Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect.
- Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Contents
- 1 Before listing a redirect for discussion
- 2 The guiding principles of RfD
- 3 When should we delete a redirect?
- 4 Closing notes
- 5 How to list a redirect for discussion
- 6 Current list
- 6.1 April 17
- 6.2 April 16
- 6.3 April 15
- 6.3.1 Tunbridge grammar school
- 6.3.2 Requests for moving
- 6.3.3 Slither.io
- 6.3.4 Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives
- 6.3.5 Trowbridge Infant School
- 6.3.6 Verison
- 6.3.7 Verizon iPad
- 6.3.8 File.charles tucker iii.jpg
- 6.3.9 Current communist rulers
- 6.3.10 Section header
- 6.3.11 The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence
- 6.3.12 హల్దార్ నాగ్
- 6.3.13 Template:Echo
- 6.3.14 Body of work
- 6.3.15 IPAD
- 6.3.16 (Green Stinkwood
- 6.3.17 Shareholder owned
- 6.3.18 Zzz-mailing
- 6.4 April 14
- 6.4.1 Hawaii Territory/version 2
- 6.4.2 Hircine
- 6.4.3 Gray reds
- 6.4.4 Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment
- 6.4.5 Redirects containing the phrase "world conflicts"
- 6.4.6 Redirects containing "conflict" without a non-time descriptive adjective
- 6.4.7 LTE (telecommunications)
- 6.4.8 List of Deployed HSUPA networks
- 6.4.9 Trump Train
- 6.4.10 List of Unices
- 6.4.11 Violent conflict
- 6.4.12 Ohad Shem-Tov
- 6.4.13 Religious explanations of gravity
- 6.4.14 Linux++
- 6.5 April 13
- 6.5.1 The SpaceX private launch site
- 6.5.2 Pablo Picasso/African
- 6.5.3 Ursula (Spider-Man)
- 6.5.4 Martin Luther King Jr. International Airport
- 6.5.5 Susan B. Anthony International Airport
- 6.5.6 Fauxcahontas
- 6.5.7 Rubiobot
- 6.5.8 Current leaders of San Jose, California
- 6.5.9 IPhone 5SE
- 6.5.10 Iexplorer.exe
- 6.6 April 12
- 6.6.1 Project Unity
- 6.6.2 Little Marco
- 6.6.3 Technopolitics
- 6.6.4 Batman and Superman
- 6.6.5 Wikipedia:INTERNET
- 6.6.6 Popularize Mandarin
- 6.6.7 House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)
- 6.6.8 Moderate conservatism
- 6.6.9 Lyin' Ted
- 6.6.10 Pubic region
- 6.6.11 Árvore da Vida
- 6.6.12 Wikipedia:BO
- 6.6.13 MorroWindHelp
- 6.6.14 File:Nasb-cover.jpg
- 6.7 April 11
- 6.7.1 Oops/version 2
- 6.7.2 ISO 639-1:er
- 6.7.3 UEFA mafia
- 6.7.4 Zelena Stranka
- 6.7.5 •Electorate of Hesse-Cassel
- 6.7.6 Interpretation (version 2)
- 6.7.7 Ouevre
- 6.7.8 Work of Art
- 6.7.9 "Untitled" projects with titles
- 6.7.10 Firething
- 6.7.11 Castro's
- 6.7.12 Momsanto
- 6.7.13 Pocket Windows
- 6.7.14 Citation needed
- 6.8 April 10
- 6.9 April 9
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
- If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should target.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When should we delete a redirect?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
- If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
- The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
- The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.
Closing notes
- Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for discussion
I. |
Tag the redirect.
Enter
|
II. |
List the entry on RfD.
