This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2018.
Ace Ventura Jr. The Ballad of the son of Jim Carrey[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.
No evidence the film is known by this title Nohomersryan (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an exact phrase, "The Ballad of the son of Jim Carrey" gets exactly two google hits - this redirect and a site that scrapes Wikipedia content. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fake. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2018 (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. While the numbers bear this out, I think Tavix and Xezbeth have the strongest, albeit briefest, arguments. Interesting or desired though this may be, it is, essentially, a wikiproject page being targeted by mainspace. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 19:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being a rather implausible search term, this is a redirect from mainspace to a topic that has no relevance outside of WP:WPDAB. --Tavix(talk) 22:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a redirect from a move per the consensus of a 2005 AfD. It has no incoming links in article space, and normally I'd say that was the end of it. However, it's received 74 views so far this year, which is a very significant number for what seems like a very unlikely search term (none of the redirects I recently nominated with bracketing errors had more than 9 hits this year, several were as low as 2) so these hits have to be coming from somewhere. The views correlate very poorly with those of List of TLAs and List of three letter acronyms so it seems very unlikely it is people searching for that list, and even more poorly with List of TLDs. There aren't any other pages starting "List of TL" so in the absence of evidence to the contrary I've got to conclude that it is the target page that people are looking for, and thus the redirect is serving its purpose. If people are following links here, then it is most likely they will not be taken straight to the search page if this is deleted, but invited to create an article and/or invited to search (which depends on many factors). When they do get to the search engine though the results do not include the target page so they will not easily find what they are looking for, hence the weak keep. And to pre-emptively reply to those who will almost certainly come along to claim that the evidence of between 1 and 74 human beings using this redirect between 1 and 74 times each so far this year is not actually evidence of use - don't bother unless you can provide actual evidence to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such thing as a "TLA-Dab" so it has no business being in the main namespace. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other than to the readers actually using this redirect you mean. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as helpful redirect that's being used. Raymond1922 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful to readers. feminist (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC) changed to keep[reply]
Despite there being evidence of readers actually using this? What a bizarre claim. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think this project page would not be what readers are expecting. feminist (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What other things is it plausible they are looking for? Nothing has been suggested so far. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate cross name space redirect. The noted traffic could just be bots. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The traffic stats (linked above) show human, bot and spider traffic separately. The quoted figures are for human users only. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the result of an AfD discussion. feminist (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual reasons to avoid cross-namespace redirects apply. While there's clearly evidence that this is used, that's not the same as evidence that it's helpful or useful to anybody, or that it's taking readers to what they're looking for. This is conjecture, but it seems quite likely that the hits are from readers who enter "list of TLAs" (or any number of similar phrases) in the search box and see this in the drop-down menu. If such a reader then clicks it they're expecting, not unreasonably, to be taken to an encyclopaedia article, not a project-space page that I presume would be quite mysterious to the average reader. If people who search for this are finding what they're looking for, then they're presumably active editors, who we can afford to inconvenience in the interests of readers who might end up at an unexpected location if this is kept. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arms & Hearts. The target is an element of out backroom machinery that we keep outside of the view of readers, and the term "dab" is meaningless outside of the community of editors. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2018 (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.
Retarget to King Hiss and make King Hiss the primary name of the article. Not clear there are other King Hiss characters besides the one in MOTU. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and rename. No need to have a discussion on this as anyone can do it. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. As the third sentence of WP:RFD says: "If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!" – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2018 (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.
