Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 26

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

April 26

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 26, 2019.

Grand Siècle

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 procedural close - no longer a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, neither a good nor appropriate redirect. The redirect term does not even occur once (except for the title of a reference work), and is neither identical or synonymous with nor to be simply reduced exclusively to the target. The latter is a biography, while the redirect lemma denotes a period in cultural history. Hildeoc (talk) 22:35, 26 April 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.

Isaengmang

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 speedy keep. Sources found, withdrawing. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Bahasa Indonesia but can't find any language in which this word corresponds to the subject. It also means "anyone" in Filipino, but that seems neither here nor there. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had found nothing on DuckDuckGo, but yeah that seems good enough. I'll go ahead and speedy close this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 26 April 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.

Padsan River

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 speedy Redirect converted to article. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, the Padsan River appears to exist outside Sarrat as well, and thus it likely meets WP:GEOLAND signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koakaulana: if there had previously been an article for Padsan River, which was then converted to a redirect and then deleted, we would lose the edit history from the original article. However, if it's only been a redirect, we don't really lose anything. Although if you are actively planning on creating an article, then it's not terribly important for us to delete the redirect since the issue will soon be addressed anyway. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Well, I've gone and done it. The article is a stub but I added seven references which I think others might be able to use to expand it into a better article. - Koakaulana (talk) 08:35, 29 April 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.

Horton Hoedown

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 4#Horton Hoedown

Sunny Cove

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 4#Sunny Cove

Alternative Right

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 Alt-right. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While this is the name of a web publication Spencer founded, I think it's much more likely someone searching for this term is looking for the Alt-right in general. AlternativeRight.com is still a suitable redirect for Spencer; I'm undecided on AlternativeRight, but leaning towards saying it should follow this one. BDD (talk) 19:35, 26 April 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.

Criminal court

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing redirect, and I can't imagine why it points here.
Proposal: Disambiguate or Retarget to Criminal law. My preference is the former since we don't have an article on this subject (provides the most context/info). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:33, 26 April 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.

Cellophane tape

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 speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, upon review the redirect is appropraite. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that cellophane and cellulose tape are not necessarily pressure-sensitive, and the target doesn't mention either. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 26 April 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.

Charles Rhino Daily

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 5#Charles Rhino Daily

Intensive and extensive farming

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#Intensive and extensive farming

Triple Degree

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#Triple Degree

Spiritualistic research

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 speedily deleted by Nyttend. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiritualistic research" is not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:I created the "spiritualistic research" redirect, but it can be deleted if you want. I wrote a little text on "spiritualistic research" for the article on "multiverse (religion)", and there seemed to be a need for a seperate main page on the subject. However, it has been decided to choose the "mediumship" page as the main page, although not all mediumship can be characterised as experimental "spiritualistic research". For this reason, and because the mediumship page didn't contain any information on ITC, we (me and a co-editor) also referred to the "Electronic voice phenomenon" page as a second "see also" option. This combination was sufficient for our purpose of referencing on the "multiverse (religion)" page. Therefore, a separate page on "spiritualistic research" was no longer necessary, so I changed it into a redirect, but - like said before - you can remove it if you want. I am only a beginning editor, and didn't know how to delete a page. --S.w.goedhart (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@S.w.goedhart: Having read through the articles you linked, my understanding of the situation is as follows: Multiverse (religion) has a section titled "spiritualistic research" referring to research into the properties of the multiverse. However, Mediumship deals with the much broader subject of spiritual mediums, which in most contexts are not really being used in what could be considered a "research" capacity, and it doesn't include the phrase "spiritualistic research". At this time, unless reliable sources can be found that specifically discuss "spiritualistic research" by name, I think we're best off deleting this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted, because S.w.goedhart's statement means that we can treat this as speedy criterion G7, author-requested-deletion. S.w.goedhart, for future reference, this deletion doesn't mean that we can't ever have a page by this title again. If you can find solid, reliable sources on the subject of "spiritualistic research", you're welcome to write an article about it, or if they treat spiritualistic research as a sub-topic of something else, feel free to add information about it to our article on the other topic and then re-create this title as a redirect to the other page. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 27 April 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.

