This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 26, 2016.
- 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.Deryck C.15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the original version of this redirect, MileyWorld is (was?) a fan club for Miley Cyrus. There's no mention of this club at her article, however, so it should bedeleted. --Tavix(talk)23:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I may be wrong, but I think MileyWorld.com and MileyCyrus.com are now connected completely. I'm not sure what the policy is on using offical websites related to people and/or multiperson entities.Toys.com andToysRUs.com don't go toToys 'R Us company page, for instance.CNN.com goes toCNN, though.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete.mileyworld.com forwards tomileycyrus.com(WARNING: The aforementioned links are "http://".) However, I'm weak delete since it's a redirect to the web site, not the actual name of the web site.Steel1943 (talk)22:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete websites shouldn't have redirects unless the .com or whatever is notable in itself and is discussed in the article as withCNN.com orWeather.comAngusWOOF (bark •sniff)01:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wake delete - I suppose the central thing is that this just doesn't seem that helpful. Deletion appears to be the best move, though I'm not sure.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)07:57, 5 October 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.----Patar knight -chat/contributions02:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Italian language has no particular affiliation with Japan.Gorobay (talk)17:13, 26 September 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 Tragedy of Federico Garcia Lorca
[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 as unopposed.Deryck C.15:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable play that was redirected after AfD almost 8 years ago, but it's not mentioned there, and it doesn't seem likely that it ever will be. García Lorca himself wrote multiple tragedies, so I don't think we can repurpose this either.BDD (talk)15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a compilation book calledThree Tragedies[1] but I don't see one for this particular title, and a biography one calledThe Comic Spirit of Federico Garcia Lorca[2] andThe Selected Poems of[3] but I'm not seeing where there's a book by this particular title. If there is such a title and it is notable, either direct it to the author or add it to the books about Garcia Lorca.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)15:32, 26 September 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 wasmove draft to mainspace. Thanks editors.Deryck C.15:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since though Mongolia is a part of East Asia, the article on East Asian studies does not mention Mongolian studies at all, meaning that it is impossible to read any info about Mongolian studies from the East Asian studies article.RekishiEJ (talk)06:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't encourage article creation by deleting a topic. Seeing that a topic was previously deleted discourages potential editors to recreate a topic. Also, IPs cannot create articles, but they can turn redirects into articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk)19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you're coming from, butWP:RED quite clearly says a redlink can "indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic", and even cites research to that effect. Now, certainly sometimes{{R with possibilities}} is a better approach, but from a purely technical standpoint, it's much easier to click "create" on a blank page than to go to the top of an article, click the term you're redirected from, and then click "edit".
- I'm not commenting on this particular redirect, and I admit that I never considered that seeing a delete log might discourage someone from creating an article. But I do want to firmly emphasize that AngusWOOF's vote isn't just based on some personal whim, but rather a very well established principle. --BDD (talk)19:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or refine to #Subfields). Until a dedicated article is created, our readers will still find a paragraph of information on the subject at the target. This is better than giving them search results. --Tavix(talk)14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a valid "catch term" and it makes sense to redirect it to the current target article (as the link is helpful in providing at least related information and likely is the place also for more detailed info in the future) for as long as we don't have a dedicated article about it. PerWP:R#DELETE, none of the reasons to delete redirects apply, but several ofWP:R#KEEP apply, so deleting it would be counter-productive. --Matthiaspaul (talk)19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Lemme go draft somethingDraft:Mongolian studies. Otherwise it's kind of anWP:XY problem: some universities put (or used to put) Mongolian studies under theirCentral Asian studies programme, or withInner Asian studies (too bad, that's red), or withTibetology andIndology (e.g.Leipzig University[4]).210.6.254.106 (talk)11:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken the liberty of putting that draft into
{{mongolia-stub}} and catting it – not great because of course these are not studies donein Mongolia but I couldn't find anything better to cat it as, sometimes by putting somethingwrong it helps others to put itright!Si Trew (talk)05:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: What do editors think of the draft? How likely is it that we'll ever be able to say more about Mongolian studies than that it's the study of Mongolia? If that's all we can say, how do we proceed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,BDD (talk)15:06, 26 September 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.