Click to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
|
III. |
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] |
- Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
Current list
April 17
農夫
Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Farmer is a worldwide topic that has no special connection with the Chinese language. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
April 16
- → Zero-width joiner (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This invisible redirect is the string U+200C ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER, U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER. This could equally target Zero-width non-joiner or Zero-width joiner, so delete per WP:XY. Gorobay (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Incels
None of the disambiguated subjects at Incel takes an -S to pluralize (all three are proper nouns). This page was deleted at AfD. I thought there was at least one page that mentioned it that could make sense to redirect to, but I couldn't find any. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless. The Wiktionary entry, linked from the disambiguation page, can be plural. SSTflyer 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If that's the only possible plural, it might make more sense to retarget to wikt:incels then. -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Dragon Quest characters
- List of Dragon Quest characters → Dragon Quest (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No such list exists at target. The redirect was formerly an article, but would probably fail WP:NOTWIKIA as an article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The list was created to mention all the characters from the franchise as well as the creatures that appear in that franchise. We should have that page remain to go with the other video game character list pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The only issue I see with this is that the characters in this series do not seem to be as notable as characters in other video game series, such as Super Mario or Final Fantasy. For this series, character lists are probably more appropriate on their respective game articles. Also, in regards to salvaging the old article; the most recent version prior to redirection did not have any inline references at all, which is necessary to explain cited information for characters without individual standalone articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The main characters on that list don't even recur. Dragonlord [1] is main in the first game and mentioned in the second, and has a guest appearance in a different television show called Captain N: The Game Master. The rest are non-notable monsters with names like Toxic Zombie or Fat Rat. Saying someone is the descendant of a character in the previous game doesn't mean they are recurring in the franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - the characters for this series are so non-notable in general that the series article doesn't even mention them besides the protagonist of the first three games, which is why the list doesn't exist anymore, but the "List of GAME characters" title formulation is so standard for series that it may be reasonable to expect a reader to search for it. The list itself should not be recreated, though- both the Square Enix project and the video games project have higher general inclusion standards than this would meet for a stand-alone character list. --PresN 14:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The problem I see is that the franchise doesn't have a list of recurring characters to make a section out of it, not even a short list. Yes, they may have standard-named character classes as with any role playing video games, but It's hardly anything compared to Character design of Final Fantasy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Until such a character section gets implemented in the article, this would only lead to false expectation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It is fairly common to redirect a non-notable child page to a more notable parent topic. It gently tells the author that we don't really want an article at that title and directs them to the page where there contributions would be most helpful. At the same time, it preserves the contribution history in case current or future editors want to merge some of the content from the child-page into the parent article. There is no potential for confusion, especially since we have many thousands of these "list of ..." articles scattered across the project. A redirect to match that naming convention is routine. Rossami (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Quite likely to mislead readers, since there is no such list. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
List of ongoing political conflicts
- List of ongoing political conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Could be seen as misleading since Political conflict and Political conflicts do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would support the deletion of this redirect. This redirect was the original name of the List of ongoing armed conflicts page. It was moved, because while the scope of the page was intended to cover insurgencies, wars, ongoing skirmishes, ect; editors kept adding "political conflicts" like the war on drugs and war on poverty which were clearly outside of the scope of the page. As such, in an effort to narrow the focus of the page, the article name was changed. I see no continued use for the redirect.XavierGreen (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there are some internal links we should clean up to point to the new title: [2] but there are also external web pages which would have broken links if we delete this redirect: [3] I think to avoid broken external links we should keep the redirect in place for longer before deleting. We can tag it with {{R from move}} to avoid future confusion. -- Beland (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- yes, keep and tag with that and
{{R from incorrect name}}
. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- yes, keep and tag with that and
- Delete since a political conflict and an armed conflict are not the same thing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Clausewitz has a good point with the whole "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" observation, didn't he? The two kinds of conflicts are certainly not inherently the same thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep with the incorrect-name template. This title has already existed for 5½ years (if it really is the original name of the target, it's existed since 2005!), and deletion would create linkrot. Consensus can reasonably decide that a 5-year-old page needs to be renamed due to its scope, but if we've already had an article at a title for five years, we can reasonably assume that it's not a horribly bad title that needs to be deleted even though the target continues to exist. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete There's no link-rot left to happen; I've fixed the handful of article refs to bypass the redir, all of them in "see also" sections where I think the ref was dubious either way, but.... This needs to go due to the temptation to link to it improperly. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per XavierGreen. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
April 15
Tunbridge grammar school
- Tunbridge grammar school → Tonbridge School (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete to avoid confusion with Tonbridge Grammar School. Certes (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a traditional name and spelling of Tonbridge School.[4] Rather than deleting it, it would be better to create a disambiguation page. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well spotted! There are only two articles to disambiguate, and each has a hatnote to the other. I don't think "Tunbridge grammar school" is a valid search term for the state school except as a misspelling. In the light of that information I think we should leave things as they are, unless we need to consider Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys and Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School. Certes (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or disambiguate. The small-caps pushed this over the edge from {{R from historical name}} to {{R from incorrect name}}, so weighing it all up I think it's best to delete. Or we can create some sort of Tunbridge Grammar School (disambiguation) with the four schools, but keeping the redirect as is doesn't feel right. COI: Old Tonbridgian Deryck C. 11:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Requests for moving
