Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2017.

Booetes

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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate bot replacement of Greek diaresis with oe thinking it was an umlaut. Lithopsian (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FOXNews

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) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for this capitalization, note that there are a whole lot of similar redirects, not all of which I am sure of. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to it being harmless, in at least 2 of their logos found using google image search for fox news logo it's not clear how many words the name of the company/channel is. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm inclined to just leave this be as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – seems harmless and it's plausible that someone would type it.
    Politrukki (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.

Interstate 80N (Pennsylvania)

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. I'll go ahead and refine to the History section to reduce the likelihood readers just mistake this for an error. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the target page that the route was ever numbered as such. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was
Interstate 80S (Pennsylvania). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Zoom in on the map, and you'll see it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wet winter climate

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) 21:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No connection to the target Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wet season which is more general and discusses wet winter, wet summer, and other wet climates. If the search were dry summer wet winter climate or vice versa, then there's a match for Mediterranean, but as it stands, it doesn't particularly point to that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having a particular pattern of certain seasons isn't the same thing as having a particular climate. Given the unhelpful ambiguity here, I'd rather that we just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While wet winters are a characteristic of the Mediterranean climate, they are also found in other climates and so are not a distinguishing characteristic. After a lot of searching, I can find no article that would assist in disambiguating this search as wet winters are mentioned in passing in various places. Precipitation#Role in Köppen climate classification comes the closest but that is again mostly in passing and the section is a very high level gloss that would be slightly misleading combination with this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The Situation Room

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 as proposed. Deryck C. 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to

WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over either the actual Situation Room or Situation Room (photograph), both of which are often known as "The Situation Room". Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

4664

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#4664

Southpeakgames

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term.

✉) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

SouthPeak Interactive Corp.

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, as the "Corp." was never officially used by them or secondary sources, though their legal name ended on "Corporation" for a few years.

✉) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old AfC page that was reformed into a redirect to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues", which itself was a redirect to "20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues". The last of those was then redirected to "SouthPeak Games", becuase of which all three link there now. The target page, however, includes no information on either of those.

✉) 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally linked to "20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues", which was since redirected as well. No information available for either of those at target page.

✉) 16:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No information available at target page.

✉) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

CAD model

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 computer-aided design. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd redirect. It points to 3D modeling#Models, but the #Models section hardly mentions CAD. I could see a redirect to Computer-aided design itself, but at that point there's not much difference between "CAD" and "CAD model" (since both would link to the same target). Primefac (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

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 an overall consensus that the current targets are incorrect. There is general agreement that the two Wikipedia: redirects should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips on editing. Consensus is much less clear for the two Help: redirects but there is a very weak preference emerging for having them point to the same target, which is what I'm going to do, but with no prejudice against a new listing for continued discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather sure that users looking up this phrase may not neveccarily be looking for information about wiki markup. They might be looking up information about possibly article layout guidelines. I'd be inclined to say that unless there is a more helpful target, these pages should probably be deleted per

WP:REDLINK Retargeted to Help:Editing since this seems like a rather helpful title for a Wikipedia how-to guide. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips_on_editing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The odds are highest that a novice user following that link will want help with wiki markup. The generic advice about article content and layout is a much less likely target. By the time the new user is ready to worry about style problems, they are likely to also have a clue about how we name those style guidelines. I'll also note that this naming closely mirrors the Editing help link that shows up next to the 'save changes' button while you're in edit-mode. Rossami (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Champion as it at least covers "tips" (although I'll note Wikipedia:Editing tips is red). I'm also fine with deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the first two to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips on editing and the last two to Help:Editing. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. WJBscribe (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point all to the same target. I have a weak preference for Wikipedia:Tips#Tips on editing, but as long as they all reach the same target page that's the important thing here as for this sort of thing it's really a toss-up whether the target will be in Help: or Wikipedia: space so whichever people guess they should get to the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There probably aren't any two namespaces with blurrier boundaries than Wikipedia and Help, but if users specify one or the other, I think it behooves us to try to give them something in that namespace first. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I think it is more important to give them the content that most closely matches what they are searching for than to match the likely arbitrarily-chosen namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point—I can appreciate that what comes after the colon is more important. But as long as we have something as vague as "tips and tricks" in both places... for that matter, I'd be fine with deletion as well. I think these are both implying something more comprehensive and help-focused than we actually have. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The Avengers (film project)

