Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 7

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) 21:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important Graphing Equations → Graph of a function  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per WP:RNEUTRAL "Important" is not a problem here if there is a list of graphing equations at the target, but I do not understand the subject matter anywhere near enough to state whether the information someone is looking for is found at the target or not. However Graphing equation and Graphing equations are both red. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It does seem to have some very basic graphic equations; presumably those are important in the field. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No more affinity for "important" than any other similar adjectives, for example, "significant" (e.g. Significant Graphing Equations). I considered changing this to weak since it has been around since 2004 and has minimal history (i.e. a stub article with a similar topic to graph of a function which was almost immediately redirected there), but the capitalization is odd, Important graphing equations would seemingly be the proper titlecase. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This redirect title shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the phrase. "To graph an equation" means to draw a visual, pictorial representation of an equation. "Graphing equation" is a participle where "equation" is the object. "Important graphing equations" implies that "the equations are graphing something else" (because "important" is an adjective), which is wrong. Deryck C. 13:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Deryck C. 12:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear dead people → Miles Straume  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect seems inappropriate. Phrase does not appear anywhere in the article, and I don't see users typing in this phrase to find the redirected article. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This makes me think of it being an incorrect version of a quote used in The Sixth Sense. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article says Miles "can hear the thoughts from before their death of those who are dead". There may be a valid reason for this redirect known to Lost (TV series) experts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean delete. Google search finds a Lost episode description and a song loosely based on The Sixth Sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted above it seems to feature around a song, Not entirely sure but either way I doubt anyone would search this non-notable term. –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I found the score track named "I Hear Dead People" at Lost Original Television Soundtracks#Season 5. --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 procedural close, redirect doesn't exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Transgender pornography → Transsexual pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe Transgender pornography should be merged into Transsexual pornography as its about the same subject. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 replace the first with an essay, retarget the second there. Thanks to Deryck Chan for doing the legwork there. While some editors were not bothered by the CNRs, no one explicitly opposed this option, and it's hard for me not to see it as a net gain. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Godwin's law → Godwin's law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:GODWIN → Godwin's law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XNR redirects, but per their edit histories, they weren't created in error. Either way, the fact that these redirects are in the "Wikipedia:" namespace could be seen as misleading for anyone looking up these terms expecting to be led to a page in the project ("Wikipedia:") namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional nominator comment: Just a thought, though I support deletion of these redirects per my rationale, I would also support "overwrite Wikipedia:Godwin's law with an essay and retarget Wikipedia:GODWIN there", if anyone can confidentially create an essay at that title. At the present time, I'm not sure where to start with that. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I'm confused, why would confidentiality matter here? Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I have no idea. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Oh, I meant to say "confidently". Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, that makes more sense! Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really don't see a problem with this redirect. XNRs are a real problem when they go from mainspace elsewhere; but if "misleading because people expect a WP namespace page" is the worst that we can come up with, I think it's fine to leave it be, especially when it does make sense as a target. Vanamonde (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a real problem with the redirects going to mainspace. (Except for the sad fact that, as many people have said since late last year, "Godwin's law is now redundant.") Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a softredirect and add note pointing to User:MGodwin. People may well search project space looking for Mike. The is no CNR problem here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943: ...if anyone can confidently create an essay at that title. I won't be able to get to it this weekend, but I don't mind taking a crack at it. I can see how Godwin's law could relate to WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no salt. Feel free to recreate with content that is Wikipedia/community specific. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I share the sentiment of Vanamonde and Softlavender to a certain extent. Godwin's law pertains to online discussions, of which we have many here. However, that being said, one could just as easily link Godwin's law; these are not particularly useful and may mislead those clicking the link to believe we have an essay on the topic. I suppose I'm not really opposed to any of the outcomes suggested above. I look forward to reading an essay on the topic should one be written. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Create project page. I've drafted an essay at Wikipedia:Godwin's law. Deryck C. 12:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. There have been several banks with this name, some of which have merged with other banks. The one active link for this is for the bank in Oklahoma City, which is still an independent bank. wbm1058 (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First Liberty Bank → Bank One Corporation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unable to locate any relationship between First Liberty Bank and Bank One Corporation. Unless a better target can be found, suggest delete. This what the Feds has to say about First Liberty Bank:

• https://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/InstitutionHistory.aspx?parID_RSSD=898850&parDT_END=99991231 50.195.200.161 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AFAICT they are separate institutions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no content at the target article on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actively unhelpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Brian Kendig (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moana Waialiki → Moana (2016 film)#Cast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No sources provide a last name for this film character. "Waialiki" appears to be made up. Brian Kendig (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For redirect purposes, sources are immaterial - what matters is that this is a likely search term for this fictional character. If one googles "Moana Waialiki", one sees that this name is very frequently used for this character, whatever the name's provenance may be.  Sandstein  08:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sandstein. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be her actual name in promotional materials but the surname was not added to the movie itself. I was able to trace the mention of the surname at the D23 Expo last August 2015 --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 disambiguate. Consensus was that the special page is the dominant usage, so I did something in the spirit of MOS:DABPRIMARY to reflect that. Thryduulf's point that the special page remains a click a way compared to the status quo ante is well taken. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NP → Special:Newpages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The page should be disambiguated. One talk page pipes the redirect page with "notable", meaning probably WP:notability or WP:notability (people). Another refers to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Another refers to WP:NOTPAPER. Another pipes the redirect to refer to WP:NPOV. What about the pages that link to the redirect if "disambiguated"? Shall the mis-linking be cleaned up? George Ho (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• disambig. The most common meaning of this is clearly Special:New pages and I would recommending keeping it if it were a hard redirect. However it is a soft redirect (as redirects to the Special: namespace can only be) disambiguating it will not be harmful as long as the primary meaning is made clear. I very strongly recommend not editing old comments and archives, even if they have become ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found some pages referring to Wikipedia:New pages patrol, WP:New Page Curation, and WP:No personal attacks. One says "WP:NC" referring to WP:AT but was confused with "WP:NP". George Ho (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any action. After investigation, I see this has gone to New Pages for its entire life, and there are a handful of random one-off mistakes. There is no meaningful usage with any intent other than New Pages. If we convert this into a DAB it will just encourage confusion in intent when people see a WP:NP link. If we leave it as-is, and someone does type WP:NP with some other random intent, at least the reader can figure out that it was a mistake. Alsee (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: One AFD and another AFD used "WP:NP" this year in reference to "notability (policy)" or "notability (people)". I don't think readers are aware that WP:NP retargets to "New pages". George Ho (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, understood. The question is: Are we better off with a WP:NP that means something, with a few people blindly typing it in error, or a WP:NP that means anything and everything? If it's a DAB then no one should ever type it because no one will know what was meant. If no one knows what WP:NP means, we'd be better off deleting it to a redlink and creating a longer/clearer shortcut for New Pages. Alsee (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is a disambig that makes it clear that most uses mean Special:Newpages but other uses exist. If the current target were an ordinary page then I'd be arguing to keep it and just add a hatnote (c.f. WP:ER) but as that is not possible and hard redirects to special pages are not possible I think a dab with a clearly noted primary topic is best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per nom. Agree with @Thryduulf: re: Special New Pages. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Deryck C. 12:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Laura Brehm → NoCopyrightSounds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No obvious connection to target. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the target to Monstercat where the person is an artist for the label. - TheMagnificentist 14:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not mentioned in the target.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned but it isn't visible to regular 'find' because it's hidden in some templates. You can find it in the source code. - TheMagnificentist 15:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's listed in the 2016 roster. But that list is a roster that has WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ALUMNI issues. Also according to the Monstercat agreement, artists sign on a per-song basis and can change labels. That she isn't discussed among the regular Monstercat artists in the biography section also shows lack of notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but redirects are cheap! - TheMagnificentist 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON and not part of an expected list of artists for each label. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Angus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.