(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

March 2

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2016.

Ms. Rodham

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 Rodham. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These could equally refer to other female Rodhams (Dorothy Howell Rodham exists, though a married name); bad titles per MOS:LASTNAME (see WP:NCP as well) anyhow, so they shouldn't be disambiguated (Rodham already exists). Implausible, as every notable person could potentially be referred to by these common titles (i.e. honorific prefixes).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not as if she were prominent before marriage; when in the public eye, her "Rodham" has always been followed by "Clinton". It would be a thoroughly bad idea to redirect Mr X, Miss X, etc. to all X lastname disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague given that there are other female Rodhams. I'm not sure if dab or set index is okay too due to the "Ms" term in the redirects --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 3 March 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.

Belbury

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. Deryck C. 23:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix WP:PTM that's masking other uses of the term, including "Belbury Castle." -- Tavix (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I considered whether the castle could be referred to as Belbury alone. Your average castle could certainly be referred to in this way, e.g., "Pontefract" for Pontefract Castle. But "Belbury Castle" may not have even been a castle, and it wouldn't've been called Belbury when it stood, certainly. So I'm skeptical. Do we know where the name came from, though? Is it a local place name? --BDD (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could be: "near Blackbury Castle and below Belbury, near Ottery St Mary"[1] is an example. I also found some mentions of another Belbury, in Dorset - "iron anchor and chain from the hill-fort of Belbury"[2] - which is now usually called Bulbury and is in Lytchett Minster and Upton. Bulbury is mentioned, but not described, in the Lytchett Minster article. Peter James (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have enough to make a stub? Even if it's just a sentence or two, places are presumed notable. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly holding up space that should describe the place. The fictional place seems too trivial, and the other uses look like partial-title matches. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 12 March 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.

Matrics

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) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This word has a bunch of uses unrelated to the target. (Neelix) Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to matrix, for which this is a plausible mistake. I'm not seeing it as a plausible typo for "metrics" (the keys are a decent distance away) or a plausible misspelling (the words sound quite different, after all), and having an "s" on the end means that it's not likely to be used as a way of getting to Mid-Atlantic TRCI. But you could easily think "matrix" is spelled thus, especially if you've heard it but not seen it written, in a situation comparable to the existing McJagger redirect. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about other editors' experiences, but my auto-correct function automatically changes "matrics" to "matrices." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to my research, this is a common term in South Africa ([3], [4], [5], etc.) and it's pointing at the right place. A correct redirect should always take precedent over misspelling and typo redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 20:10, 3 March 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.

Criteria and indicators

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 12#Criteria and indicators

Donald Drumpf

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 redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need to redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). "Donald Drumpf" was nonexistent before a few days ago, but the term now exists thanks to this show. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Upon looking at the redirect's history, this redirect was actually created in August 2015, meaning that the connection between Donald Trump and this term was known before the show made it more public. Seems to be the former surname of Donald Trump's family, so it makes sense that it redirects to where it currently targets. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As long as the article Donald J Drumpf exists, I no longer have an opinion, and am thus neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: As there are multiple options and no clear primary topic, I now say that Donald Drumpf should become a disambiguation page. I have no strong opinion on whether not Donald Trump should be included on it or not, but if I were to follow my initial rationale to "keep" the redirect as it, then it should be added, maybe as a "See also" entry so that the tie is not as strong to warrant a strong BLP violation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Donald Drumpf" refers to Donald Trump, not just an episode of Last Week Tonight. As Steel pointed out, his ancestral name has been known for a while now, so redirecting it would be misleading. I think the best solution would be to add the "Drumpf" name and episode link somewhere in his article so there's an easy connection between the name and the episode. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'm going to backtrack a bit. I tried to find a place to add that information to Trump's article, but couldn't find a good place. It seemed trivial in his campaign section, and his personal life section is dominated by his marriages and religion. On the other hand, The Last Week Tonight episode does do a good job of describing the name, so I'll stay neutral for now (ie: I don't care if it's kept or retargeted.) -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this validates keeping the redirect where it targets so that readers know what this term refers to. Just because a television show popularized the term doesn't mean that the term refers to the show. As we have all in one way or another already stated during the course of this discussion, the term refers to Donald Trump. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is far too early to suggest consensus has been reached in light of these [1][2] articles and the current postings shifting the answer toward KEEP. --Potguru (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is? You seemed pretty intent on writing the Donald J Drumpf article. epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Potguru: "It has a Wikipedia article, therefore it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article" is circular reasoning and most certainly isn't enough to shove an article past WP:GNG. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article has now been deleted. pbp 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114
  2. ^ http://www.bustle.com/articles/144811-john-oliver-takes-on-donald-drumpf-as-only-the-last-week-tonight-host-can-it
But with Donald J Drump redirecting to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), wouldn't be a two-entry DAB? pbp 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Atsme: Note that this is not a deletion discussion for the Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) article. This is a discussion about a redirect; and even if the information in the Last Week Tonight article is merged with Trump himself, shouldn't Drumpf redirect to the portion of the Trump article that discusses that? There really isn't any reason for the redirect to be deleted. Retargeted, maybe. pbp 22:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx, Purplebackpack89 - I changed it. Sorry, I guess the [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] in the header threw me off. Hopefully WP editors aren't planning to make every skit on late night talk shows into articles. WP would need a building the size of the cloud to hold it all. Atsme📞📧 01:00, 11 March 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.

D-AXAX

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) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"D-AXAX" is an Airbus test registration, which is not mentioned in the target article. From the Aircraft registration article: D-AUAA to D-AZZZ (test registrations) for aircraft manufactured by Airbus at Finkenwerder. I can't see how this would be useful. sst✈ 08:21, 2 March 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.

3D Internet

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) 20:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading. The concept of a 3D Internet goes far beyond MMORPGs. "3D Internet" isn't mentioned at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Accessing the internet in a 3D-based fashion is a broad topic. All this goes way beyond video games to include new types of web browsing, new ways to experience news reports, new ways to simulate visiting distant locations, and a wide variety of such things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who said that all MMORPGs have to be in 3D? That, and there are more things on the Internet that can be in 3D other than MMORPGs. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Tavix: Seems that this page was once an article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If I were to think of a "3D Internet", something like WebGL or the (thankfully) almost forgotten VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language) would be better targets than MMORPGs. But neither WebGL nor VRML are really "3D Internet"—they are web technologies for displaying 3D content (one current, one thankfully abandoned). The Internet is, as the Senator famously said, a series of tubes. The protocols that run on it may contain 3D content. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a 3D Internet as opposed to a 2D Internet. It is just a way of getting TCP/IP packets around. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 3D printing comes to mind for me, though that wouldn't be a good target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:06, 11 March 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.

Demi Lovatoes

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. You say lovato, I say lovato. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. It makes no sense to pluralize "Demi Lovato" as there is only one of her. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 2 March 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.

Newsroom (Indian TV series)

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) 20:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page was moved to Reporters (Indian TV series), which was then redirected to Sony Entertainment Television (India) and later turned back into an article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this should be deleted. The show was never actually known as The Newsroom (or at least I can't find a source that says that), it was simply at one point referred to as an untitled newsroom comedy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)
I didn't meant to say that the series was earlier known as Newsroom. I meant to say that the series was a newsroom drama. I earlier knew that the series was untitled. So I created the article with the title Newsroom, since it was a newsroom drama. When the title of the series was final as Reporters, then I moved the Newsroom article to Reporters. Now I don't know why the bot redirected Newsroom to Sony Entertainment Television (India). Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:30, 3 March 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_March_2&oldid=1146034551"