There is no National Library of Northern Ireland. The National Library of Ireland does exist but covers the Republic of Ireland. This is misleading in the 'National libraries of Europe' template Addedentry (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There exists NIPR, The National Collection of Northern Ireland Publications, which essentially functions as a National Library (but with voluntary rather than legal deposit) housed at the Linen Hall Library, but there is no mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia. When I'm more awake I plan to remedy that - probably with a section at the Linen Hall Library article - if I can find some secondary sources (I haven't looked yet). If this does get added (by me or anyone else), the redirect should be targetted there but if it isn't then it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent suggestion. I've added a paragraph in the Linen Hall Library article. This seems a sensible replacement. Addedentry (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading. What do you mean by the 'National libraries of Europe' template? On the bottom of National Library of Ireland all I can see is an instance of{{Europe topic|prefix=National Library of|title=National libraries of Europe}}, which will not create any link to a Northern Ireland item, rightfully so, as it produces a link to ... of the United Kingdom and does not care about the subnational level. Place Clichy (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the template I had in mind. There is an option to include the subnational units of the UK, which is appropriate in this case as there are National Libraries in Scotland and Wales. (I've added these in their respective articles, although a failure of this template is that it doesn't propagate to other entries in the template!) Addedentry (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to prevent confusion that one institution may be considered the "National Library of Northern Ireland". Per this source: Northern Ireland has no national library and no single institution is charged with collecting all material published there. Furthermore, the source goes on to say that the respository associated with NIPR is split between the Linen Hall Library, Belfast and Belfast Central Library, creating an WP:XY situation between Linen Hall Library and Belfast Central Library. --Tavix(talk) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: while no single organisation is charged with collecting all the material published in Northern Ireland, and therefore there is no de jure national library, there is precisely one organisation that is a de facto national library. While there is a theoretical XY situation, in practice the Linen Hall Library article is the one with the content about the NIPR and so your objections don't actually stand up to scrutiny. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no National Library of Northern Library, so there should not be a redirect saying otherwise. Also, I cited a source and quoted that the collection is split between two libraries, I can't get any clearer than that. On the other hand, you replied with an unverified claim. --Tavix(talk) 14:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I presented a source for the NIPR being a de-facto national library in my first comment to this discussion (it turns out that assuming you have read a discussion you contribute to was giving you too much credit), the content at the poroposed target explains this so there will not be any confusion (indeed readers will be educated). I explained in my previous comment that although the collection is split between two institutions, the information on Wikipedia is not so your XY concerns do not apply. I understood you perfectly, I just disagree with your conclusions for the reasons I explicitly gave in my comment. You might wish to try reading them before responding further. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC) ps. "The Linen Hall Library, Belfast is our lead partner, providing assistance with collecting and preserving the collection, and a dedicated repository has been set up within the Linen Hall Library to house the collection." [1], so the primary information about the NIPR (full title "NIPR, The National Collection of Northern Ireland Publications") should be at the Linen Hall Library article until it gets its own. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above, you presented a source that says things like Northern Ireland has no National Library and Belfast Central Library and the Linen Hall Library, Belfast have been very helpful supporters of NIPR since its inception, which back my arguments. I have resolved your WP:XY objection by adding a blurb to Belfast Central Library. Thryduulf calling something a de facto National Library does not make it so—reliable sources do that and I still have not seen a reliable source calling any library, collection, or organization a "National Library of Northern Ireland" (by the way, that phrase only gives me three Google hits, one of which is this redirect.) --Tavix(talk) 00:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoLinen Hall Library#Holdings. That section is quite clear that "there is no national library for Northern Ireland", so the risk of causing confusion is fairly minimal. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoLinen Hall Library#Holdings. Although Tavix has a point, I don't think that XY applies here since the available sources seem to indicate that the Linen Hall Library is the primary location of the NIPR where the collection is stored and publicly accessed and the Belfast Central Library is secondary. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:07, 14 October 2018 (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. Deryck C. 16:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there IS evidence of existence, that is until you removed it. Hayman30 (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content I removed consisted of a source to livetracklist.com, a user-generated site. That is not evidence. Flooded with them hundreds 11:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. There is plenty of evidence on the internet that these songs exist, but whether to include them in the article is the subject of an editing dispute. We should leave the redirects in place until that discussion comes to a consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This comment applies to all the other redirects related to Alan Walker songs nominated today as well. RfD is not a dispute resolution venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf There is no discussion taking place regarding whether these song titles exist or not. It's common for fans to give a random name to unreleased songs but it is WP:OR at best and shouldn't exist as a redirect because it might mislead readers into thinking they're recognized by Wikipedia, thus lowering the site's credibility. RfD may not be a dispute resolution venue, but it is a place to discuss redirects. Flooded with them hundreds 13:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion about whether the songs should be listed or not - you need to discuss that on the article talk page (and it seems that your statement that these are fan remixes is what is being disputed). If the songs appear on the page the redirects should be kept, if they don't they should be deleted, but until the editing dispute is resolved one way or the other it is premature to discuss the redirects. It looks like discussion has started (after more reverts than was necessary) but is not complete yet - that is not surprising given the timescale involved. You need to approach that discussion with good faith and with patience. