Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 2

April 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 2, 2015.

BeyHive



 * 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 * The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * BeyHive → Beyoncé (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BeyHive&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Bey Hive → Beyoncé (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bey_Hive&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Apparently a term for Beyonce's fandom, it's not discussed at the target page. Analogous concepts are discussed at Stan (fan). Either reliably sourced coverage should be added at one of these pages or the redirects should be deleted. Looking through the history of the nonspaced variant, there was an article taken to AfD in January 2014, which was closed as merge. A merge was carried out, creating a new "Bey Hive" section, but it's since been removed. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:MAD this material was merged into Beyonce's article in January 2014, per Articles for deletion/Bey Hive, so the edit history needs to be kept around -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, if the merged content gets removed. At this point, any content about the "Bey Hive" is likely to be new, not restored from page history more than a year ago. If the material were restored, then absolutely, we'd need to retain the history for attribution. But we don't need to retain history for nonexistent content, otherwise all deletion would be a fraught process, if even possible. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The past revisions of the article are available, so the contributions that lead up to the inclusion of the merged material exist as part of the edit history of the article, therefore it needs to be kept around. This only applies to material that was merged, as this was, not to material that was deleted and not merged anywhere, so deletion is not a fraught process. In any case, you can always move it to a history subpage, such as talk:Beyoncé/Bey Hive, as other articles have, which would eliminate the mainspace redirect. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per 's excellent rationale. WP:MAD doesn't apply because there is no content from that merge at the targeted article. Tavix | Talk  18:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was integrated in January 2014 and there is still information about "Bey Hive" in the Beyonce article.  (this is from the latest revision  ) So you need to suppress all revisions containing the term to get rid of the contributions resulting from the merge through revision hiding if you want to get rid of the editors' contributions. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I don't know how my search didn't find that... Therefore, it should be kept. Tavix | Talk  14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. I know how my search didn't find it; I found the camel case version first and only searched for that. Withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Celebrity deaths



 * 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. No suitable target exists. - Eureka Lott 21:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Celebrity deaths → Death (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_deaths&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I'm sure this is better off somewhere else. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak retarget to Lists of deaths by year due to the fact that it lists the deaths of everyone notable. Other potential targets to consider might include: Dead Celebrities, Summer of Death, Celebrity Deathmatch, Celebrity culture, or even Celebrity. I'd be fine with deletion though. Tavix | Talk  01:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * List of deaths by year seems like a reasonable target. Directing it to Death is silly. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is Celebrity Deathmatch stretching it? Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DAB it per User:Tavix. I'll make a draft DAB at Draft:Celebrity death ... but Celebrity death is red, which rather indicates this is a bit weird... Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Made the DAB as you see (at Draft:Celebrity death) Wiktionary has no entry for Celerity, which is etymologically correct.... Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about a disambiguation. I named all those potential retargets semi-humourously and think most of that list would be made up of WP:PTMs and/or entries that aren't actually called "celebrity death." It might even be better to just delete it and let the search engine deal with it. Tavix | Talk  14:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete These other options are WP:PTMs at best, word association at worst. Lists of deaths by year also seems like a poor choice, because there are no celebrity deaths listed there. And even the lists linked there have many people who aren't celebrities. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, Last Word a programme on Radio 4 ppresented by Matthew Parris is possible but unlikely. We get good obituarys on that one. Can't beat a good death can you. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We dom't have obiter dictium though. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't type for toffee. Try obiter dictum then. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that would not make sennse, the Latin is the same, "Speaking for someone who has passed", but that wouléd make no sense to put it there. 08:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
 * You know you are getting old when the first section of the newspaper you read is the obituarys. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * '''Retarget to Obituary Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete neither the current target nor any of the suggested alternatives are very persuasive, and the links between them and this term aren't solid enough for a disambiguation page. Lists of deaths by year does have deaths of celebrities on it, but the vast majority of people listed on it aren't considered celebrities so I don't think it's a very good target.  Hut 8.5  18:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Channel 53 virtual TV stations in Mexico



