Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 23

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2019.

Bumper (Transformers)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 3#Bumper (Transformers)

Urdu languages

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 4#Urdu languages

CLOSE TO THE SUN

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS; renominating after this page was retargeted as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Close to the Sun. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like Close to the Sun (video game) is often shown in marketing materials with the all caps name. In fact, that article originally started at the caps title and is why the page with caps exists. I don't know if this is enough to keep the redirect or not (and why this is not a !vote), but it is important context. - PaulT+/C 20:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not normally create such all caps redirects based solely on marketing materials; thus there is no ALIENS or THE INCREDIBLES even though the titles are all caps on the movie's poster. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 29 May 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.

Miss Universo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Miss Universo

Targeting the Main 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. all, except Portal:Mainspace. For Portal:Mainspace, the result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These are completely unnecessary unlikely typos/punctuations, plus a cross-namespace redirect, and are particulary undesireable because they generate WP:SURPRISE when the Main Page is reached and the "Redirected from" that normally appears at the top is surpressed (which also makes it impossible to reach these pages via normal navigation, as is needed for maintenance/etc.). Note: two of the pages were protected, so I have requested an admin add the RfD notice to them.UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment whether they are useful typos or not, nobody is going to be surprised to end up at the main page (or in many, possibly most, cases even be aware they made a typo). WP:SURPRISE applies only when someone ends up at a target different to the page they were looking for, but in this case it's very clear that the main page is what they are looking for and that is where they arrive. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MAIN PAGE! per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#MAIN PAGE! - this is harmless and unambiguous. No opinion on the rest yet. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all the other mainspace pages per Iridescent below. Still thinking about the Portal one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Portal:Mainspace. I'm not concerned about the cross-namespace nature of this as Portal → Main redirects are not inherently problematic and the Main Page is a portal. It's a recent creation which means we have almost no typical page view data to guide us: almost every redirect gets a buzz of hits in the first few days (I've always assumed that's from new page patrollers) and every redirect gets lots of hits while listed at RfD, on this case that amounts to only about 2 weeks of useable data which isn't really meaningful in almost all cases (2-3 months is the ideal minimum). With all those caveats though this hasn't gained immediate use - it would be a clear keep (at least in the short term) but even with the current scrutiny of the portal namespace it hasn't shone. While the Main Page is a portal of content from the main namespace (not exclusively, eg. featured pictures), the "mainspace" name is jargon making it only useful for those with at least some experience of behind the scenes editing, and it's not clear to me that everyone of them would expect to be taken to the main page when searching on this title (if they thought to do so) or following a link to it - Portal:Main page (which redirects to the Main Page) is much more intuitive. All this leaves me at "it's nearly but not completely harmless, and while it's not useless it's not very useful either" so on balance it's a very weak negative. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. MAIN PAGE! has already been discussed; the others are all eminently plausible candidates for accidental linking, and none of them have any potential to cause confusion or disrupt search results. If you genuinely feel surprised that Main Page. takes you to Main Page, the problem is with you not with us. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The surprise it not that you got there, it is how you got there, since the explanation is missing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the exception of the Portal: redirect (which would probably benefit from being discussed separately) very nearly everybody using these is going to doing so after having made typo. They wont care how or why they got from MAin page to Main Page - many of them wont even realise they typoed so wont be surprised at anything. The only people who care about how they got to a particular page are either (a) also surprised at the target, or (b) experienced users who are familiar with redirects and will be curious but not surprised. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "MAin Page" and "Main PAge" as reasonably-likely typos. Weak keep on "Main Pag". Delete the rest as implausible. We shouldn't be trying to build a directory of redirects from every conceivable typo. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All except for Delete Portal:Mainspace as Portal:Mainspace is a cross namespace redirect Abote2 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MAin Page and Main PAge as reasonable typos. Delete all others. Now that this is mentioned, I'm also going to say delete to the other Main Page redirects I've made, being Portal:Article Space and Portal:Articles. Especially Portal:Articles, which could also redirect to numerous other things, such as Portal:Journalism. Also, as a note, I was invited here by Thryduulf. I'm unsure if this could be considered canvassing or not, but I doubt it. InvalidOS (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @InvalidOS: will you please CSD G7 the cross-namespace redirects you created and that you now feel should be deleted, to save us having to discuss them? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) To clarify, I invited you as the creator of one of the redirects - all the other creators and significant contributors have not edited in years (in one case since 2004). Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Portal:" redirects, as the main page is literally a Portal. (and it *should* be in portalspace, since Main Page is not an article, and is not about the topic of "mainpages") It is also in Portalspace in other language Wikipedias, so would facility cross-language travel. And create more redirects in Portalspace for various spellings. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 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.