- Requests for moving → Wikipedia:Requested moves (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:XNR and WP:R#D6. In the wild, this could refer to anything from physical moves, such as when three NFL teams made requests for moving to Los Angeles. Or possibly even Recognition (parliamentary procedure), where one would make a request to the chair (get recognized) in order to make a motion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. --Eleassar my talk 05:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete requests for moving are usually sent to moving companies, so this is not a responsive redirect -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Slither.io
- Slither.io → Agar.io (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Slither.io is not the same thing as agar.io, so this is an invalid redirect epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Only connection is that slither.io was mentioned in a review saying its creators wanted it to be the next agar.io. That's no reason for a redirect; we wouldn't have redirected Blu-ray to DVD when it first came out. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Miniclip - I understand the lack of relationship between the two pointed out by C.Fred and I admit it was a poor decision to target the redirect there. Because of this, I've changed the redirect's target to Miniclip, where the game is hosted; do you feel this is better? Capcapandgengen (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives
- Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives → Concord Armory (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Redirect is incorrect. The Museum mentioned isn't this building now, and it seems that, according to there being no mention of it the target article, it never was. The Museum is located at a different address entirely: [5]. Therefore, this isn't a useful or accurate redirect. MSJapan (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- retarget to Massachusetts National Guard#Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives It actually is in the current National Guard armory in Concord, which is thus the Concord armory but not the historic Concord Armory. Mangoe (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying this. I have redirected the article to Massachusetts National Guard#Massachusetts National Guard Museum and Archives. Jllm06 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Trowbridge Infant School
- Trowbridge Infant School → Cardiff (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Trowbridge Junior School → Cardiff (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not listed at the target article. Based on the name and previous targets, I assume they're affiliated with Trowbridge Primary School, which now redirects to List of schools in Cardiff. I'm not familiar enough with the Welsh educational system to know if these should be listed there as well. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete' as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. From personal knowledge, I know my cousins went to Trowbridge Infant School and Trowbridge Junior School (and Trowbridge Grammar School) which were at that time in Avon (county), I think; the Boundaries Commission (hmm, apparently Boundary Commissions (United Kingdom)) changes county boundaries sometimes, but they don't change England to Wales or vice versa. They were not in Cardiff or anywhere the Welsh side of the border. They were not in Cardiff, they were in Trowbridge. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete They're in Trowbridge, not Cardiff. Delete nonsense redirects. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- These redirects probably refer to Trowbridge Infant School and Trowbridge Junior School in Trowbridge, Cardiff. Certes (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Verison
- Verison → Verizon Communications (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete as WP:RFD#D1 per WP:XY, hinders search; an equally likely typo for version or venison. (The most sensible thing would be to move the target over to Verizon per WP:COMMONNAME and make this an {{R from misspelling}}
, but I don't make the rulez.) Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- What, that's not the British spelling? :P --BDD (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- See Fowler's under -ize, I presume you have a copy :). Not my fault the colonies got stuck with Noah Webster's ideas. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Verizon iPad
- Verizon iPad → IPad (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- White iPad → IPad (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
As far as I can tell, the iPad 2 was the first edition to be available in white, and through Verizon. But those were really just options, and I'm not seeing similar redirects from other colors or carriers (cf. AT&T iPad, Black iPad). iPad would be a more informative target than the dab, but specific case colors aren't mentioned there, and Verizon only in the context of their introduction into the iPad market with gen 2. For what it's worth, the Verizon redirect initially targeted iPad2, and the White one iPad. My first choice is to delete, second to retarget to iPad or iPad 2. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. There's no mention in Verison -> Verizon Communications of the iPad at all. I think the point BDD is making is that it is a branded version of the device, but the article there does not say so, neither does iPad (disambiguation). These are WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, nor any likely target. Version but not Verison is mentioned in the iPad infobox, but that is stretching it I think even as an
{{R from typo}}
. If we are taking it as meaning "version" as a typo, I can quite imagine this is likely, since I have just done it about four times in writing this, when I know the bloody name of the company, but thought it was spelled with an S not Z. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. There's no mention in Verison -> Verizon Communications of the iPad at all. I think the point BDD is making is that it is a branded version of the device, but the article there does not say so, neither does iPad (disambiguation). These are WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, nor any likely target. Version but not Verison is mentioned in the iPad infobox, but that is stretching it I think even as an
File.charles tucker iii.jpg
- File.charles tucker iii.jpg → Trip Tucker (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Charles tucker iii.jpg → Trip Tucker (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Erroneous attempts to create pages in the "File:" namespace, it seems. Either way, they're completely unlikely search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Current communist rulers
