Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 3

March 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2017.

Lightning Network

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) 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Network → Blockstream (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect should be replaced with an actual page on Lightning, but I probably shouldn't be the one to do it. In the meantime, this redirect should be deleted as it is misleading. The Lightning network is not a Blockstream product (though we do contribute development effort to it). Actually, it's not really clear if this redirect was supposed to be referring to the separate company "Lightning Network" which works on this tech (not affiliated with Blockstream) or the tech project behind the Lightning network itself. But in either case the redirect to Blockstream is inappropriate. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 17:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am Kat's coworker at Blockstream. I agree that ideally someone who's not us would create a neutral page about the Lightning Network protocol to replace the redirect. I can't figure out whether Lightning Network is also the name of the company she's talking about or not -- I see them variously called "Lightning" or "Lightning Labs", and I think "Lightning Network" refers chiefly to the technology itself. It definitely does not refer to Blockstream, though. (I can see how confusion about this could exist either maliciously or innocently, and I could also believe that this is the only page on the site right now that does have information about Lightning on it, but I still think the current redirect is inherently misleading.) User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 19:51, 3 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.

British civil war

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 the first to Wars of the Three Kingdoms, keep the rest. --BDD (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British civil war → English Civil War (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
British Civil War → Wars of the Three Kingdoms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
British Civil Wars → Wars of the Three Kingdoms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The British Civil Wars → Wars of the Three Kingdoms (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects may need wp:salting, given that "British" and "English" aren't synonyms (e.g. British independence versus English independence). --Nevé –selbert 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget British civil war to Wars of the Three Kingdoms and keep the others pointing there. The lead sentence of that article begins "The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, sometimes known as the British Civil Wars...". Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget and keep per Thryduulf. Note "British" had a different meaning in the 17th century than it has today. Then, England and Scotland were separate and independent countries (though with a common monarch for much of the time). "British" as a nationality did not come into existence until the Acts of Union 1707. Narky Blert (talk) 12:53, 5 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.

Broughton Rangers FC

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 Delete, G8. by User:RHaworth --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton Rangers FC → Manchester Rangers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Broughton Rangers F.C. → Manchester Rangers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Also discussing other former redirect Broughton Rangers F.C. which has been edited with a hidden comment by User:DynamoDegsy - it seems that there isn't actually an appropriate article for these two redirects to go to? Mabalu (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the blanking comment, added the RfD template and listed that other redirect here. The hidden comment was "… Broughton Rangers F.C. are/were an association football (soccer) club not the rugby union/league club that this previously redirected to". Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 3 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.

Glatiramer acetate-induced lymphocytic infiltrate of Jessner

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 12#Glatiramer acetate-induced lymphocytic infiltrate of Jessner

D-/broken

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) 05:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D-/broken → Emoticon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect seems to be nonsense. Steel1943 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Even the original creation doesn't mention "broken". — Train2104 (t • c) 15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, this looks useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:07, 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.