Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 4, 2016.

That place where they killed Cecil the lion[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 snow delete, and R3 speedy delete. Even if this were a likely search term, it could lead to varous places, such as Hwange National Park. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, and possibly insulting to Zimbabweans who may feel offended by the implication that their country ought to be known primarily as the place where this event occurred. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This seriously is a highly unlikely search term. People are going to just go right to Cecil the lion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an atlas or gazetteer. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is information, this shouldn't be a redirect. Also, this is partially natural activism on the creator's part. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if anything it should redirect to the animal article. But the animal article is already called "Cecil the Lion" so this redirect has no advantage -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 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.

Cassowaries in popular culture[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. The rough consensus is that there is no longer any content in the target article about the redirect title, and no content is preserved from the article which preceded the redirect. Deryck C. 22:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This title was merged to the target article, but this was the extent of it. The section no longer exists, and since "In popular culture" sections are discouraged, it's not likely to again. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no info at target, nothing from the former article's content in use on the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's part of the article history. And while I am very glad that the consensus is finally starting to turn away from the "in popular culture" sections, we must acknowledge that the consensus is not solid and could even be reversed. There is no good reason to delete that history. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. The "history" argument implies we can never ever delete – or change – content (redirect, article, section, whatever) with incoming links, because they're not linking to the page as it was at the time the link were created. That's against WP:NOTFINISHED. The only way around that would be either:
  1. for editors to use versioned links in articles (I am not sure if we have a template to do this)
  2. an option that, when retrieving an old version of a page, the links on it are to the other pages as they stood at that time (including links to deleted pages). That would be really useful, a kinda WikiWikiWayback.
I doubt the first would ever happen (or is desirable), the second I guess is possible except for deleted links. (For admins, I guess even that is possible too.) Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no wrongdoing in this. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. Despite what the redirect implies, our readers will not find out about "Cassowaries in popular culture" at the target. The redirect needs to be red to reflect this lack of information. -- Tavix (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel this is helpful? Someone searching this is going to be disappointed because there isn't any information on the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh oops! I didn't know there was no info at the redirect... 0_0 Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:37, 5 February 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:DSTSOLUTION[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. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX/Wikipedia:Advocacy: This seems like an inappropriate redirect from Wikipedia space to an essay on a user page urging political activism ("Persuade Congress") for activities unrelated to building an encyclopedia.

The content on the user page probably should go as well per WP:UP#GOALS

Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - inappropriate redirect from project space as-is. As for the target, that should be a different discussion. I don't think it's very serious anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects from the Wikipedia space to a userpage essay are not merely allowed, they are sometimes encouraged. That said, the essay should have some connection to the project. This is a personal rant against Daylight Savings Time. That's over the line even by our loose standards. Delete. Rossami (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought essays were used for this purpose? And what project? Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like WP:SOAPBOX says. It's fine to have an opinionated essay ábout Wikipedia, it's not a general-purpose blog. There's always quite a lot of opposition to daylight savings, e.g. the Western_Australian_daylight_saving_referendum,_2009, and opposition to Double British Summer Time. By project I presume is meant that this is redirect is in WP pseudo-namespace, where WP stands either for Wikipedia or WikiProject. Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good evening, Hdjensofjfnen. "The project" is Wikipedia. And while I stand by my categorization of this essay as a personal rant, I don't consider that a pejorative statement. Rants have a valuable place in social discourse and are protected free speech. Rants can passionately expose issues and build motivation to address them. But this particular issue has nothing to do with making or improving the encyclopedia. So even though I actually agree with your opinions about DST, that's why it doesn't belong here. Rossami (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can smell the sarcasm in the greeting, Rossami. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No sarcasm at all, Hdjensofjfnen. I meant my comments sincerely. Rossami (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Even the thing it redirects to is now deleted. RotubirtnoC (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a personal rant against Daylight Savings Time." --Rossami That's a little (ahem) harsh. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 04:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying Rossami is harsh and I'm rude. It's rather ironic that you're using Wikipedia as a platform for your political opinion, yet folks who politely comment on it are behaving in an inappropriate way. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 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.

Cdebootstrap[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 retarget to Debian-Installer#debootstrap. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 08:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current target is certainly unhelpful, unsure about whether the topic is notable. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 70.51. The subject of a redirect does not need to be notable. Apparently defined by the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 5 February 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.

Guanin (Fish)[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 no consensus'. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this redirect makes no sense. Guanin appears to be an accentless version of Guanín, a pre-Columbian Taíno Bronze medal; there are two articles about it nominated for merging. Guanine is an amino acid and has nothing to do with fish in particular. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - this source describes guanin as a substance "extracted from scales of fish such as herring, for manufacture of PEARL ESSENCE, has also been used for conversion to CAFFEINE." It appears to be the same substance as what's described at guanine, especially described in the "other uses" section. The redirect is unusual, but also seems to be harmless and correct. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteor retarget to the DAB at Guanín, as Guanin does as an {{R from title without diacritics}}; Guanine is listed there. I know in a sense as an R to DAB it is useless but not very harmful; although in the past I have argued that needless (disambiguation) redirects are slightly harmful as suggesting that we have a more-specific topic when we don't.
I've noted this over at the merge discussion at Talk:Guanín#Merger_proposal. Even if the two topics at the DAB were merged over it (Guanine is the third at the DAB), we can simply hatnote the merged article to Guanine. Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Neither topic listed at Guanín has to do with fish. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guanin (fish), Guanín (fish) and Guanín (Fish) are all red. Si Trew (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Guanin is a variant spelling of guanine, and some fish scales and other body parts are known to be rich in guanin. (e.g. example). The parenthetical "(fish)" moots a retargeting of Guanin (Fish). --Animalparty! (talk) 17:32, 5 February 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.

Nakshal (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Nakshal (film)

Where Sinners Meet[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 procedural close. Ivanvector is right; see RM. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD'd this, since none of the existing sources in the target article refer to the film by the target article's name, but by the name of this redirect. Was declined since the lead sentence (as it was then written) referred to film by the wrong title. In addition, contemporaneous sources all agree that the title of the film is indeed Where Sinners Meet, and that The Dover Road was simply a working title, since the source (Milne's book) was titled that. Would like this deleted so that the film's article can be properly named. Onel5969 TT me 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - this is a move request. Since speedy was declined, it can't be considered uncontroversial, and as such the redirect currently points to the correct target. You'll have to do a requested move on the article's talk page. Please see WP:RM. Let us know if you need help with the request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 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.

Cibuntu[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 move Cibuntu, Cigandamekar, Kuningan over the redirect. WP:NGEO#Indonesia says Indonesian place names should be at "Placename" if available, which conforms with WP:CONCISE as well. Other topics with wordier titles might need disambiguation, or they might need moves as well. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unrelated topic to target. WP:REDLINK because there is id:Cibuntu, Cigandamekar, Kuningan. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two separate search engines find no connection between Cibuntu and Ubuntu. Agree to redlink it. Rossami (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cibuntu, Cigandamekar, Kuningan, which I just created from the Dutch Wikipedia. We don't have very many articles on West Javan villages, but there are a few. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector; thanks for making the stub. Not sure you need the entire postal address as the village's title, but that's another matter. Si Trew (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by the style of the few other Indonesian village articles that we have, which are named this way. Although now that I look at Category:Populated places in West Java, it seems I may be mistaken. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article titles are all is different formats, having looked at the category, but we need a fixed format. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:00, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_4&oldid=1077827221"