- Current communist rulers → Secretary (title) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not only does this redirect not target a place where there is a list as described in the redirect's title, but it also seems vague as a title since "ruler" is ambiguous. Also, Communist ruler and Communist rulers do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: Also, I oppose this revision (retarget to General Secretary#Leaders of current Communist parties) since not all individuals listed on that page are rulers, but rather heads of political parties that may or may not be the head of state in their country. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tag and retarget. I think this is fine if it's tagged {{R to related topic}} or {{R from subtopic}}. General Secretary of the Communist Party#Leaders_of_current_Communist_parties is a better target than Secretary (title) because there's less extraneous material and there's an actual on-topic list. Targeting a superset of "current communist rulers" (including both rulers and non-ruling party leaders) is not problematic; we have plenty of {{R from subtopic}} and redirects aren't meant to always be 1:1 topically to their targets. Targeting a subset would be more problematic because there would be more information somewhere else that searchers would be missing, but that's not happening here. List of socialist states#Current actually has a list of the leaders (not merely party secretaries) of current self-declared Marxist–Leninist states, so that might actually make the best target since it excludes non-rulers like the head of the Communist Party USA. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Communist party heads and communist rulers are very different things. List of socialist states#Current is a better suggestion. Socialism and communism aren't synonymous, though all four parties listed there are communist. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Section header
- Section header → Radical (Chinese characters) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The term "section header" is ambiguous, so WP:XY applies. For example, on Wikipedia, it could mean text put between equal signs, which designate sections. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment so create a disambiguation page? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Making a disambiguation page could make sense were this a more specific concept, but the usage of 'section headers' to organize bits of information into subsections is so incredibly broad. Think beyond just in terms of written Chinese, written English, written French, et cetera but then there's the organizational processes in computer programming, in physical engineering blueprints, and so on that's not even matters of 'written language' per se. It's possible that someone could create their own page on the general concept, I guess... we do have a Wikipedia article on 'The' after all. Yet that's justification to delete the redirect and leave the text red as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, though I'm also okay with making a DAB page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:RFD#D1, hinders search. Apart from a literal translation in the etymology, this is not used in the article anyway, and WP:NOTDIC, neither an etymological dictionary nor a translating dictionary. We do have an article at Page header though. Si Trew (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep. I created Section header on 5 July 2012 as a redirect page to Section headers of a Chinese dictionary, which was merged into Radical (Chinese character) on 3 July 2013 (moved to Radical (Chinese characters) on 18 August 2013). Apparently "section header" is a legitimate alternative name of Radical (Chinese characters). Although the term section header has more than one meaning, section headers of a Chinese dictionary (radical) is the only created Wikipedia article for now. If "section header" cannot (or should not, or is unlikely to) be changed to a disambiguation page, redirecting it to Radical (Chinese characters) is useful for users who search for this Wikipedia article. So section header should be kept since it "aids searches on certain term" according to No.3 of the Reasons for not deleting. It does not violate WP:NOTDIC (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), which requires that a Wikipedia article should not be written as a dictionary entry. Article Radical (Chinese characters) is not a dictionary entry, and "section header", as its alternative name, can of course be redirected to it.--Neo-Jay (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep. "Section header" is a synonym for Radical (an example is in the lede of Radical 51). It seems to me that there's some WP:NAVELGAZING going on because we are familiar with a "Wikipedia definition" of the term. Those !voting to disambiguate have failed to provide links to other articles that we could include. I'd be fine with a {{selfref}} hatnote if someone has a suggestion for a WP space page that describes "section headers." WP:Section header, WP:SECTIONHEADER, etc. is currently red. -- Tavix (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate at minimum with Executable and Linkable Format#Section Header and with "header of a section (typography)" per Wp:DABMENTION. Also then retarget section headers to section header. The Chinese character-related meaning is not the Wp:PRIMARYREDIRECT in English-language usage; see e.g. Google Books, in which the first 100 hits include numerous uses in various file formats and in word processing/webpage layout, but none relating to radical (Chinese characters). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per 210.6. Searching for "header section" also yields similar meanings, for example ISO 10303-21#HEADER section, Value change dump#Header section, List of HTTP header fields. But we don't have header section and I 'm not sure whether a header section is sufficiently different from a section header to exclude them (is the section header of header section a header section header or a header section section header?) Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Section (typography), as we do with Section break. This is the core concept here; Executable and Linkable Format#Section Header is noise for this discussion. We could address section headers in all sorts of file formats, and might as well include at Font (disambiguation) all the different ways various systems handle fonts. What we have at Executable and Linkable Format may well be too detailed for a general encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Section (typography) per remarks above. In the abstract this is the obvious choice, even if it were used for something else at some point. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence
- The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence → Phi Iota Alpha (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Braggy and non-encyclopedic Naraht (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - braggy though it is, it in fact says in the article, with a source, that this fraternity is the oldest Latino fraternity in existence. Someone finds it useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The fraternity had this phrase trademarked, [6] but it is still promotional and self-proclaimed in nature. What are the rules for such phrases? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Ambiguity is not a concern here, but is this a likely search term? Are similar phrases trademarked by the fraternity?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
హల్దార్ నాగ్
- హల్దార్ నాగ్ → Haldhar Nag (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Is this a reasonable alternative language redirect? It began as an article with just a few words in Telugu, but we already had an article on Haldhar Nag, so I redirected it. (Otherwise, it would have been an unmistakable A10 speedy deletion candidate.) But Nag, though in India, where Telugu is spoken, is from Odisha, where Telugu is evidently spoken by only a small minority, and writes for an Odia-speaking audience. I don't know whether Telugu is a "relevant" language for an article on this person, such that the redirect would be acceptable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see the point, and the term is used in Hindi newspapers but mostly in a declension and not in this particular letterform. It's not in Hindi WP at hi:హల్దార్ నాగ్ (no reason it should be there any more than in English WP, but it kinda might be more likely for it to be there). Search results for me are mainly in Sanskrit to India (country) newspapers, but none is from the Times of India which I would guess is fairly RS. I think it is a bit far off the mark for English WP.