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor (creator of these redirects) isn't disputing the fact these titles are fan-made and the current discussion on Talk:Alan Walker discography I'm having with them is about a topic unrelated to this. Flooded with them hundreds 14:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you need to start the discussion about the inclusion of these songs. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what reason? No one is arguing to keep them in the article. Flooded with them hundreds 15:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Let's make redirect pages for every song ever written, just in the off-chance someone wants to type it into a Wikipedia search box. What, you say? That's not the purpose of Wikipedia? Then delete these. Senator2029“Talk” 10:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one redirect is kept does not mean that every possible similar redirect should be created. Not deleting something and encouraging the creation of something are very different. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since they are currently unmentioned at the target. Should that situation change for any reason, these redirects can always be restored or recreated. --Tavix(talk) 20:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since the target article is still in a state of flux and the discussion seems to hinge on the editorial decision of whether to include these songs in the target article (or anywhere on this Wikipedia, for that matter), I think we can wait another week or two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects for terms that aren't mentioned in the target are seldom useful, and there doesn't seem to be an ongoing content dispute: as far as I can see these songs haven't been mentioned in the target since they were removed on 22 September. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2018 (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. Breif section created at Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Former_levels, please improve it if you can. Don't see a real consensus below to do anything other than keep all of these; individual ones can of course be discussed if better targets are desired. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No longer useful/correct redirects to anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many old discussions (such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Course Online Volunteer flag removal request) would get broken if we delete all of these? It seems like WP:RFD#KEEP #4 applies, but none of the typical deletion reasons would. What exactly is the expected benefit from deleting them? (Sure, if you read old discussions, you'd click that and end up at a page that doesn't currently mention this particular user right. But you'd probably still figure out that it was some kind of user right, and you'd know which page's history to look through to find out more. We could even add a list of ==Obsolete user rights== or something, if it really bothered someone that these redirects aren't mentioned in the current revision of that page.) So far, I'm leaning towards keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WhatamIdoing. This will break far too many old discussions for deletion to be a net benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you meant to say "no relevant links in the current versions of pages on this wiki". Removing them would still break links in old revisions and incoming links from other websites, which might not have realized that these user rights were removed from that page two weeks ago. "Wikipedia:Education Program staff" has been getting one or two page views per day for months, and since there are no links to that page on the English Wikipedia, they must be coming from somewhere else (i.e., somewhere that is invisible to Special:WhatLinksHere). Is there any benefit at all to deleting these? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new section for deprecated user rights per Tavix. SemiHypercube✎ 00:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep and then explain about then in a section at the target page. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Create new page about deprecated user rights and point these titles there. Alternatively we can expand Wikipedia:Course pages to refer to the user rights that used to exist. Deryck C. 17:17, 15 October 2018 (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. We seem to be heading towards a consensus that this particular redirect isn't very useful because none of the Mariams are known mononymously. Editors are encouraged to expand the list of people on Mariam (disambiguation). Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion. The page Mariam Baharum was originally moved without explanation to the redirect page, and I moved it back because it doesn't make sense to make the title less WP:PRECISE and then adding qualifiers to it. The redirect may cause confusion and does not appear to be useful and hence should be deleted. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There doesn't seem to be any Mariam disambiguation pages at the moment, but there is a redirect from Mariam → Maryam (name). I suppose if the redirect in question were to be disambiguated then "Mariam" would redirect there? -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A case could be made for either the name article or a dab to be primary, or for the list of names at Maryam to be expanded, but if the dab was primary it would be at Mariam with Mariam (disambiguation) redirecting there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense, thanks! -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a disambiguation page at Mariam (disambiguation), although it's not a very good disambiguation page currently. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Thryduulf: RetargettoMariam (disambiguation) and disambiguate with the entries listed by Thryduulf there. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 11:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think we could use some clarity on which Mariam actresses are referred to mononymously, and whether such people (regardless of mononymy or not) should be listed at Mariam (disambiguation) or elsewhere, such as Maryam (name).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absense of any actresses named Mariam being known mononymously. --Tavix(talk) 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redirect could cause confusion: there is no actress listed in enwiki that states she is known solely as Mariam. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that either the current target or any other actress is known simply as Mariam. Mariam (disambiguation) doesn't list any actresses so isn't really any use as a target. Maryam (name) treats "Maryam" and "Mariam" as different spellings of the same name, but the list of people with the name only includes the former spelling. Even if the list in that article were expanded to include relevant people (which I think would be a better option than expanding the disambiguation page), it would probably be confusing to send a reader who searches for this to an article about a name. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2018 (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 Wrong venue. Per the header: If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2018 (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.