 * 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, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Channel 53 virtual TV stations in Mexico → Channel 35 (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_53_virtual_TV_stations_in_Mexico&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The one TV station assumed to be using a virtual channel 53 in Mexico actually uses a virtual channel 35. That redirect did not exist, so I moved the page. Delete as superfluous. Raymie (t • c) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Channel 53, the target of the double redirect that this move created. The bot will likely be along shortly to take care of this anyway. However, it is nonsense per WP:RFD #3 to have "channel 35" pointing to "channel 53". The double redirect target above should be retargeted to channel 35. Ivanvector (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just moved it to where it should be. The thing is that there is no TV station in Mexico with a virtual channel 53. We don't have, for instance, "Channel 68 virtual TV stations in Mexico" because Mexico never had any stations on channel 68. Raymie (t • c) 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just learned what a virtual channel means. Never heard the expression before. That being said my telly still takes two minutes for the valves to warm up. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you turn it off does the picture slowly coalesce into that little blue dot in the middle of the tube? That might be my favourite bit of retro technology ever. Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I realise this is totally off topic but I presume it did that because in the cathode ray tube, the electromagnets guiding the ray would be switched off by the valves earlier than the tube took to cool down, and therefore not guide the cathode ray tracing across and down the screen (with the vertical hold and horizontal hold), so that it ended up with a dot in the centre of the screen. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised they don't kinda do that as a retro thing on some TV channel, actually. It is a little white dot in my case, as I only have black and white TV (can't afford the TV licence for colour TV). It was bad enough I had to change it when they abandoned 405 lines broadcasts. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed televisions actually *do* take longer to turn on now? About ten years ago they would turn on instantly, but now with all the software bootstrap and so on that they put in, it takes ages to get the thing actually to start. A bit of a retrograde step, really. Reculer pour mieux sauter, I guess, as Napoleon said &mdash; and look where that got him. Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that the pages have been redirected already, and the targets are where such channels would be listed if they existed (see Channel 53 virtual TV stations in Canada, for example) then I think it's fine to keep the redirects as they are. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You don't want to retarget to Channel 53 then? And is XHMNU-TV not really a channel 53? --BDD (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * no, I mean it's done already. One issue is that actually there don't seem to be any channels in Mexico broadcasting as virtual channel 53, but if there were, they would be listed where the redirect currently targets. XHMNU-TV is an analog channel broadcasting on channel 53, which also has a virtual channel broadcasting on physical channel 35 (by actual frequency; I don't know what its virtual designation is, it's not in the article). Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * XHMNU uses virtual channel 35 as well. Several noncommercial television stations in Mexico do not use their (soon to be) former analog channel numbers as digital virtual channels. Note the logo used by the station (link to Facebook, it's in their cover photo) which says "TV UNI 35.1". XHMNU is also the only analog television station ever to operate on channel 53 in Mexico. Raymie (t • c) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are no stations assigned to virtual channel 53 in Mexico, then I agree we should delete this. Ivanvector (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Module talk:RfD