- 'Delete' per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The target doesn't have the Sanskrit, or indeed any Sanskrit at all. WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Echo
- Template:Echo → Template:1x (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Given the implementation of mw:Extension:Echo, and this template's non-use in article-space, I think this template should instead redirect to Template:Reply to. Izno (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment'. User:Izno, I don't mind this being here, but shouldn't the discussion be at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? Not sure, but it would certainly be worth cross-referencing over to here from there if we keep the discussion here, I'm not worried really where it is discussed. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Boldly retarget as WP:G6 housekeeping. Not currently transcluded and it makes sense. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional keep. This redirect has 30 transclusions that need to be resolved prior to it being retargeted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment we have echo, WP:ECHO and WP:WikiProject Echo, as well as mw:Extension:Echo; -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- In order:
- I don't find it likely that a template would be dedicated to the notion of an echo (much less most of Echo_(disambiguation); maybe the record label, but I doubt Template:Echo record label is going anywhere).
- WP:ECHO leads to WP:Notifications, which is the system implemented by mw:Extension:Echo. So this is a supporting item rather than one which could cause ambiguous expectations.
- It appears the WikiProject moved and the very-few links to Echo are mostly generated by templates.
- --Izno (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- In order:
Body of work
- Body of work → Work of art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Body of Work → Work of art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7 § Oeuvre – no consensus
A work of art, as EN:WP has it, is a single work and not a collection of work. I suggest that these be retargeted to collection (artwork). Apologies to the creator of both, Widefox, who asked at the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Oeuvre "don't ping me", but Twinkle does that automatically; I've removed the notification at the user's page. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- The previous discussion concentrated on Oeuvre and Body of work was mentioned only incidentally, so I think it is fair to nominate it here considering that discussion closed. The caps variant Body of Work was not listed or discussed there, but I'm not quite that pedantic to suggest they go to different places. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete "Body of work" is a very general phrase that I don't even imagine someone looking up in an encyclopedia. A body of work is generally not a museum's art collection; the term generally refers to the work produced by an individual or group over time. Its use isn't confined to the arts: A scholar or a journalist or even an athlete can have a body of work just as much as an artist, an author, a choreographer, a musician, or a film director can have.
- There is no one appropriate place to redirect this. It's pretty much a WP:DICDEF. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- In which case, Body of Work (album) (but not Body of work (album) can be moved over the redirect as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it stands, it is a kinda
{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
were it not for the redirect, and articles beat redirects ten a penny. We'd still have to redirect one to the other as{{R from incorrect capitalization}}
, and mark that one as{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
, but that is just procedural stuff. Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- In which case, Body of Work (album) (but not Body of work (album) can be moved over the redirect as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it stands, it is a kinda
- Comment 1. Body of work and Oeuvre have their fates somewhat entwined (as synonyms) at the ongoing RM at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation). 2. Body of Work (album) has been marked for notability and now PRODded. While this RfD is underway, a speedy claiming consensus here is a bit presumptive, so I've contested that on procedural and other grounds so that this discussion isn't predetermined. Widefox; talk 11:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
IPAD
Propose retargeting to iPad (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The line of tablet computers by Apple Inc. is never capitalized as "iPAD", but the two other products listed on iPad (disambiguation) are. SSTflyer 04:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per SSTFflyer. IPAD (disambuguation) redirects there and all other variants of caps that I tried redirect there, so it would be WP:SURPRISEing for this to do otherwise. (I checked in case IPAD was an acronym for one or more organisations, International Petroleum-Added Dementia or whatnot, but it doesn't seem to be.) Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm a liar, the caps variant (disambiguation) does not redirect there or anywhere. It neednt be created, I guess the search took me through its autocapping algorithm and I didn't notice. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Si, those variants you tried must also be products of the search engine's caps-insensitivity. The only redirect to the disambiguation page is IPAD (disambiguation). Of course, anything with (disambiguation) should redirect to the dab, regardless of the capitalization. By the way, the other redirects to that page are Verizon iPad and White iPad. I suspect they should be retargeted or deleted. I'm on the case.(iPad pun?) --BDD (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done; see #Verizon iPad above. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah, but we're talking about all caps here. (Technical restrictions being what they are, we can't really distinguish between "IPAD" and "iPAD".) Since the iPad uses non-standard capitalization anyway, best to just keep this at the primary topic for the term. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't care I don't have a preference either way, both options seem sensible. Thanks for notifying me SSTflyer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(Green Stinkwood
- 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 as WP:G6 housekeeping by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Green Stinkwood → Jacksonia sternbergiana (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete; typo, no reason for parentheses Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unlikely typo -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Unused and hits are well below bot noise level (none, in fact, except for the listing here). Taking CSD WP:G6 housekeeping. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment. (Green Stinkwood) with the balanced parens is red. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2016 (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.
