This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2016.
Konodai girls' Elementary,girls' middle school, girls' high school
[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely-titled almost-orphaned redirect from an inactive user. The only link to this is from User talk:User:South North Yen Up King, which was also badly moved from User talk:South North Yen Up King. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've shortened the title of the school to 国府台女子学院 per the school's website which also lists the name in English as the short version. It might have taken that extended title 国府台女子学院小学部・中学部・高等部 before, and it still exists as such on the Japanese Wikipedia page (perhaps someone should rename it there). But 国府台女子学院 would be the common name in Japanese. It was never referred to in English by these extended titles, so there's no point in keeping these redirects here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC) updated 14:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC) for typos[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was split decision. I found consensus to delete 4G Lite. The rest will be kept as is. No prejudice against speedy individual (ie:unbundled) renomination, but please read the discussion before doing so as some redirects are solid "keepers" and I don't want to waste time debating those. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I'll also allow bold retargets, as a few of these are probably better off elsewhere, and I don't think another discussion is necessary on those (unless there's disagreement of course). -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing deletion/cleanup of the various following redirects with only those to keep which fullfil the guidelines. Please discuss.
See also: Pages that link to "LTE (telecommunication)"
Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep LTE wireless, LTE standard, LTE phone. Delete Long-Term Evolution wireless and those variants, as those are not likely search terms. Someone searching for LTE wants to know what it stands for and will type in those common words such as phone, standard, wireless to distinguish it from other acronymed companies and groups. Someone typing in "Long-Term Evolution" followed by more text already has an idea of what article they want and is not going to have any benefit of more detailed redirects that go to the same general LTE (telecommunication) page. There is nothing to disambiguate after Long-Term Evolution with the exception of perhaps Long-Term Evolution Time-Division Duplex which is explained in the article as a separate term, but even that goes to the same LTE (telecommunication) page. Delete search strings that start with 3GPP. LTE is all part of 3GPP. Delete 4G Lite or 3.9G; those are not discussed as a nickname in the article. Hopefully this makes cleanup and searching a lot simpler. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Long-term Evolution and Long term evolution. Yes I created at least one of these, and they aren't needed for searching, but they are still useful for linking (including from external sites) and direct URL entry, and the capitalisations aren't that unplausible. LTE may be the acronym, but not everyone may think of the acronym much, so they may not consider how that affects capitalisations. It sounds like some people are opposed to redirects for these reasons but WP:Redirects still lists it as a valid reason, and IMO people need to get that changed if they want to keep deleting such redirects. I regularly create such redirects on what I consider plausible alternative capitalisations (often when me or someone else types in this capitalisation, perhaps on WP:RD) and aren't likely to change unless our guidelines change. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one, so it's wasting everyone's time for us to be creating redirects and for people at RFD to be later deleting them. I can understand there may be debate on what's plausible, e.g. I personally feel Long-Term evolution is harmless and not implausible enough to deserve deletion but I don't feel strongly enough that I'm going to fight it. Keep Long term evolution standard as it's not an implausible search term or link for someone looking for info on the standard or who simply thinks of it as a standard. Just because someone knows what LTE stands for doesn't mean they're going to know the info on the standard is covered on the LTE article. Redirect 3.9G to 3G#Evolution. I don't really understand why people are proposing to delete it when in the LTE (telecommunication) article, Template:Cellular network standards appears which has and has had for apparently long before this discussion existed [1] a table entry "3G transitional (3.5G, 3.75G, 3.9G)". Delete 4G Lite since I'm opposed to redirects which leave people mystified due to no explaination of the term in the article, and I don't think it can be said to be sufficiently obvious. (I guess 4G Lite is some branding for someone's variant of 4G or 4G plans.) No comment on the rest. Well I don't feel any of them need to be deleted as they seem plausible enough in some circumstances for people who remember something but not that much especially when manually typing, but again not something I can be that bothered fighting over. P.S. I understand the mess Neelix has left us with but IMO we have to be careful about not going to far in the other direction when it simply means the redirect may be recreated in the future because it's existance is still supported by the guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 28 June 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was split decision. The redirects that haven't been contested will be deleted. That leaves CDMA network, where there wasn't a consensus, but it will be retargeted to CDMA2000 as the alternative to deletion. No predjudice against speedy renomination on that one. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: List of TD-SCDMA networks is an {{R from merge}} so I don't feel comfortable deleting that one. I'm retargeting it to TD-SCDMA (again, NPASR). -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing to delete the following redirects because they are either misleading or confusing and do not seem to aid navigation. Neither is it preferable to place and collect redirects for misspellings such as twisted letters. Wikipeadia's search engine can absolutely deal with such false typo.