Uniform criminal code

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. - Nabla (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on this subject, but 1) the target article doesn't mention "uniform criminal code" 2) an internet search does bring up results about a "uniform criminal code" in the Indian context, but also in the context of other countries signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 26 April 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.

Little Fireflies Everywhere

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 speedily deleted by Fastily. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this as an article, not realizing I spelled the title wrong. Instead of Fireflies, it’s Fires. And the article already exists at another location. I’m moving to have this redirect deleted as it’s not of value for anything considering it’s not the right name. Rusted AutoParts 16:36, 26 April 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.

Fears Within

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 4#Fears Within

Everything You Need To Know

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reference on target, according to the history of the redirect it might have been one of the rumoured titles for an upcoming album. Can't find any better/suitable alternative target, there are loads of 'Everything You Need to Know About..." Please note capitalization error. Richhoncho (talk) 15:07, 26 April 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.

Here I Come (Britney Spears')

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No 'Here I Come' on the target page, but contains a typo with an apostrophe anyway Richhoncho (talk) 14:30, 26 April 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.

Unrecogonized country

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 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.

(anime) Bleach

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguator is in the wrong place. This started off as an article that should have been speedied but was inexplicably turned into a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:05, 26 April 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.

Bhawanipur(mansurchak)

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 speedily deleted by Mojo Hand. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here and the two errors make it a very implausible search term. Reyk YO! 11:01, 26 April 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.

"walter brune

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 speedily deleted by Shirt58 per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same as below except this one is also missing a quotation mark, so that's three errors. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:57, 26 April 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.

"samara lubelski"

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 speedily deleted per WP:G6. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is every instance of an all lower case redirect to a biography that is also within quotations. With two huge errors they have no value as redirect, and the only reason they get any traffic at all is because they appear near the front of Special:AllPages. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:53, 26 April 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:Uk-roi tv net infobox/service

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#Template:Uk-roi tv net infobox/service