Interstate 13 in California
[edit]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 5#Interstate 13 in California
Republic of China (1949–2000)
[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 toHistory of the Republic of China#Republic of China on Taiwan (1949–present). --BDD (talk)16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. -Champion (talk) (contribs)(FormerlyTheChampionMan1234)01:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Champion: Possibly related to "In 2005, the National Assembly permanently abolished itself by ratifying a constitution amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan." but even if that's the case, still wrong year, and failsWP:NPOV in that the editor is saying that Taiwan no longer exists.RegistryKey(RegEdit)09:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If this redirect is to work, it should lead toPolitics of the Republic of China, which is almost all about Taiwan (where the Republic of China has been established since 1949) and notGovernment of the Republic of China, which concerns mostly the pre-1949 period.Madalibi (talk)12:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- History of the Republic of China#Republic of China on Taiwan (1949–present) might be the best target, since it has a sub section break atHistory_of_the_Republic_of_China#Political_transition to discuss events after the 2000 election which saw the DPP defeat the KMT – essentially 1949–2000 is the period in ROC history between their defeat in the Chinese Civil War/retreat to Taiwan and the first electoral defeat of the Kuomintang. --Patar knight -chat/contributions15:57, 20 September 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)16:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid alternative romanization (hsueeh, what is this supposed to mean? Its notpinyin,Wade-Giles,Tongyong Pinyin,Gwoyeu Romatzyh etc). A quick google for any of these reveal nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, keeping redirects like these would encourage nothing but more external links to these incorrect terms. -Champion (talk) (contribs)(FormerlyTheChampionMan1234)08:37, 26 September 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.
University Center Patio
[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.----Patar knight -chat/contributions02:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generic name, not mentioned at the target article. Searching the phrase on Google, I'm seeing results for various universities, but not for Miami.BDD (talk)02:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I created this redirect as a direct replacement for an equivalent piped link ([[University of Miami|University Center Patio]]) in the articleBorn to Run tours. There's no doubt about its accuracy, despite it not being mentioned in the target article - I've just done a Google search which brings up "Lakeside Patio Stage | University of Miami" as the first entry, plus several images from UM. I agree that it's a fairly generic term, but it's not clashing with anything else or misleading anyone.Colonies Chris (talk)08:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While the Florida college does indeed have such an area, I'm seeing analogously named areas in multiple other educational institutions around the U.S. I'm concerned that we're basically privileging one specific university at the expense of a bunch of other ones.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)10:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteWikipedia:NOTTRAVEL San Diego also has a University Center Patio[5].AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After reviewing a number of sources, I can't find any evidence that the location at the University of Miami is the primary topic.Maybe we can dabify if other articles discuss similar locations. --Notecardforfree (talk)18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But what benefit is there to that link in the first place, especially compared to just piping it to the University of Miami? Presumably the point of the link is to show where the canceled concert was, and not to provide specific information about a patio. --BDD (talk)17:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual benefit of a redirect - perhaps I should have tagged it as a 'redirect wth possibilities' - it's a concert venue, and someone might write an article, or a section of a larger article, on this venue, just as there are articles on many many other concert venues.Colonies Chris (talk)09:41, 1 October 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 toWikipedia:Twinkle andkeep, respectively. --BDD (talk)16:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should this point toWikipedia:Twinkle instead, asWikipedia:Friendly redirects there and Friendly was merged into Twinkle 5 years ago?GeoffreyT2000 (talk,contribs)01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (Changed from "retarget" to "weak retarget" since I agree withPppery's comment below.Steel1943 (talk)18:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Retarget both toWikipedia:Maintaining a friendly space as a more obvious target that does not depend on the name of a gadget that was merged five years ago.Pppery02:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- RestoreWikipedia:Friendly tothis version, mark it as{{historical}} and alter it to reflect that it has been merged with twinkle, thenretargetWikipedia:FRIENDLY there. I prefer maintaining useful history, as opposed to retargeting both of these to an essay.WP:FRIENDLYWP:FRIENDLY was created as a redirect toWikipedia:Friendly, pointing there until 2011 when it was redirected toWikipedia:Twinkle. This has only targetedWikipedia:Maintaining a friendly space since 2015. The majority of the links seem to be from the signature ofIoeth (as Steel1943 points out above) [before the retarget].
Those could be replaced withWP:MFS (which I just created) fairly easily.— Godsy (TALKCONT)13:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] - Restore per Godsy. Friendly, was a prominent script for a long time, and maintaining it has historical value, more so than a newish essay. Hatnotes can serves readers well here. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions02:06, 3 October 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.
