This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 12, 2016.
American Samoa (U.S. state)
[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 wasno consensus, default to keep.Deryck C.17:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple redirects that are misleading. American Samoa is not aU.S. State. Having the redirect might cause someone to think that itis a state, so let's not spread that misinformation. The new tool shows 4 hits in the last 90 days. Also nominating one other redirect for the same reasons. --Tavix(talk)00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to votedelete simply based on the fear that these will spread misinformation, though I am also sympathetic to the possibility that a reader who is unfamiliar with the nuances of U.S. political subdivisions may think that these are "states" and then search for these articles based on that false assumption. --Notecardforfree (talk)02:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sympathetic too, but I think it's implausible that someone would search in that fashion, so it's not something to worry about. --Tavix(talk)02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my line of thought, along with because they were created by the same person at the same time. If these were to be deleted, my plan was to go through the rest of them and go from there.District of Columbia (U.S. state)District of Columbia (U.S. state) redirects toDistrict of Columbia statehood movement, for example, which seems different enough (to me) to nominate it separately. --Tavix(talk)22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as misleading and unlikely search phrases (0.3 daily views and0.01 daily views on average, respectively). I recognize that the statehood possibilities for these territories are covered in the article51st state, but anyone typing these page titles will easily find the actual articleAmerican Samoa and the redirectU.S. Virgin Islands, respectively, before the nominated pages. --Black Falcon(talk)04:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and tag with{{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. Many of our non-American readers—and probably a fair number of American ones—won't be aware of the distinction between US states and territories. Per the comments above, I understand how these seem less likely than for Guam, Puerto Rico, or the NMIs, but I still think the most likely desired topic if someone uses these search terms is the territories themselves. --BDD (talk)17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right about the lack of awareness of the distinction between a US state and territory, but that is irrelevant in the case of a redirect from a disambiguated title to an undisambiguated one... anyone typingAmerican Samoa (U.S. state) will see the actual articleAmerican Samoa long before they finish typing the full name of this redirect. --Black Falcon(talk)23:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but that's not the only way readers find articles. They may follow external links or type URLs directly, for example. Personally, I do direct URLs sometimes, but more often use a Chrome browser plugin to query the search engine. It doesn't give suggestions for autofill. I appreciate the improvements to the MediaWiki search, but we shouldn't assume it's the only way readers will navigate the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk)14:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Peoplecan search in multiple ways, but I think the more relevant question would be if peopleare actually searching using these terms. It'd be one thing if this was a common occurrence, then I'd agree with you, BDD. However, it boggles my mind why someone would want to keep around blatant error topossibly help someone once every 90 or so days. --Tavix(talk)16:38, 21 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.
- 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 toTrump (surname). [Additional comments.] –Davey2010Talk12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same issue asWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Ms. Rodham.Eric Trump,Fred Trump,Frederick Trump..... Bad title for disambiguation.—Godsy(TALKCONT)03:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Trump onThe Apprentice was frequently referred to as Mr. Trump, and this is a valid search term. Generally it refers to Donald Trump and not to any of his male relatives.MB298 (talk)03:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as anambiguous redirect. I could understand retargeting toTrump (surname) if the redirect was heavily used; however, it is not, and I see no value in havingMr. X,Ms. X,Mrs. X,Dr. X, etc., redirects to eachX (surname) article. --Black Falcon(talk)04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CHEAP and it does refer to people of this surname, for which the surname article will list the notable people by this name --70.51.46.39 (talk)07:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, and if there was any indication that it was being even moderately used, I would agree that the redirect should be kept. However, it is not used, and someone searching for "Mr. Trump" will just as easily arrive at the disambiguation page, with no need for "Mr. Trump" or any variations thereof ("Mr X", "Mister X", "Sir X", "Hon. X", "Dr. X", "Prof. X", etc.).WP:CHEAP is basically a long-winded way of saying "meh" and, therefore, carries no weight in my opinion. --Black Falcon(talk)04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per MB298,retarget toTrump (surname) as second choice. --BDD (talk)17:02, 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.
Criteria and indicators
[edit]Zhang Yu'an (television personality)
[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 waskeep. --BDD (talk)16:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As redundant. Only one person called Zhang Yu'an (张玉安) has him article on this Wikipedia.Dabao qian (talk)17:09, 12 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.
File:Dickebusch Old Military Cemetery 1848255324.jpg
[edit]Maintenance chemotherapy
[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 waskeep. --BDD (talk)16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since they are no synonyms, and the article on chemotherapy has an internal link to maintenance chemotherapy, which should not redirect to it.RekishiEJ (talk)13:03, 12 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.
Creator of Wikipedia
[edit]Muslim forces terror in Sarajevo
[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 wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had nominated the article for CSD. It has no substantial history. An administrator redirected the same to Bosnian war. Chiefly, I view the title of the redirect as going against Wikipedia'sWP:NPOV guidelines on article naming. The term Muslim forces deliberately paints a negative shade on overall Muslims, and attempts to reinforce a POV term like terror. To super-emphasise "Muslim forces terror in Sarajevo", while also being grammatically incorrect, would justify the existence of religion based redirects (aka, Christian forces terror in Iraq). Moreover, the actualBosnian War witnessed "the ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak Muslim and Croat population" (as per the Bosnian War article) rather than vice versa. Requesting deletion of this redirect.Xender Lourdes (talk)02:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not acceptable even as a redirect.WP:RNEUTRAL would normally apply, but it explicitly says thatthe exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, which is precisely the case here.GregorB (talk)14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Redirects are not expected to be always NPOV, but this is just plain unhelpful because the terminology isn't used like this. Who in the media refers to alleged Islamic militants as "Muslim forces terror"? That would be like referring to Wikipedia as "Pedia Wiki Internet" or the U.S. Republican Party as "Party American Republican".CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)03:01, 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.
- 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)16:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing, and all the search results from Google are virtually wikipedia mirrors. -Champion (talk) (contribs)(FormerlyTheChampionMan1234)22:10, 11 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.
- 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)16:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely search term, I think it is more plausible forAir China than anything else, butdelete nevertheless, asAirlines china doesn't exist. -Champion (talk) (contribs)(FormerlyTheChampionMan1234)22:08, 11 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.
Mac Cory (Another World)
[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 waskeep. --BDD (talk)16:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A new page was recently created but, rather than creating it with theMac Cory re-direct already in existence, a newMac Cory (Another World) page was created. With no other "Mac Cory" pages, however, there's no need to disambiguate (also making it a highly unlikely search term as the much simpler "Mac Cory" is already the page name). The page name hasalready been corrected and I havealready corrected all the pages linking to the incorrect re-direct.Cebr1979 (talk)03:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Cebr1979 Normal practice is to keep it and put{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} on it. There's no reason to delete it that I can see. If there was a huge copyvio or attack page in the page history, I might say to delete it and recreate as a redirect, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.Oiyarbepsy (talk)16:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oiyarbepsy is right that there is no compelling need to delete, as it is generally not necessary to update incoming links to a redirect except when those links are from disambiguation pages or templates, or perhaps through the course of normal editing. However, there is also no compelling reason to keep this unhelpful/unnecessary redirect now that it has been nominated and the move history is preserved at the target article (diff). --Black Falcon(talk)03:54, 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.
