This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2017.
- 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. Relisting is unnecessary here as there has been no objection to deletion. --Tavix(talk)22:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORRED. The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and bras do not have affinity to the Italian language or Italy.Steel1943 (talk)04:51, 15 September 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 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. --Tavix(talk)02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Desktop Stand" doesn't sound like a computer to me.feminist14:47, 14 September 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 9#Bad Court Thinggie
Just In Time (album)
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 9#Just In Time (album)
Jasuchin Chinbarekku
[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. --Tavix(talk)02:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like aWP:FORRED name translation. It is not mentioned in the target article.Steel1943 (talk)20:56, 29 September 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.
Magic (Justin Timberlake song)
[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. --Tavix(talk)02:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing redirect. The subject of this redirect is not mentioned at the target page, and I am not able to find any references on what album or EP this song was released on. When looking up this term, party search engines return a mix of results including connections to the albumFutureSex/LoveSounds (but the song is not listed in that article) and to "Love Sex Magic", aCiara/Justin Timberlake song (but the subject of this redirect and this song are two different songs). Maybe it would be best to delete the redirect as unnotable, given lack of mention anywhere.Steel1943 (talk)20:27, 29 September 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 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 wasdeprecate. There was no discussion of what form the deprecation should look like, so I'll quickly do something that can be replaced or refined by other editors.Thryduulf (talk)11:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the "nn" here means "not notable". However, CSD A7 has been abused for "not notable" so many times, it's best in my view to get rid of it to stop any more confusion.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The purpose of template-namespace redirects is to either 1) allow editors to transclude its target when transcluded itself and 2) to redirect readers to the target page, most likely in this case due to the connection toWP:NN. I'm not following the rationale behind wanting to delete this redirect since it doesn't seem like an issue with the redirect that warrants deletion since it seems like if this redirect is transcluded, the editor who transcluded this redirect did indeed mean to transclude its target. (The only case I could see for deletion is if there is a valid claim for the redirect's title to be ambiguous, but I don't see that with this redirect.)Steel1943 (talk)20:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that would be likeWP:V redirecting toWP:CB - the two arerelated but they're absolutely not the same thing. I'm fed up of people tagging articles with
{{db-a7}} thinking it means "not notable" when it never has done.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- That seems more like a need to start a discussion to makespeedy deletion criterion A7 more precise. (Which I definitely agree with since it is probably one of our less technical speedy deletion criteria, leaving the deletion up to the opinion of the reviewer.)Steel1943 (talk)20:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Several admins, not leastSoWhy have campaigned to determine exactly what the general consensus is about A7, but discussion seems to go round in circles.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's unfortunate. I'll think I'll go dive for some of those discussions in the archives. I'm curious now.Steel1943 (talk)02:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as actively misleading. This is not a matter for amending A7: it's already as precise and detailed as it can get and its description already gives enough emphasis on the fact that it's not about notability. –Uanfala09:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree that A7 willever be precise or clear enough; reviewers' opinions may not always be the same on whether or not A7 applies to whatever is tagged. In fact, I'd say we should just deprecate it and refer everyone to start usingWP:PROD instead. But, enough of that tangent from this RfD nomination.
This redirect has existed for over 10 years pointing towards its current target. We have no way of knowing how many edit summaries or deletion log summaries this redirect has been used in. Deletion of this redirect due to its long existence creates too much potential for linkrot.Steel1943 (talk)14:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- Ah, link rot is a valid concern. How about deprecating the shortcut, so that any attempt at use will output a big red error message pointing out the difference between notability and significance? –Uanfala22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Deprecication", in my opinion, is really only an option of the title is ambiguous, and that is not the case with this redirect. That, and deprecation would probably require replacing this redirect with a template message that transcludes{{Error}}. Given the fact that{{Error}} currentlyhas over 2000 transclusions, such transclusions would probably never be corrected due to the hypothetical backlog created with the transclusions of{{Error}}. So, if I had to choose between depreciation and deletion, I'd say "deletion" is preferred.Steel1943 (talk)04:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or deprecate(pinged) The reason for deleting this redirect is the same as forTemplate:db-notability which I nominated for deletion back in the old days (see discussion in 2009): It perpetuates the confusion that A7 is somehow about non notable subjects. I do understand Steel's point about linkrot, so I'd be fine with Uanfala's suggestion of replacing it with a message not to use it. RegardsSoWhy16:46, 1 October 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 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. --Tavix(talk)02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this was intended to be a misspelling ofSuit & Tie, but from what I recall, the word "shirt" is nowhere in the song.Steel1943 (talk)20:15, 29 September 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 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 wasdisambiguateThryduulf (talk)11:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toPrice Tag. Mentioned there.feminist16:00, 12 September 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.
