Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 13, 2016.

Monuments destroyed by war[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 24#Monuments destroyed by war

Pastel Clothing[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) 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clothing line associated with West is Pastelle Clothing, not this. Especially since "Pastel clothing" is an actual term, this is a very dangerous WP:SURPRISE that should be dealt with swiftly. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2016 (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.

Past Tell Clothing[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) 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clothing line this redirect is probably referring to is "Pastelle Clothing", not this. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Is there any truth in the statement (in the redirect's page history) that "the name of the clothing line changed" from Pastelle to Past Tell (diff)? The page has no history worth preserving, in my opinion, and it appears no content was merged when it was redirected to Kanye West in January 2010. However, if a name change did take place, then this redirect may be more than just a typographic error. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not an expert on redirects, but there seems to be little connection from this one to the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 15 March 2016 (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.

Universecity[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) 21:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, and what does it have to do with Mr. West? This term is not mentioned in the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @Mr. Guye: From a quick search, it seems to be part of the name of a blog that was at one time operated by the subject (see here).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling "Universecity Kanye West" shows a connection to a jacket. I don't believe this warrants a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Closest plausible target is University which sounds like the redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kanye, like a lot of public figures under a spotlight where every flub gets magnified, gets noticed as saying a lot of random gibberish on a regular basis. Unless he decides to make this his version of "Bazinga!", there's no point in having this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2016 (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.

Matt Peacock (Devil's Dust)[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 (CSD G7). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect: the "character" in the tv docu-drama "Devil's Dust" is the real person Matt Peacock (journalist) for whom there are several existing redlinks and now a draft article being written. PamD 16:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as creator of the redirect. I redirected before I started the draft on the journalist. It could theoretically be retargeted to the journalist, but there's really no use for it. bd2412 T 16:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, not at all a fictional person as it is based on real events. If this was to be allowedto exist, how about Yip Man (character) based on Yip Man. Donnie Park (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2016 (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.

Sufferance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 24#Sufferance

90th-93th Academy Awards[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) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is TOOSOON. There shouldn't be redirects for these before an article is created, as it's misleading. Someone searching for this is looking for information about a specific ceremoney, and a redirect isn't helpful because there isn't any information about future Academy Awards at the target. Furthermore, a redirect confuses readers because they see a bluelink and assume that there is an article, but get WP:SURPRISED to find that there is not one. Let's WP:REDLINK it and give the real author credit for their creation later on down the road. Precedent can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 12#88th, 89th, and 90th Academy Awards. -- Tavix (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I myself am dying to know what will win best picture at the ninety-twoth academy awards. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I thought it was long-standing practice to redirect "future number" award shows to the generic award show? No? Like, for example, the 89th or the 90th, etc., to the generic Academy Awards article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but there's a long-standing practice to delete "future" redirects until there's enough verifiable information to create an article (or section at the very least) on that specific event. The policy is WP:CRYSTAL. What benefit would that redirection be to the encyclopedia? If there's no information on a topic, there should be a redlink to signify that. If you want some good discussions on the issue, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 29#Future Eurovision Song Contests and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 14#Future Winter Olympics. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an issue that is not that important to me. I thought it was a practice. And I had seen it many times. Never gave it any thought. I don't see the harm. That's just me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on 89th Academy Awards; delete the rest per nom. Red links encourage article creation (when the time is right) and, in my opinion, should not be made blue in this manner. However, the 89th redirect, unlike the other three, receives roughly 200 views per day on average, and so the benefits of redirecting readers to an existing article may outweigh the benefit of having a red link. Alternatively, we could create the article for the 89th Academy Awards, though for now the only available facts are that the ceremony will be presented by AMPAS, will honor the best films of 2016, is scheduled to take place on February 26, 2017, and will be televised in the United States by ABC (source). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why don't we just create the "89th" article? That would be an easy solution to this. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to write the article, I'd support that as long as it can be adequately sourced. Until someone writes that article though, I agree with the WP:REDLINK sentiment from above. -- Tavix (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Here: 89th Academy Awards. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that one has been withdrawn. (It's no longer a redirect, so it's out of the jurisdiction of RFD. If anyone still wants it deleted, WP:AFD is now the place for that). -- Tavix (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2016 (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.