Roumanie

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. ~ Amory (utc) 00:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED: no particular connection between French (and the other languages that use this) and Romania. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Romania is a member of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I started this redirect because French had been a major foreign language in Romania... https://mpnewyork.mae.ro/en/node/1180 WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although we wouldn't generally keep redirects from foreign languages, I think this redirect has value because of the country's identification as Francophone. Particularly since we have so many other links to slightly similar names such as Ruman, Romany, Roman, etc., which could be confusing to someone who is trying to find the country Rumania. BTW we have a redirect from Roumania already; no reason not to keep Roumanie. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there clearly is a connection. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:00, 31 May 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.

Princess Silver

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 Princess Silver (TV series) to Princess Silver. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While "Silver princess" appears to be the common name of this plant, "Princess silver" is not, and further appears to be the name of a Chinese TV show. I would recommend deletion, unless a stub can be created for the TV show or another subject of the same name. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 23 May 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.

Pretender Jr

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. ~ Amory (utc) 00:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to, but it's not mentioned in any Wikipedia article. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:10, 23 May 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.

Badnam Song

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) 19:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 16#Badnam Song came to a conclusion "List at RFD", albeit with IMO a close margin. I have no opinion myself on whether this redirect should stay or go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, at first glance it looks like somebody's name. It is not remotely useful as a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly plausible search term that is not ambiguous with anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badnam (song) was created by accident at this title, and moved to the correct title 17 minutes later, leaving behind this worthless redirect. It's worthless because all the search engines (including our own), already handle this correctly and automatically. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am the one who moved the page from Badnam Song to Badnam (song). Meatsgains(talk) 01:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a perfectly usable search functionality for people who enter variants of disambiguators into the search box, there's no reason to keep tons of redirects from entries which clearly don't meet our WP:AT policy or the WP:MOS and would never be a plausible location for the article itself. This redirect was created in error when pages were moved, and the mistake was quickly rectified, so we should put it out of its misery and stop wasting time over this.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those are reasons to delete a redirect: The article titling policy isn't relevant to redirects (we have hundreds of thousands of redirects from titles that will never be a plausible location for an article - not that an article at this title is implausible), redirects from moves are generally kept and so keeping the redirect was very much not an error (nor is there any evidence that the original creator intended to create this at any other location, meaning it isn't any sort of error), and the search engine is only one of many ways people find Wikipedia content. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely implausible redirect that would have been fine to speedy delete. We do not create redirects based on the word "song," and IMO it would be terrible precedent to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 29 May 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.

Radio Shanghai

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 4#Radio Shanghai

Giant chicken

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Giant chicken

Family Guy character redirects

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 soft delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters that are not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. Rufus Griffin is mentioned at Family Guy Video Game! and Jabba the Griffin is mentioned at Princess Leia's bikini but neither justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:24, 23 May 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.

Coco the dog

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. Unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has a single mention at the target article, but there is at least one other fictional dog mentioned in Wikipedia with this name (Bad Education (TV series)) and at least one real dog with this name (Willem van Genk). None of them are notable enough to be listed on Coco, so this redirect should be deleted. Xezbeth (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note There is also a dog that is featured prominently in the film Coco (2017 film) (i.e. "the dog from Coco"). Coco is the name of the main character in the film. His dog's name is Dante and presumably could be referred to as "Coco's dog". - PaulT+/C 21:17, 26 May 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.

Template:Engrish

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 3#Template:Engrish

Palestinian terrrorism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Palestinian terrrorism