Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 18

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

September 18

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2019.

Squamish Constellation Festival

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of music festivals in Canada. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Unless it is added to the target with proper sourcing, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this suggestion as nominator. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 20 September 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.

Australia-Hungary

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Australia-Hungary

Octyldodecanol

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Octyldodecanol

Wwwww

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Wwwww

Nina Chop

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page or else in WP, apparently it's an earlier name for a song that became titled Famous with Rihanna. Richhoncho (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps if sourcing allows we can update the Famous (Kanye West song) article and redirect Nina Chop to there? Does this source work? I don't feel strongly about keeping the redirect, but would like to keep if the "Famous" article is updated appropriately. I've posted a neutral notice at Talk:Famous (Kanye West song) in case others watching the page care to weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 18 September 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.

Generation Zyklon

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an alt-right idea about Generation Z being more receptive to their ideas, it's included in the alt-right navbox but doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere. Without context, there's a troubling implication that this is a legitimate alternative name for the topic. BDD (talk) 15:06, 18 September 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.

Echo Busters

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear connection to the target article. I guess the idea is that Gen Z breaks a reverberating "echo" from the Boomers, but this isn't a common phrase to describe that. BDD (talk) 15:02, 18 September 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.

Auditor of the College Historical Society

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Auditor of the College Historical Society

Transfermarkt.us

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Transfermarkt.us

TalkSPORT.com

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINTLESS is about vandalism. Hzh (talk) 16:59, 18 September 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.

TottenhamHotspur.com

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard to redirect ___domain name to main article, e.g. Microsoft.com. It'll redirect to the main article if someone wikilinks TottenhamHotspur.com in another article. WP:POINTLESS is about vandalism, there is nothing that can be considered vandalism here. Hzh (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought pointless linked to pointless content! I consider these redirects bad, I've seen people using them to WP:CITESPAM a lot. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the url's it's less about them being "typed" into search bar and more about links in references.
"Sample article about player testimonial from official website". TottenhamHotspur.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
vs ""Sample article about playr testimonial from fansite". HotSpurHQ.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link). Following the wikilink shows the first website is official, also removes need to duplicate info with a website "a.com" and a publisher "A Inc.".Bogger (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the standard practice. Otherwise feel free to nominate these redirects for deletion - Category:Redirects from ___domain names. Hzh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. is a football club, not a media company. -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it's completely normal for an organization's article to have a redirect from its primary website's URL. If you disagree with this practice, please start a Village Pump discussion about the practice. The only reason to nominate a few individual URL redirects is if you think they don't comply with the pattern, e.g. your proposal above to delete a .us redirect for a company whose main website is .de. And in this case, it's even more of a problem, since there's no reason for one of the world's most successful football clubs to advertise on Wikipedia. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have said it's standard practice to link primary ___domain names to the appropriate articles. The most compelling argument is for the link in references as stated by Bogger.   Jts1882 | talk  15:30, 22 September 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.

FAI.ie

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 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.

Extra.ie

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 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.

PunditArena.com

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mentioned in the target page 46.132.189.145 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combined these nominations, which had identical statements. The keep vote was in the "Punditarena.com" discussion, with no comments in the "PunditArena.com" one. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the capitalised version is there for ease of parsing when the url appears but the main article name does not. Bogger (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not spam, but an {{R from ___domain name}} from the official website. -- Tavix (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it's completely normal for an organization's article to have a redirect from its primary website's URL. If you disagree with this practice, please start a Village Pump discussion about the practice. The only reason to nominate a few individual URL redirects is if you think they don't comply with the pattern, e.g. your proposal above to delete a .us redirect for a company whose main website is .de. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:35, 20 September 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.

Football london

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree because those words in that order are specifically about a website, and the target is the topic the website deals with. If Football in London had a section (one line) on media mentionaing that there was a website football.london, then the retarget would make sense. A hypothetical London Evening Herald might redirect to Media in London, Newspapers run by Newspaper Holdings or Ronald 'owner operator of London Evening Herald' McTaggart rather than London which would be too broad to even mention the source of the redirect. Bogger (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 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.

Football.london

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Football.london

Black Bridge, Plassey

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Black Bridge, Plassey

Thomond village

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to University of Limerick#Housing. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

superfluous redirect to a random part of a bigger article The Banner talk 13:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks superfluous indeed. One bit of student housing with an over-egged name does not need a redirect.SeoR (talk) 14:05, 18 September 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.

I'm Bob, He's Dickie

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

superfluous redirect The Banner talk 13:50, 18 September 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.

PSU.edu

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as a standard {{r from ___domain name}}, but it's not truly needed, since we also have psu.edu as a redirect. - Eureka Lott 16:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it's completely normal for an organization's article to have a redirect from its primary website's URL. If you disagree with this practice, please start a Village Pump discussion about the practice. The only reason to nominate a few individual URL redirects is if you think they don't comply with the pattern, e.g. your proposal above to delete a .us redirect for a company whose main website is .de. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:39, 20 September 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.

DCU.ie

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why this needs an entry, even as a redirect. We can't have every ___domain related to article subjects in the system.SeoR (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it's completely normal for an organization's article to have a redirect from its primary website's URL. If you disagree with this practice, please start a Village Pump discussion about the practice. The only reason to nominate a few individual URL redirects is if you think they don't comply with the pattern, e.g. your proposal above to delete a .us redirect for a company whose main website is .de. And why can't we have every ___domain? WP:NOTPAPER; there's no technical reason we can't. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:39, 20 September 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.

Offaly.ie

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why this needs an entry, even as a redirect. We can't have every ___domain related to article subjects in the system.SeoR (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It's the ___domain name of the Offaly County Council, where the redirect currently points to, and might help in searching. 85.76.11.155 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it's completely normal for an organization's article to have a redirect from its primary website's URL. If you disagree with this practice, please start a Village Pump discussion about the practice. The only reason to nominate a few individual URL redirects is if you think they don't comply with the pattern, e.g. your proposal above to delete a .us redirect for a company whose main website is .de. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:39, 20 September 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.

Innisfail Evening Advocate

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Innisfail Evening Advocate

Donegal Tuesday

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Donegal Tuesday

Trillian (disambiguation )

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extra space before closing parenthesis. (And the wrong target: should be Trillian). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:16, 18 September 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.

Venerable Master

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Venerable Master

Hurricane Twelve (1991)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, which is an FA class article. I would suggest deletion. Reading the article's lead, it says that The system was the twelfth and final tropical cyclone, the eighth tropical storm, and fourth hurricane in the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season, so this redirect would appear to be plainly inaccurate. Cyclone Twelve (1991) would be more accurate, although IMO still unnecessary as it appears that the storm is consistently known by a few other names. signed, Rosguill talk 02:05, 18 September 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.

Mark Bowden (United Kingdom)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. implausible redirect — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An ambiguous title that could cause confusion, per WP:RFD#DELETE #2. There are multiple Mark Bowdens from the United Kingdom. Presumably this was a mistaken redirect to United Nations. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:50, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_18&oldid=919300250"