Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 3

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. A couple articles with minor mentions have been surfaced, but nothing significant enough for a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bumper (Transformers) → Lists of Transformers characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The various Transformers articles are an impenetrable maze of nonsense, so I could be mistaken, but I think there's no coverage of this character. It gets a few brief mentions but there's nothing to point this redirect to. Xezbeth (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how redirecting any individual character names to Lists of Transformers characters, a list of lists, is even remotely useful (and incidentally there are an awful lot of redirects which may need further investigation). The most logical target is probably List of Autobots where this character could be listed, but currently isn't. Listed as a minor character at both Transformers: Exodus and List of Transformers: Animated characters, but I don't think this would be a useful redirect to either page. PC78 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a second look, retarget to Cliffjumper#Toys, the character is most notable for a mix up in the original 1980s toyline which is covered in that first bullet point titled "Generation 1 Mini-Car Cliffjumper (1984)". I would also retarget Bumblejumper and Bumblejumper (Transformers) there for the same reason. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I eventually found some coverage at Transformers: Generation 1. The article structure is very messy though, and the glut of redirects pointing to Lists of Transformers characters are a consequence of sloppy "merging" and redirecting by User:TTN. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With no one clear place to point this, let the search engine do its job. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, as BDD said. - Nabla (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (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. kingboyk (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stars(Mario) → Super Mario#Invincibility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB. Its properly spaced version, Stars (Mario), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, past precedent and WP:G6. PC78 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:R#KEEP#4 This page has existed since 2007. - Paul^T+/_C 00:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Length of existence is not an argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't be silly. Length of existence *is* an argument; quoted from above Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. - Paul^T+/_C 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  See the "in case" part. This doesn't apply to WP:RDAB stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You also missed the preceeding ...without good reason. No page gets a free pass just because it is of a certain age. PC78 (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)First of all, WP:RDAB doesn't apply because this isn't a disambiguation page. (I think you mean WP:UNNATURAL but in any case, neither reason is a guideline; please cite something from WP:R#DELETE that doesn't contradict WP:R#HARMFUL.) Second, the "in case" (and/or "good reason") part doesn't negate the "links that have existed for a significant length of time" part. Over 10 years is significant. And lastly, please mind WP:LISTGAP (both of you). - Paul^T+/_C 08:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) ...It's also a very hypothetical concern for a page that existed as an article for just a few weeks well over a decade ago. PC78 (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDAB covers errors in the act of disambiguating/disambiguated titles, not errors in disambiguation pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:27, 7 June 2019 (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 retarget to Contribution. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Contributions → Fundraising  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect does not really make sense to me. Why should its lemma only be referred to the target in question? Hildeoc (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: I don't necessarily disagree, but I assume you are not proposing that this become a redlink? What other targets should be included if this should be converted to a disambiguation page? VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Contribution and reword the link there to Fundraising. This is an important enough use to still include, but the status quo is SURPRISE-ing. As the self-referential hatnote there alludes to, we're making contributions now, and it's not a matter of fundraising! --BDD (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. This redirect's current target is completely illogical. Geolodus (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• International Journal of Humanities and Social Science → Beall's List  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned in Beall's List article, and not worth a separate article DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth noting that this and the Center for Promoting Ideas were both explicitly given as examples in some of the 2012 press coverage of the list. (Jump, Paul (2012-08-02). "Research Intelligence — 'Predators' Who Lurk in Plain Cite". Times Higher Education. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) Uncle G (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment further to Uncle G's comment above, Eldis have removed the IJHSS per this and it does appear on the new incarnation of Beall's List, which is supposedly an archive of the original - see here, unless the addition of an "s" to the word "science" is more than a typo. If I'm correct then the redirect seems valid to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not going to have tens of thousands of indiscriminate redirects to Beall's list simply because a predatory journal happens to be named on the list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The target article (appropriately) doesn't reproduce the list. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of redirecting a journal title there if it was important enough to be discussed there, and if there were not a more appropriate target. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2019 (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. kingboyk (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Boots" Sheck → List of supporting Arrow characters#"Boots" Sheck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The character of Sheck was never called on the show "Boots" Sheck. It seems "Boots" was just a reference name the character was called before he was fully introduced as only his boots were seen. There are no google search results which appear when you search for '"Boots" Sheck"'. Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Arrow Wiki, which tries to cover virtually all info as seen onscreen, does not mention him being called "Boots" onscreen, only as an offscreen nickname by the producers. Indeed, showrunner Wendy Mericle called him only "Boots". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Satsuki Sohma → List of Fruits Basket characters#Hiro Soma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Mesho-san → List of Fruits Basket characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Minor characters that aren't mentioned at the target article or anywhere else. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2019 (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. kingboyk (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uotani → List of Fruits Basket characters#Arisa Uotani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hanajima → List of Fruits Basket characters#Saki Hanajima  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are multiple real people with this surname mentioned in Wikipedia. I don't think there's enough substance for a surname article, so the reader is better served by a redlink. Also nominating another for the same reason, there's at least one person with this name mentioned in Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect actively prevents Search doing its job. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2019 (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. kingboyk (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Antennas → Antenna (radio)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An IP changed this to point to the disambiguation page, Antenna, which I reverted, but it is worth discussing. The premise of the current redirect is that there are two pluralizable forms on the disambiguation page, and the biological sense is properly pluralized as antennae (which redirects to the disambiguation page). However, I can see an argument for "antennas" being equally ambiguous. bd2412 T 04:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the disambig page. I agree with the IP.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 05:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the disambig page, per Esprit15d and the IP. Neither plural is exclusively used in one context, thus making the disambig page the most useful target. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's only one use on the disambiguation page that applies, and it's Antenna (radio). I'd change the hatnote at Antenna (radio) to {{Redirect|Antennas|other uses of "antenna"|Antenna (disambiguation)}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2019 (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. kingboyk (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad Force → Boardinghouse (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Excessively generic term, could plausibly refer to any evil force anywhere. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to IMDb, Bad Force was the title of this film in West Germany, so it's a plausible search term, and since it gets very few page views (just 4 last year!) it doesn't seem to be confusing many people. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that "bad force" (uncapitalised) makes a plausible search term for the broader concept of evil. There's also an argument for disambiguation, search results indicate that "Bad Force" is/was also the name of a group in Japanese wrestling. PC78 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PC78.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:40, 4 June 2019 (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.