- Corporation (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] →
Corporations do not necessarily have to be shareholder owned, so this is misleading. It's an implausible search term, only receiving one hit in the last 30 days. Interestingly enough, the creator was "banned by Jimbo Wales." -- Tavix (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- 'Retarget to Public company which is necessarily shareholder owned. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to the DAB at Shareholder, although Oiyarbepsy's is good, too. Si Trew (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to shareholder, since private companies also have shareholders. And any partnership have partner shares, which is different from incorporated shares -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Coming to think of it, a shareholder does not own the company, or any part of it, so it's a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. A shareholder owns a share, but that is merely a promissory note and debt instrument; it is not as if the shareholder can turn up at the main gate and demand one ten-billionth of the bricks and mortar. It it is not really correct to say that shareholders own the company, they own the promissory notes (and can trade them openly or privately); they could also own a promissory cow. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Zzz-mailing
- Zzz-mailing → Sleepwalking (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sleep emailing → Sleepwalking (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
All the hits I get for sleep emailing or "Zzz-mailing" come from a report of a 44 year old woman who 'sleep emailed' once back in 2008. This seems borderline WP:NOTNEWS and/or trivial. It's no longer mentioned at the target, probably for those reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete' per Tavix. (Sometimes I think most of my contributions must have been made while sleep-editing). Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
April 14
Hawaii Territory/version 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.
- Hawaii Territory/version 2 → Territory of Hawaii (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unusual /version 2 residual redirect to Territory of Hawaii Eyesnore 22:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it contains the edit history of a parallel version from 2003. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- MOVE to Hawaii Territory which is a redirect with no history, so can be overwritten with the edit history found here -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The edit history formally at Hawaii Territory/version 2 has been moved to Hawaii territory. In effect, I have tagged the nomimated redirect for speedy deletion criterion G6. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2016 (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.
Hircine
- Hircine → The Elder Scrolls (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Fictional god not mentioned at the target article. He appears in The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon, and its probably his biggest role in the series, so I'm not opposed to a retarget there, but I'm leaning towards a WP:NOTWIKIA delete. (N.b., this is also an obscure word in English.) BDD (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Retarget to The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon. It's not a bad word in Scrabble, but WP:NOTDIC. (Ovine is usually better if you hold the B.) Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ovine goes to Sheep, but Bovine and Porcine go to Bovinae and Suidae, respectively. So Capra (genus) or Goat could also be possibilities, though the word is so obscure that that might WP:ASTONISH. (Side note, related to domestic animals and fantasy fiction: Magic: The Gathering has the delightful Ovinomancer, a wizard who turns enemies into sheep.) --BDD (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon. It's not a bad word in Scrabble, but WP:NOTDIC. (Ovine is usually better if you hold the B.) Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Gray reds
- 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 all. In view of two previous RfDs (1, 2) and the WP:CSD#G6 special Neelix clause, I do not think we need to have another debate about these. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Gray reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This Neelix redirect has the same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Red_grey, because seal brown does not have red in it. I also nominate these redirects for the same reason:
- Grey-reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grey reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Greyreds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gray-reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grayreds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Red-grays → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Red grays → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Redgrays → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Red-greys → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Red greys → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Redgreys → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Reddish-greys → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Reddish greys → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Reddish-grays → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Reddish grays → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grayish-reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grayish reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Greyish-reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Greyish reds → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. When I saw this, I assumed it was a reference to squirrels. Totally implausible, even by Neelix standards. ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging JohnCD, who closed the other discussion as delete, to see if he wants to do the same here. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2016 (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.
Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment
- Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment → Transformation of the United States Army#Square Divisions (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The subject of the redirect is not mentioned at target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. (I added the section to which this links.) The brief text, but not the section title, was introduced in May 2011 by an IP with this edit and removed about a month later with this one, with the comment "Moving to History of the United States Army" by User:Buckshot06 but it doesn't actually seem to have been included.
- I presume this is some special kind of Table of Organization and Equipment (introduced around 1921?), so that is probably not a suitable retarget; other articles use the term, and others just "division table of...", often with the abbreviation "(TO&E)" It's WP:RFD#D2 confusing, indeed, intriguing (why must it be square?) so WP:REDLINK it. (WP:RSECT anyone?) Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Square division. While equipment is not mentioned there, that title does include two wire-diagrams that compare the tables of organization of a square division and a triangular division. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks to Rossami for finding that article, perhaps this was R was WP:RFD#D1 blocking my search for it. I don't think it helps to redirect there, because this is such a specific term that taking it anywhere more general is going to be surprising. Perhaps we should just own up that we don't have any information about this specific thing, and WP:REDLINK it. Si Trew (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirects containing the phrase "world conflicts"
