This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2014.
Catacombs of New York City
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy delete perrequest of sole author. —Scott•talk14:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an implausible redirect, as no one ever refers to the subway as "catacombs". (I made the page myself accidentally, but I still wanted to take this here.)Epicgenius (talk)23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Target only has trivial information about this actress: Age 22 (that was in 2004, she is currently 32), from Los Angeles. A search on"Angela Trimbur" shows mention in 13 articles, many of them for better known works. When she has no biography, readers are better served by search results.PrimeHunter (talk)23:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Let the search engine handle it.Si Trew (talk)06:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All mentions in Wikipedia are about her and she is probably the only notable or possibly notable person by that name. The problem is that the redirect target doesn't contain significant info, and the presense of a redirect makes it harder to find the search results.PrimeHunter (talk)22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a week and a half of listing. --BDD (talk)18:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently the name ofSeel, a Pokémon, in French. Since Pokémon has no particular connection with French, this should be an easyWP:FORRED deletion. Unless we systematically create redirects from foreign-language names of Pokémon for some reason... --BDD (talk)22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. Looking over what links to the same place, it indeed seems that there are many redirects from foreign names of Pokémon. While the Japanese forms seem acceptable, the others arefancruft if I've ever seen it—and for what it's worth, I do consider myself a Pokémon fan. But we are notBulbapedia (which, incidentally, is a good source for such information). So let's consider this a test case. If there's consensus to delete, I'll work on compiling a list of such redirects and bring them up as a batch. --BDD (talk)22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BDD. The Japanese ones should stay as that is the original language, but other foreign-language ones should go perWP:FORRED.Si Trew (talk)06:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. If there are a lot redirects like this one floating around the wiki then perhaps we should coordinate withWikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon to plan on how to get rid of them.--Lenticel(talk)07:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a notification at the project talk page. My thought was to compile them all at a user subpage of mine, refer to them in a second RfD, and if it's successful, I'll just go through and take care of them. Other admins can help out—with their help, I'll
catch delete 'em all. --BDD (talk)16:12, 24 April 2014 (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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 28#Template:WPCL
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasretarget toCaedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius, which I just created. I suspect this will please everyone, but please let me know if that's not the case. --BDD (talk)19:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two redirects that are virtually the same but are targeted to different places. Later chroniclers reported that something akin to this phrase was uttered by Arnaud Amalric before the Massacre at Béziers, and this is mentioned in both articles. With that in mind, both redirects are good, but they really ought to be targeted to the same place. Should both go to Amalric's article, or both to the massacre article, or both to somewhere else? I don't particularly care which choice we pick.Nyttend (talk)12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For way of comparison I foundLet's Bring Em Home which doesn't have the apos, and inBruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour andWe Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions is "Bring 'Em Home now"with the apos, and I often abbreviate "them" to "'em" which in speech is quicker but in typing come to think of it doesn't actually even save me a keystrike so I don't know why I do it. A quick Wiikipedia search (not external search engine search) for me shows it is about half and half so they are better deleted to let the search engine deal with it.Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC):: A quick Wiikipedia search (not external search engine search) for me shows it is about half and half so they are better deleted to let the search engine deal with it. I have no idea why this was listed underLatin:Kill them, the Lord God knows who are the faithful (or "his own") which for me brings up on My Favourite Search EngineMassacre at Béziers at the first, and Joshua verses 1–12here in the New International Version. Declaration of non-interest: I am not a Christian.Si Trew (talk)03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we delete them? They're different forms of a well-known phrase often (mistakenly) associated with the incident, and both of them are good redirects. And what does the beginning of Joshua have to do with it? Theonly reason I came here was to get input on where they should be redirected, since both targets are good and it's silly to have them go different places. The Latin title is the original phrase, FYI.Nyttend (talk)22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise what the Latin phrase is. The thing is I find it obscure to bring rtwo edirects and list them under a different title from either of the redirects themselves.Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius doesn't exist, neither doeskill them all, let God sort it out orkill 'em all, let God sort it out. So either they should be added or these deleted. I agree with you, though, if they stay they should go to the same target.Si Trew (talk)07:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Joshua, look at verse 24. This is what comes up on My Favourite Search Engine, as I said. I never said it was "right", I said what I got on a search.Si Trew (talk)07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,BDD (talk)16:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again. Apparently created to replace Template:C&W/Template:C&w, both of which were likewisedeleted here two weeks ago. —Scott•talk00:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - See my response atWikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. --Jax 0677 (talk)01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main difference between this and the now-deleted C&W templates is that the consensus in the prior RfD was more aimed at the lack of any signifier that it was a WikiProject banner versus an articlespace template. I see no chance of confusion here, and "CW" in this context fairly clearly refers to "country & western music", which is under the umbrella of the Country Music project. Interestingly, keeping this and retargeting{{WPCM}} (per my recommendation in its own RfD above) may serve to resolve the WP:CM/CM/WPCM shortcut conflict that has been identified. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]- While I still think my prior rationale is the correct one, I recognize that there is an emerging consensus (both in the discussion atWikipedia talk:Shortcut and in the recent RfDs concerning these redirects) that case variants of WikiProject banner template redirects should not be kept. Thus,Weak delete. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete{{WPCW}} exists and is allcaps, as SHORTCUTs should be, this being a shortcut to a template. --70.24.250.235 (talk)09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perWP:CHEAP, butJax 0677, please consider not creating so many redirects of this type.Sideways713 (talk)10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Contradiction, Sideways. -DePiep (talk)18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just RfD zen: it shouldn't've been created, but neither should it be deleted. (This is not necessarily my position on this redirect.) --BDD (talk)17:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, BDD is right. When it comes to articles, there's no such thing as something that probably should not have been created, but - having been created - should not be deleted. The same is not true for redirects, though; that's half the point behindWP:RFD#HARMFUL andWP:CHEAP. (Mind you, as this is a recently created redirectWP:RFD#HARMFUL doesn't apply in this case.)Sideways713 (talk)09:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per 70.24.Frietjes (talk)17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too many meanings for CW.Plastikspork―Œ(talk)00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else? If we delete this, then will we need to delete{{songs}} and{{albums}} as well? Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made atWikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. --Jax 0677 (talk)01:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,BDD (talk)16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasprocedural close. Please comment at the RM. --BDD (talk)16:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Move Request discussion atTalk:Genua_(disambiguation) which is in effect a proposal to delete this redirect (and to have a dab page at the base name). I'm not sure where the discussion ought to be taking place.PamD16:20, 23 April 2014 (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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Template:Cita web
Brian Oliver Producer)
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy delete perWP:CSD#G6.Thryduulf (talk)10:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redirect created through a page move. I doubt that it's useful, and it will probably just be confusing.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)02:08, 23 April 2014 (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.