Prince of Peace Catholic School
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 9#Prince of Peace Catholic School
Prince of Peace (film)
[edit]Internet Explorer 12
[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 toMicrosoft Edge. There is also agreement for the addition of a hatnote.(non-admin closure)jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk)06:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually no 12th version of Internet Explorer. We need to decide whether to redirect toInternet Explorer or toMicrosoft Edge. An IP recently retargeted this redirect.GeoffreyT2000(talk,contribs)14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no such version exists. --Tavix(talk)22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But given that what is essentially a twelfth version of Internet Explorer does exist, just by a different name, it is a highly plausible search term.Thryduulf (talk)12:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that a redlink is a strong indicator for something that does not exist. --Tavix(talk)14:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A redlink is a reliably indication only that we do not have an article by that title. This may be because the subject does not exist (e.g.Republic of Norway), it may be because nobody has written the article yet (e.g.Simone Inguanez), it may be that the subject does exist but is not notable (e.g.Handshake (band)), it may be cause the title is an implausible typo (e.g.United Syayes of America), it might be because nobody has created a redirect from an alternative name yet, it might be because the title is too ambiguous or too vague (e.g.English things) or many other reasons. In this particular case it is also a matter of semantics whether "Internet Explorer 12" exists or not - a product with this title doesn't exist, butMicrosoft Edge functions as the 12th version of Internet Explorer. Finally, there are many things that unarguably do not exist but which still have articles or redirects (e.g.Spaghetti trees). All this means that using a red link to tell someone that the subject they are looking for doesn't exist is not in the slightest reliable or useful.Thryduulf (talk)17:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Retarget toMicrosoft Edge as a{{R from incorrect name}}. Since it seems rather clear thatInternet Explorer has been discontinued, this seems to make sense.Steel1943 (talk)14:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]- Upgrading to "Retarget". After giving it some more thought, turns out that I essentially completely agree withThryduulf.Steel1943 (talk)15:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who types in Internet Explorer 12? Implausible search term and not entirely correct.ZXCVBNM (TALK)20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore redirect toMicrosoft Edge Note that the change to Internet Explorer was done by a user now indef'd for socking and disruptive redirect changes. The IP who did it the second time is just one of dozens of IPs the sockmaster has been using the last couple months. --ferret (talk)16:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toMicrosoft Edge. The article states in its first sentence that Edge replaces Internet Explorer.feminist10:29, 8 October 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 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.Thryduulf (talk)11:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unofficial title not in secondary sources.Lordtobi (✉)06:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. TheRed Dead gaming series has two sets of major titles: "Red Dead Revolver" and "Red Dead Redemption". The titles ending in "Redemption" are essentially considered the sequel to the title ending with "Revolver". With that being said, this redirect could refer to either a title named "Red Dead Revolver 3" (which could be considered a misnomer forRed Dead Redemption 2, the current target) or a title named "Red Dead Redemption 3" (which does not exist and is totalWP:CRYSTAL.) I'm advocating deletion since the title is ambiguous with one of the subjects not existing. But, then again, since the other subject does not exist, I see rationale forweak keep as well due to lack of ambiguity for the fact alone that the other article doesn't exist at the present time.Steel1943 (talk)01:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also,very weak retarget toRed Dead to allow readers to figure out what they are trying to look for.Steel1943 (talk)15:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Using a redirect with "3" in the context of a game with "2" strikes me as implausible.ZXCVBNM (TALK)20:11, 3 October 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.
Red Dead Revolver 3
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 9#Red Dead Revolver 3
Draft:The Flash (season 4)
[edit]Zoophilia (botanic)
[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. --Tavix(talk)02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Zoophilia generally means sexual fixation with animals;zoophily generally means pollination by animals. I can find a source[6] forzoophily meaning emotional attachment to animals; I can't find a source forzoophilia meaning pollination.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)04:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral (I've wavered between "keep" and "delete" several times while writing this). It strikes me that "zoophilia" for "zoophliy" is quite a plausiblemalapropism or mishearing/misremembering and so it's not an implausible search term, these are unlikely to get recorded in written works which makes looking for sources very tricky but that the two articles have hatnotes to each other supports the theory. Now if someone knows what zoophilia is then searching for the botanical term with a parenthetical is quite likely, and if that were "(botany)" I would be more clearly on the keep side. However while "(botanic)" is certainly notimplausible I'm not certain if I would describe it "likely".Thryduulf (talk)12:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Implausible search term, per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK)20:14, 3 October 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 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 deleted perWP:CSD#G7 byuser:Boing! said Zebedee.Thryduulf (talk)12:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Term not mentioned in target article, so possibly aWP:FORRED issue. But, for some reason, when looking up this term on certain third-party search engines, the search engines have referred me to the articleEgusi; however, it seems whatever term is associated with Egusi is spelled "kuaci". Neither "kwaci" nor "kuaci" are currently mentioned inEgusi.Steel1943 (talk)02:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Further research: Seems that the nominated redirect originally targetedMelon seedMelon seed, which is now a redirect towardsEgusi. (However,KuaciKuaci doesn't exist.)Steel1943 (talk)02:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ok to remove the redirect as it is superfluous and may even be confusing. Carol (Talk)03:06, 29 September 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 8#Canadew
- 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, unopposed. --Tavix(talk)02:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Tuscan" is not mentioned anywhere at the target page. Readers attempting to find information about the subjects of these redirects will not find the information they are looking for.Steel1943 (talk)02:49, 29 September 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.
Counterfactual outcome
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 8#Counterfactual outcome
Done Improvements welcome!Shhhnotsoloud (talk)15:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]