See also: Pages that link to "UMTS (telecommunication)"
- Delete all. W-CDMA (UMTS): Nothing to disambiguate. CDMA is not a network but would be a surprise to go to UMTS. W-CDMA should have a hatnote as with the other main CDMA technologies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:09, 22 June 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another implausible word-origins redirect. Surprisingly, I couldn't find anything else that this refers to that could target an article. Suggest delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neelix-created. Completely misleading and incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Spiritualism or Spiritualism (disambiguation). One of those should be the most plausible target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per WP:REDLINK or at least a lack of any specific target. The phrase gets a relatively small number of GBook hits, and they tend to be either about native American religion in the northwest/Aleut areas, or a term of art in evangelical theology. There are also some spiritualism, but these are rarer in comparison. I would say "disambiguate" but I can't see obvious targets anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and vague. Those articles that use manitou just use manitou. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The rather vague concept may deserve its own article, I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to just delete these two redirects and move on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:23, 24 June 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. Anyone who wishes may convert to a DAB page. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of disambiguation pages, full blood ≠ blood purity. I considered racial hygiene as a target, but that doesn't seem right either. Is there a good place to point this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with purebred, though nominally correct, is that the article deals exclusively with animals. The term full blood seems to apply most often to people. Just searching through en.wikipedia gives "full-blood" Indian (US), or Aboriginal (Australia), or sister, or wizards (in Harry Potter). The article on purebred animals doesn't help anyone in those contexts. — Gorthian (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have sworn I posted this days ago, but maybe I forgot it over in the other universe...— Gorthian (talk) 21:01, 23 June 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't proverbial usually mean figurative? Like "looking for a proverbial needle in a haystack" means that there isn't really a needle there? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Proverbial can mean "figurative" but only if the "figure" has come from a proverb (precisely as in your example with the needle in the haystack). According to the OED, it can also mean "notoriously". Uanfala (talk) 07:33, 18 June 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.
International Council of Religious Education
[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---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This title is not mentioned in the target. I suspect they are connected, and there are definitely reliable sources available on this council. I wonder if it might be better to delete to encourage an article on it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:33, 18 June 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedily deleted as G7. Creator endorsed deletion here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned redirect created in error — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:10, 18 June 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.
Wikipedia:User:Y.ishihara/draft
[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---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned improbable redirect (initially created as a draft) to the mainspace — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:09, 18 June 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.
Wikipedia:User:Curiocurio/My New Draft Article title
[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---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Improbable redirect from the Wikipedia namespace (not user space) to an article. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:07, 18 June 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.
Deletion of television network template redirects
[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 keep per WP:SKCRIT #2c. If you disagree with the result of the previous RfD, since the closing admin has commented here your only recourse now is WP:DRV. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Relisting. Below is a list of television network templates (those listed at {{U.S. network show templates}}), and their redirects. The parent templates are bolded, and their redirects are listed in dot point notation below them. I've gone through with AWB and replaced the redirect templates with their parent templates, meaning that the redirects are no longer in use and are no longer necessary. I propose that they be deleted. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild support to delete, but caution, that some of these template redirects still have links from personal userpages (and possibly Wikipedia reference pages) to them. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were already modified to the parent templates. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @AlexTheWhovian: I just found and made 1 correction, for example. I'm saying there might be more out there. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. That one didn't come up in AWB. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- When trying to be intimidating, try to use actual policies, not an essay and a guideline. I believe these need deleting, and hence, I have listed them for deletion. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @AlexTheWhovian: Please see our policy on the role of policies and guidelines, specifically the section on guidelines: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." In bringing this nomination you've violated the deletion policy (which says to talk to the closing admin and take it to DRV if the disagreement is not resolved) and our policy on consensus (which was clear in the last RfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @AlexTheWhovian: There's an issue with the unlisted Template:Univision 2013 telenovelas. In the
|below= section, there's a link to your nominated {{Univision 2014 telenovelas}}, which, if deleted, would become a red-link. The AWB job was not spotless. You might have cleaned up up the transclusions of all these, but there are a ton of lingering links that prevent deletion from being sane. Sorry, changing my vote to keep. Many templates have redirects, and it's normal. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. As the closing admin of the last RfD, which ended only two days ago with three people voting to keep and no one voting delete, I can say that the consensus in the last RfD was clearly in favour of keeping the redirects. Our deletion policy says in the section on deletion review that "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." You did not discuss with me, and this is not DRV, so this speedy renomination is in contravention of (at least) the deletion policy and the consensus policy.
- As a RfD participant, I would support keeping per the arguments advanced by the keep !votes in the last RfD: that redirects outside of mainspace are cheap and useful. Furthermore, I don't think these templates meet any of the redirect deletion reasons at either WP:R#DELETE or Wikipedia:Redirect#Template redirects. Pinging Steel1943,Godsy, and Deryck Chan who participated in the previous discussion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most per previous discussion, except the following which are potentially misleading:
- Now we're finally getting somewhere. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote is based purely on previous submissions; the user is unable to find any reason to have them deleted. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A previous submission in which the user above !voted and did not agree with your proposal to delete the redirects. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:31, 22 June 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.