Itinerary[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 move Itinerary (disambiguation) over the first redirect, and retarget the others there. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main definition of itinerary "the record of a planned route or journey or the proposed outline of one" ≠ "travel literature". Any target suggestions? Perhaps a soft redirect to wikt:itinerary, if there isn't a better target locally. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't we have an article on the concept of an itinerary? bd2412 T 16:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merriam-Webster defines "itinerary" as "the places you go to or plan to go to on a journey" or a document listing such places; I don't think that's really synonymous with "schedule," though I think it's fair to say that an itinerary is a type of schedule. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting to Wiktionary. I currently have no opinion otherwise about this redirect, but there is clearly an encyclopedic subject which this term should cover. So, whether this redirect is deleted per WP:REDLINK, kept, or retarget to a better subject, that has more encyclopedic value that retargeting to the Wiktionary entry. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea, I didn't notice that page.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it was just created. I agree with this proposal, by the way. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2016 (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.

C Jackson[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 without prejudice to subsequently converting to a DAB. I am not convinced by the delete argument that this is an ambiguous term; in my view anyone using this as a search term would be looking for a person. In any case, there is no consensus to delete. The other commentators are split between those that wish to keep and those who would like to disambiguate. It is open to any editor to boldly convert the redirect to a DAB outwith RFD. Meanwhile, this redirect is policy compliant, there are no persuasive arguments against it, and it looks useful. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague, same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 3#Hillary C. It may refer to things not at that name index, such as C. Jackson Grayson and the City of Jackson, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep {{R from subtopic}} target is a surname article, which lists several people "C" so it is the proper target for this redirect. It is completely unrelated to the Hillary redirect, since the target is a surname article, and lists people whose given names start with "C". As for C Jackson Grayson, "Jackson" is a given name in that case, and thus PTM deletions for Neeliz lately are of that form, so that usage is unsupported. And "C Jackson" for the city of Jackson seems odd. Though you can add a hatnote. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Any person with a first name starting with "C" and the surname "Jackson" might be referred to in some document or other as "C Jackson" or "C. Jackson". This page should merely list the many people who fit that characteristic. bd2412 T 16:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per argument made above by BD2412. We should have a page to direct the reader to whatever "C. Jackson" they were looking for. --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jackson (surname) does that for the most part, although I feel search results would be better. C. Jackson → Cyril Jackson (astronomer). -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, per nom. Disambiguation is unnecessary and redundant to Jackson (surname)—we gain nothing from countless new disambiguation pages for A. Jackson, B. Jackson, C. Jackson, and so on through the alphabet for every surname. The redirect is virtually unused, at 0.07 daily views on average. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Hillary C" is implausible except in informal speech, perhaps in a classroom with multiple Hillaries. But "C. Jackson" (that variant identified by Tavix should follow "C Jackson") is not uncommon in academic usage, such as citations. And the target page should include all notable people who could be referred to as such. I don't think a separate disambiguation page is a very good idea; that's essentially an WP:INCDAB. (Remember, WP:NATURAL disambiguation is disambiguation too!) --BDD (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone actually searches for "C Jackson", why send them to a page with literally over 500 people not plausibly named "C Jackson"? bd2412 T 21:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    I suppose it does require looking in several places, since there are so many sections. I don't know how likely a search term this is, and I think when it was created as dab, it was just a coatrack for a non-notable internet personality. I really don't like the idea of setting a precedent here. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we are necessarily setting a precedent. There is a big difference, in my opinion, between the redirects A. Einstein and B. Obama, which point to specific articles about well-known individuals, and C. Jackson, J. Smith or John A. pointing to disambiguation pages listing hundreds of Jacksons, Smiths, and Johns, respectively. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2016 (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/2016_March_13&oldid=1138581119"