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Module talk:RfD → Template talk:Rfd (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:RfD&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is ridiculous. Module:RfD exists but the template tak page goes to Template Talk:Rfd. I don't mind giving a hand making the module but sheesh, get it right... Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it was, a good regular here, who made the module. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Jack, I'll help you out with it if you want. I'm an idiot but a good softie... I know it is dificcult to do it without kinda Draft:Module:Template RfD etc but this is second in my gsearch at the moment, and probably should be in draft space somewhere. I am WP:AGF as I am sure you are. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Works as intended. The reasoning behind redirecting Module talk:RfD to Template talk:Rfd is to centralize the discussion on one page. Steel1943  (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the intention is beyond me. Module:RfD is now second on a search if you type in "WP:RFD" into Your Favourite Search Engine. Since the module patently does not yet replace WP:RfD, that's a bit premature. I realise Jack can't kinda predict what a search engine sees (that's what search engines are for) but I think at the momemnt it is kinda Getting In The Way, until it is debugged etc. Don't see any talk in either place, anyway. Projects are fine but this is blocking, a bit, our "mission" (now I'm sounding like a crappy businessman eh), Si Trew (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Si Trew, given that I have been Template talk:Rfd's recently most active participant, I would have to disagree with the part of the above statement about the page being "in the way". Template:Rfd invokes Module:RfD; that alone should illustrate why the talk page redirect is in place, given that Template:Rfd is the only template that invokes Module:RfD. Steel1943  (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked that. It says on its page that it must be subst'd. Where am I the fool then? Si Trew (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure how that affects the usefulness of the talk page redirect... Steel1943  (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because now I am not sure which page I should talk on.... 06:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Si Trew, does this help alleviate the confusion? Steel1943  (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As iffn that is a really helpful link. I checked it. Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its purpose is to let the reader that the redirect from Module talk:RfD is intentional. One of the best examples of this being used can be found at Template talk:Ln; several talk pages redirect there. Steel1943  (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume the ultimate intent is to replace our old friend template rfd (deliberately not linking). at the moment, i think it stands in the way, and I am not saying delete it but push it to one side somehow. 13:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It just doesn't help, in my opinion, it just confuses things. I know we are all in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Replace with Template:Talk page of redirect and be done with it. I'm not really a big fan of that template, but it seems to fit here. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BDD That's not the intended usage of Talk page of redirect. The template is used for talk pages of redirects, not redirected talk pages. Since Module:RfD itself is not a redirect, the aforementioned template would not apply. Steel1943  (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Is there something like what I'm thinking about, a sort of "Talk there, not here"? Module talk seems to already have a general disclaimer like the one you see when editing Category talk: "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users". Why not just leave a note that WT:RFD is a more lively place for discussion? Questions specific to the module really belong on a module talk page anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The closest template that I know of with those specifications is Central, and I've already placed it on Template talk:Rfd, as stated above. However, to utilize that template properly in this specific instance, Module talk:RfD has to remain a redirect towards Template talk:Rfd. Steel1943  (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I discovered Editnotice central redirected, but that template seems kind of odd since it seems the equivalent of an WP:RCAT template, though it is an editnotice. Steel1943  (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Per Steel1943. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Steel1943. Keeping discussion in one place is a Good Thing and this is the best way to achieve that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

CraigWelch



 * 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, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Craig Welch → Graig Weich (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Welch&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * CraigWelch → Graig Weich (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CraigWelch&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Part of a series of over a dozen homonymic redirects that User:Rdactyl has created to funnel users to his own autobio article, Graig Weich. This one is particularly unlikely, as Craig Welch is an entirely different name. I should also point out that the reason I became aware of this is that I had a watch on an article about an animated short created by the real Craig Welch who was an award-winning Canadian film animator -- see the chapter on him here -- and still works as a visual artist, judging by his personal web page. So I believe it runs afoul of WP:RFD, as a redirect bound to cause confusion, as COI editor Graig Weich is unwittingly appropriating the identity of a different visual artist as his own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * delete per nominator. Craig Welch is an entirely different person (who may be notable themselves). Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. They are certainly different people. I'm not sure if Craig Welch would be notable himself or if his book Shell Games is notable instead. It does have a Washington Post review. We don't have an article about either, and Shell Games points to a comic book article. Ivanvector (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I seem to be describing a different Craig Welch than Shawn in Montreal is. I came up with Craig A. Welch who is a writer for the Seattle Times whose first published work is Shell Games, at least according to the internet.  Ivanvector (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it! Yup, so there's at least two possibly independently notable Craig Welches, I now see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Airport railway station



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Airport railway station → Airport rail link (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airport_railway_station&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

"Airport railway station", used in this context, would usually refer to specific railway stations names. Thus I would propose that the page redirect to the Airport Station dab page, as is currently the case with Airport metro station (the content once found on that page was moved to Delhi Airport metro station). &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Airport Station per nom. For reference I'm just about to create Airport station as an alt caps redirect to the dab page, but have no objection to anyone moving the dab page over it if that is considered better. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget per above. I think the Airport station page is appropriate as well. Ivanvector (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.