＃willpower

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 keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "How is this possible?" you ask. "I thought Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) prevented titles from having #, the number sign, in their titles!" Fear not, knowledgeable Wikipedian, you're not crazy: these redirects actually have ＃, the musical sharp symbol, masquerading as the hashtag-indicating #. But because almost no one has that symbol on their keyboard or knows its ASCII code, these pseudo-hashtag redirects are almost certainly unlinked on the broader internet just as they are here. (Computers are funny that way, requiring an exact match) Allowing them could certainly get very WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @UnitedStatesian: this has already been discussed previously at ‎Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 25#＃MeToo. The thing is that people search for hashtags on WP, and as you know, searching anything that starts with '#' and pressing enter gets you to the main page, which is not the idea. However, try searching "#' in the search bar, and ＃Metoo and other things appear. If you click the link, then you get the page you originally wanted to get to, not the Main Page. So yes, these redirects serve a very useful purpose. Also, when nominating redirects for deletion, try looking in the page history to see if they were previously sent to RfD before nominating the for deletion again. One last thing: when you nominate several redirects at once with the same rationale, group them in one discussion, please. This makes things so much easier. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give a man a minute, will ya? Sheesh! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except ＃Metoo, since it was just created to prove it was possible (as seen in L293D's link) and is redundant to ＃MeToo, per L293D. Raymond1922 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on principle, on the basis it works as L293D described. Just a couple of notes. I've deleted #Metoo (created by me as a proof of concept), which I don't think is that useful, as it just pollutes the list. I don't recommend using the ＃ in real article titles. I also think there could be situations in the future where widespread use could become less than desirable. For more on that see the debates about Twitter handles: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_12#Twitter_redirects_recently_created_by_R64Q. These specific examples, however, well most of them, are good uses of this feature. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly implausible and prone to causing confusion. Fullwidth characters are comparatively uncommon in English, and using one of them together with halfwidth letters is more unusual, since fullwidth is meant for situations in which halfwidth wouldn't be particularly useful or wouldn't work at all. Combine that with this exceptional usage (how many people would even think of using a fullwidth # to get around this technical limitation?), and the chance of this being typed into the address bar or the search bar is really tiny. What's more, look at the 2018 October 25 discussion — if you do end up at the fullwidth title, you're likely to get confused ("how did this title include a # when most can't?"), or if you find it and you're not aware of # restrictions, you're likely to assume that they can appear in titles and thus be frustrated when they don't work elsewhere. Let's just make things simple — using ♯ and ＃ and any similar characters works (they look like and function like the intended character), so they're a nice idea on paper, but they're disadvantageous to the point that we're better off without them. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to the way that the search box handles characters, it is not necessary to use the full-width in the search box. You just need to type the normal hash character. Also most people wouldn't know about technical limitations - if something begins with a hashtag, they'd expect to be able to type the hashtag into the search box. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is that for the search box to work in this way, the redirect has to be created: right now these are the ONLY nine hashtags that appear when # is typed in the search box, and for much more likely # search results to also appear, (#BlackLivesMatter, #NeverTrump, all the others in Category:Redirects from hashtags, etc.), these malformed redirects would have to be created for them too: this is what I mean by WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, 42 pages is not a great cost. But I think a more useful metric might be article titles which would have begun with a hashtag if they could - it's probably fewer but I don't think we have a category. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, there is no subcat of Category:Restricted titles just for ones that would have the # at the beginning. My sense from sepnding a fair amount if time in this area is that it is actually more, not less, than the number of redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep except for the capitalization variants for sukinanda. The song just uses #sukinanda or the Japanese #好きなんだ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because although these redirects do use a pseudo-hashtag, for commonly used hashtags (like #MeToo) where the hashtag name is known possibly even more well than any other alternative name, so readers will search for the hashtag name. If you put in the search bar "#" it will bring up the pseudo-hashtag pages as search results. If editors wanted to link it, then it isn't a big deal to do a copy and paste from the redirect in question. I understand that trying to wikilink it may cause errors if the editor used "#" and not the pseudo-hashtag, but this IMO is not a big enough argument for deleting these redirects (as like I said it isn't much of a big deal to copy and paste a small amount of text). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per zzuuzz. I had no idea that these pages would come up if you began a search string with a # character. Because this is true, these are definitely plausible and useful. The confusion issue still arises, but because these pages have a clear purpose, I suppose the better solution is to create more of them so that people won't have grounds to be confused. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 27 April 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.

Anal seepage

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#Anal seepage

The Greatest Hits (Boney M. album)

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 Boney M. discography as there is consensus to retarget to this title (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 " The Greatest Hits" albums by Boney M. The Greatest Hits (2001 Boney M. album) and The Greatest Hits (1993 Boney M. album). I see no reason to redirect them to any of those. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:26, 26 April 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.

James Silcox

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#James Silcox

CP(

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unhelpful typo of "CP9" (so the intended target should really be List of One Piece characters#CP9), but could also be interpreted as a typo of other things, i.e. CP, CP(BSTI), CP(B)U, etc. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

Psionic storm

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An ability name that is not covered or even mentioned at the target article. Briefly mentioned at StarCraft in esports but there's not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

Lightwhip

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Has a brief mention at Betrayal (Star Wars novel) but there's not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

Psionic Spirit Blade

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is some old D&D meme item? Not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia, unsurprisingly. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some role playing games used that as a non-copyrighted/trademarked name for a light sabre. It was later referenced in The Gamers film franchise. If someone is searching for what one is, the redirect just sends them over to Light Sabre.Sturmovik (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

Star Wars lightsaber redirects

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these redirects refer to content that used to be at lightsaber combat, which was merged into the lightsaber article at some point and has since been completely removed. There is no mention of any of these terms. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

High General

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 3#High General

Gargantuan (Battle Platform)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor Star Wars vehicle, like those listed below, but pointing to a different target. This target makes no mention of it. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

Heavy Missile Platform

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be mentioned at the target article, and the term is far too vague to be of any use. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.

Star Wars vehicle redirects

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various minor fictional vehicles that haven't been mentioned at the target article for over 11 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:25, 26 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_26&oldid=1072177110"