- Continuing world conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current world conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of world conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Present-day world conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Recent world conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It is misleading to assume that "world conflict" means "armed conflict", especially since the word "conflict" is ambiguous and since World conflict and World conflicts do not exist to help identify the term "world conflict". Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I think that's what most people mean, and if there's no second possible redirect target, I think these are fine. (If there were, we could turn these into disambiguation pages.) -- Beland (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Beland: Just curious, do you think that World conflict should be created as a redirect to War, the current target of redirect Armed conflict? Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Mmm, "world conflicts" sounds more like "armed conflicts currently raging around the world" whereas "world conflict" could mean "world war" as opposed to "regional war". Or at least those are the connotations I get, which could vary from person to person. No one has ever bothered to put anything at "world conflict", and I think that's a sign that it's not really something people search for. I wouldn't go out of our way to create speculative links, so unless someone comes along and says "I searched for this (or could imagine myself doing so on a groggy Saturday) and didn't find what I wanted" I would just leave it empty for now. -- Beland (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. Since there is the ambiguity of whether a conflict is a war (we don't have List of world wars for example) then all these do is WP:RFD#D1 unreasonably inhibit search. Si Trew (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirects containing "conflict" without a non-time descriptive adjective
- Ongoing conflict → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Active conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Ongoing Conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Ongoing conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of current conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of ongoing conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current conflicts → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Per the disambiguation page Conflict, the term "conflict" isn't exclusive to armed conflict, so thus, these redirects are ambiguous and could refer to multiple separate subjects (WP:XY). Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Mmm, I think that page actually used to be at "ongoing conflicts" and that's actually what I still type to get there sometimes. I'm not sure there's a good redirect target for "ongoing social conflicts" since we don't seem to have lists of anything other than the armed kind. If someone discovers one or more pages that someone might actually be looking for when typing "ongoing conflicts" etc. we could always put a hatnote on "List of ongoing armed conflicts" that link to a single page, or make the redirects into disambiguation pages. As it is, I'm inclined to say we should leave these redirects as they are. -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the armed conflicts are overwhelmingly likely to be the topic those search terms are looking for. Adjustment to the hatnote might be useful, but I don't see any other relevant article to direct readers to. Worrying about the lack of 'armed' in those redirect names seems overly pedantic to me. Modest Genius talk 11:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Ongoing conflict could perhaps refer to a perpetual war. For the Duration is an album, unfortunately (and, unfortunately) so that's no help. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
LTE (telecommunications)
- LTE (telecommunications) → LTE (telecommunication) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as the shorter and almost identical form without any different spelling is the destination of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the name of the link-destination suggests to me that it is found more easily than this redirect. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I hear the plural form more often. As Telecommunication says, "The word is often used in its plural form, telecommunications, because it involves many different technologies." As for the redirect itself, it's unambiguous and not harmful. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, but reverse the redirect. Despite what the article says (that BDD notes), "telecommunications" is not a plural here but an abstract noun. It is, I would suggest, by far the more common term than telecommunication. It would be like saying "she works with computer" rather than "she works with computers". There's no harm in keeping it but it makes sense to move the article over the redirect. Most if not all of our articles use the -s form, such as Telecommunications in Tunisia not Telecommunication in Tunisia (but, nothing is perfect, Telecommunications redirects to Telecommunication). Someone has been overly pedantic with the singulars; what is widely known as BT is not legally known as British Telecommunication plc for example but British Telecommunications plc. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would prefer to match the main article, though there's never been an RM there. (In its talk page archives, an IP opined in 2006 that the plural form should be used.) --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's fine for the main article, I think that is rather a coin-toss really, but the prevalent usage I think would be with the -s to describe the state of the art, rather than the concept of talking at a distance. (Nearly ec'd but we missed.) It's not really a plural, despite what the article says, but an abstract uncountable noun depending on when you learned your grammar. (Grammarians make a good living redefining grammar.) Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would prefer to match the main article, though there's never been an RM there. (In its talk page archives, an IP opined in 2006 that the plural form should be used.) --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Revers the redirect the real article should use "telecommunications" and the redirect from "telecommunication" to the article should exist -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Deployed HSUPA networks
- List of Deployed HSUPA networks → List of HSUPA networks (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect is not necessary (and also unommon WP:UCN) as a list of networks (almost automatically) indicates to a reader that these are deployed, unless the title is clarified with additions like "planned" or "former". This is also the impression I have from a look around similar technology related list-articles. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the name of the link-destination suggests to me that it is found more easily than this redirect. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's redundant but harmless, until the target lists undeployed (withdrawn) networks; as it stands it lists only deployed networks. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Trump Train
