Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 2

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) 02:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sad indian → Iron Eyes Cody  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target. Cody played a character usually referred to as the "Crying Indian"; "Sad Indian" is much less frequently used and could refer to any unhappy Indian or Native American person. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Sad Indian" is too vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Indian character was recognized for shedding a tear. "Sad" isn't evocative enough of the state of his iconic image, and even seems a touch sarcastic. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. Sadness doesn't mean crying --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems like a plausible variant of "Crying Indian" a reader could search for. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2018 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Skrjabincoelum → Cyclocoelinae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Neoallopyge → Cyclocoelinae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Neohyptiasmus → Cyclocoelinae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspellings of the genera Skrjabinocoelum Kurashvili, 1953, Allopyge Johnston, 1913, and Hyptiasmus Kossack, 1911, per Dronen & Blend (2015). They should be deleted. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed 21:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete all Skrjabincoelum is misspelled. Neoallopyge is correctly spelled, but is treated as a synonym of Allopyge, which exists as a redirect to the family Cyclocoelidae. I'm strongly opposed to creating redirects for genera that point to families; there should be either articles or redlinks for every genus. It makes a mess of things when there is also a syonym (e.g. Neoallopyge), and no genus article to point it to. Neohyptiasmus also is correctly spelled, but is apparently a synonym of Hyptiasmus which is another genus redirect to family. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per User:Plantdrew --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 4 January 2018 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Power adults → Hero  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "power adults" is not mentioned at Hero, and there is no plausible reason this could be considered a synonym of "hero" or search term for someone looking for the hero article. Peacock (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague term that doesn't appear to mean anything. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. There's no point in keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Macho Man Tom Savage → Tom Savage (American football)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "Macho Man" is not mentioned in the target article, so the reference in the redirect is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable nickname used by some commentators (see here for an example) that's not really appropriate here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2018 (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. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "across the world" → Around the World  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

At Category:Redirects from incorrect names there are about 125 redirects that are fully enclosed in quotation marks. They uniformly seem like implausible search terms, and in my opinion should all be deleted. I don't want to start a WP:TRAINWRECK over nothing, so I thought before I do anything else, I'd test the waters and nominate the first one alphabetically.

In addition to !votes on the fate of this redirect, I'd also appreciate hearing, from anyone who agrees that the whole lot of these should be deleted, how they think this should be accomplished without causing said trainwreck. My current thinking is to nominate them in batches of ~30, each one staggered by a week. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at this article now, I declare that I should not have created it. Not with that exact title, and not at all. With surrounding quote-marks in its name, this article is unlikely to be reached (and its existence degrades a possible search). If the surrounding quote-marks could be removed (correcting a clear mistake), this article would be more likely to be reached, but I don't see any value in it, so I'm not asking for it to be moved (renamed). The idiom variant(s) might be a contribution over at Wiktionary, but they seem unimportant enough that I am not greatly inspired to try to roll them in there.

What was my intent? That was my only edit that day, so the only context is my annoyed edit summary. The phrase "across the world" means the same as "around the world" or "all over the world" (though "across the world" sounds painfully wrong to me).

How did I create an article with surrounding quote-marks in its name? I must have included surrounding quote-marks by accident, by copying and pasting them along with the text, and then forgetting to delete them. Or maybe worse: Currently it is not easy to create an article with quote-marks surrounding the title. Search Wikipedia does not offer to create such articles. I can create one by hand-editing an "action=edit" URL.

Fair warning: I once tried to delete a useless, pointless, negative-value redirector that was carelessly created and then (unfortunately) replaced with a redirect instead of speedily deleted. In 2008, a completely worthless redirect was the surest survivor of a speedy delete request (on a technicality) and an RFD (on one defender who led with "I know nothing of this subject..."). See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 26, last section (Tertiary structure protein → Tertiary structure) and Tertiary structure protein: Revision history (only 7 edits). - A876 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. These are unlikely to be linked from articles, and interfere with how the search engine normally functions (when you search for "quoted phrase", it either takes you to the exact match for quoted phrases without the quotes, or if that doesn't exist then it gives you search results for "quoted phrase"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Discussion of handling "the whole lot of these".) (Discussing here, where you requested it.)

Consider grouping those 125 redirectors with quotes by their "type". Redirects of the same "type" can be handled together with greater confidence.

These first two common "types" can be handled by cold deletion, because there are no differences to reconcile, no information is lost, and no [final] result changes:

1) The redirector with quotes is identical to another redirector without quotes. Example: "rock pool jam" is a redirector to Sea anemone. But Rock pool jam is a redirector to the same article.

2) The redirector with quotes accomplishes the same as go-to (filling the "Search Wikpedia" box on every page) without quotes. Example: "toledo jazz orchestra" redirects to Toledo Jazz Orchestra. Go-to toledo jazz orchestra reaches the same article even though there is no redirector toledo jazz orchestra. Also, if "toledo jazz orchestra" is deleted, go-to "toledo jazz orchestra" (with quotes) will reach Toledo Jazz Orchestra just as well (actually better because it will do so without traversing a redirect page).

The remaining redirect pages can be handled in groups if other "types" are identified. Ultimately, unique redirect pages must be handled individually. - A876 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2018 (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.