and arrive at the proper pagewill see that it refers to Thurmaston Shopping Centre rather than arriving where Thurmaston Shopping Centre currently redirects, which is Thurmaston. (From what I see, User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre redirecting to Thurmaston is obviously incorrect since the content formerly at User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre is not in the edit history of Thurmaston.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)- I see! Definitely makes sense now. –
Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, forgot to mention what may be obvious: No hard redirect since a bot would then automatically "correct" the double redirect and retarget it to Thurmaston, thinking that the redirect needed correcting... Steel1943 ( talk) 19:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @
Uanfala: My reasoning is that the content and edit history that were previously at
User:Fatty2k10/Thurmaston Shopping Centre are hiding in the edit history at
Thurmaston Shopping Centre. In my opinion, redirects in the "User:" namespace usually shouldn't be deleted unless they are either vandalism or blatantly incorrect, which this redirect is neither. And also, if any editor, including
Fatty2k10, ever wanted to locate the content page that was formerly at the title of the nominated redirect, they
- Now that I come to think of it, I realise I don't actually realise why a soft redirect should be better than a hard one.
Steel1943 probably does? –
Uanfala (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Columbian Period
- 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.
Implausible not mentioned in the target Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I have added a paragraph about the Columbian Period to the Orosirian article. I think the redirect of Columbian Period to Orosirian should be kept until text can be added to the Columbian Period page to make it an article. GeoWriter ( talk) 14:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as an {{ R with possibilities}} unless someone knows of a better target. I'll add a link at Columbian (disambiguation). Thryduulf ( talk) 16:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Little group
- 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.
- Little group → Group action ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
An anonymous ISP tried deleting by blanking page, which I have reverted, but they did make a good point in edit summary that the "target does not explain, nor even mention the term "little group"". Just bringing to discussion as a formality as it seemed a good point and a rather widely ambiguous search term. Mabalu ( talk) 10:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Group_action#Fixed_points_and_stabilizer_subgroups. Little group is physics jargon for stabilizer subgroup. I have added little group to that section with a ref verifying usage. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Obvious refine per the above two !votes. Unless, of course, someone shows that the term little group has an alternative, non-mathematical meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.