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 no consensus. I'll retarget to The Avengers#Media and entertainment as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking of just

WP:BOLDly retargeting these redirects to The Avengers#Media and entertainment to match The Avengers (film). But then, I noticed that Film project and Film Project do not exist on Wikipedia, rendering the disambiguator undefined here... Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I wonder if these were created with Marvel Cinematic Universe in mind. It's a multi-film project centered on the Avengers. Either way, I don't think either of these are likely search terms. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a film project anymore so not useful to keep around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Avengers#Media and entertainment per Steel1943's proposal. That gets the reader to a useful list of The Avengers films. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect as serving the project and its readers by sending them to where they can explore the topic directly and in detail. Now that we have multiples Avengers films, we might better determine the best target, and not delete it because the best target has not yet been determined. Redirects are cheap and do not have to meet the notability criteria of their topics. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sean Sphincter

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. I find that this is extremely borderline between no consensus and keep, but it's now a week after Politrukki's comment and the mention is still in the article, so that in combination with the lack of anyone firmly supporting deletion after its addition just pushes this over the line to keep. Should there be a consensus to remove mention from the article though this result should not stand in the way of a fresh nomination of the redirect if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created in good faith, but an obscure, one-off pejorative name not mentioned in the target article. Compare to Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, or Crooked Hillary. BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google News claims 3500 results for the quoted phrase but of course, they're lying, because Google thinks that actually having the term in your search result is archaic 20th-century thinking, like democracy. Someday you'll just get a button "Where does Google want me to go today?" and there won't even be a place to type in irrelevant text words. Still, by now there are reasonably sufficient sources to pass the GNG for an actual article about the typo incident: [1][2] [3][4] To be sure, I don't think a separate article is needed, but I take it as a given that if something can exist as an article it can exist as a redirect. I assumed that the incident would be in the Sean Spicer article, given the publicity about it, so I'm actually kind of curious why it isn't. But that too is irrelevant - I can't tell you how many times I look up a science term and get redirected to an article that doesn't mention it at all! Which is frustrating but not so frustrating as not even getting that much of a hint. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Wnt. I and many RfD participants typically cite a term's not being mentioned in the article where it redirects as a reason to delete. When you've looked up those science terms, presumably you either do or don't already know about the relationship between the term and the target article. If you already knew, was the redirect helpful? If you didn't, were you confused or frustrated? Personally, I see this as a matter of "accountability" for redirects. Not every one needs explicit mention, but the relationship should be clear to a general reader. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Per your suggestion, I've added a bit about the interchange in this edit. It's not exactly a high matter of state, but it's an interesting glimpse at the sort of small acorns from which great oaks grow. Wnt (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – while I don't find this redirect particularly useful (per BDD's reply above), I'm leaning towards keep. Before Wnt's edit I absolutely would have supported deletion, but now at least the minimum BLP standards have been fulfilled (note that I nominated
    Politrukki (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.

Cultured Code

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Cultured Code

Verdurous

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Verdurous

Battle Angel (2011 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.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This

WP:CRYSTAL redirect is particularly egregious. The film is scheduled for release in 2018, not 2011. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

The Greys (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.
The result of the discussion was delete both. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL. Another film still in development. At this stage, anything can change, even the director, so a redirect of this nature is premature at best. Again, we do know that it wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

Murder Mystery (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.
The result of the discussion was delete both. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL. This is another film in development. It definitely wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_20&oldid=1138581514"