- Trump Train → Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Google search reveals little use of the term, I don't think this redirect is needed. Laber□T 22:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete what does it even mean? Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. — Music1201 talk 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I'm am not seeing the purpose of this redirect. Is it supposed to be a common term? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment we could redirect to Trump trainwreck? Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, that's red and always has been; so is Trump train wreck. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- A ha ha! So edgy. You must be proud of yourself for that one. (Seriously, I'm not seeing your comment for anything other than a childish attempt at disparaging Trump's campaign for no apparent point. There's a reason why contentious issues like religion or politics are off-limits for these kinds of petty "jokes".) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- ^^^No sense of humor... Watching the news and comedy shows must be super tough for you. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lol, my response was done in a half-joking manner. It's not like I'm personally offended or anything. (The smalltext was later added to prevent some tool misinterpreting it as a personal attack against you). That being said, I keep my humor in situations that ask for it - or would you not mind if I dropped Bernie loves Free Shit!!! quips all over Sanders-related discussions? Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I took it as a serious suggestion and thought Legacypac had just mistyped. I'm all for injecting a bit of lightheartedness into discussions, but I just didn't get this one. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- ^^^No sense of humor... Watching the news and comedy shows must be super tough for you. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Who is going to type this? HighInBC 03:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: it is a real term used in the campaign. - Eureka Lott 04:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Whose twitter feed is that? HighInBC 04:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @gov is Twitter's government and elections team. It's an official Twitter account. - Eureka Lott 04:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- A twitter hashtag is no more a real term than SimonTrew or EurekaLott; anyway that is #TrumpTrain not "Trump Train". We don't have the others on that Twitter poll, CruzCrew, TeamMarco or Kasich4Us, nor do we have spaced variants; and neither should we. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- That being said, we do have {{R from hashtag}}. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - In the rare occasions that Twitter-based terminology is used, and the only single one that I can think of is "Bieber Fever", in an encyclopedic sense, it's because we have serious coverage beyond just flash-in-the-pan interest. Really, this looks like nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps we should add "Wikipedia is not Twitter" to WP:WWIN? Oh, wait, we already have WP:NOTTWITTER. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I made this redirect. I can easily find the term in several news headlines[10], [11], [12]. For some of you who were unsure what the term meant or what it was I think you might have searched for it if you came across it. And that's perfectly reasonable since there are many notable things with the Trump name. "Trump train wreck" might be used more if his campaign is unsuccessful, some people want to derail it.[13] But to have that we must have this. And a better example for Twitter is that is used in Dan Scavino's[14] and Corey Lewandowski's[15] bios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickypedoia (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Harmless redirect and per WP:CHEAP, mostly - the term is clearly used by an impressive number of news outlets and has become something of an internet meme lately, with Trump supporters regularly using this term to refer to their campaign. I count some WP:IDONTLIKEIT-ish votes above; this is clearly a term that is used and clearly a term some people do type. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment my vote is based on it being pointless and confusing. I don't see how anyone is voting against Trump here. Now is Trump train like a Trump golf course, university, board game, casino, towers, water, or steaks? How does it relate the Trump wall to keep all my Mexicans friends out? Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think it represents the momentum/support of his campaign. So it's not a physical thing like some of his products and structures. But it might be one day, there could be a train named after him or a famous artwork, who knows? Even if that doesn't happen we should still have it do to its significant usage, here it is in two more headlines since this discussion started [16], [17]. Wickypedoia (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Really? I took it to mean a train company that quickly went out of business. HighInBC 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, our article at train wreck is for the literal sense (train crash in British English) and we have train wreck (disambiguation) to mention the metaphorical. I have not seen "train wreck" (or "train crash") used in Britain in its metaphorical sense, but I'm aware of that meaning and didn't think it meant that Trump had somehow been involved in a railroad collision. But I don't see that it makes a good redirect unless there are specific references to Trump or his campaign being a metaphorical train wreck. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, I though it was like many other things with "Trump" in front of it and that it was a failed business. HighInBC 15:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, our article at train wreck is for the literal sense (train crash in British English) and we have train wreck (disambiguation) to mention the metaphorical. I have not seen "train wreck" (or "train crash") used in Britain in its metaphorical sense, but I'm aware of that meaning and didn't think it meant that Trump had somehow been involved in a railroad collision. But I don't see that it makes a good redirect unless there are specific references to Trump or his campaign being a metaphorical train wreck. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Really? I took it to mean a train company that quickly went out of business. HighInBC 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it represents the momentum/support of his campaign. So it's not a physical thing like some of his products and structures. But it might be one day, there could be a train named after him or a famous artwork, who knows? Even if that doesn't happen we should still have it do to its significant usage, here it is in two more headlines since this discussion started [16], [17]. Wickypedoia (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, a "train" to mean something following has shades of meaning from the literal to abstract metaphor, so it seems a reasonable bit of headline language to denote Trump's presidential campaign. But then, why not just have them for everything? Without RS that this term is actually used, it's a bit flimsy and we shouldn't make up terms (WP:NEOLOGISM). Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To allow further debate of the keep-arguments towards the end of the week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure how this got relisted, the consensus seemed rather obvious to me. I would like to reiterate that I don't think this is a likely redirect and that I stand by my opinion that it should be deleted. I do this because the only reason I can think of for this to be relisted is if the closer thought I and others were somehow not aware of the arguments made here? HighInBC 15:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't think there was consensus first time round, so to me it was sensible to relist.
-
- TrumpTrain is red, presumably because we don't like CamelCase any more; then to sneak in Trump Train (not Trump train or #Trump train or #TrumpTrain etc) is pushing it when it is not mentioned at the target. Still WP:RFD#D2 confusing, as deminstrated above, where other editors thought it might be a real train (and why not? Plenty of campaigners get trains, Battle bus(s)es or bandwagons). Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment For me throwing a hash at the front of the name directs me to this page but nor through a redirect and nor to this section, just the page. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Unices
- List of Unices → Unix (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of Unixes → Unix (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't get how it may refer to Unix, more likely could be the DABs at Unic or Unice but implausible for either. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of Unix systems - to some geeks, the plural of Unix is "Unices" (like matrix -> matrices). I'm adding List of Unixes to this nom as well, I find it bewildering why the "list of" redirects go to the article and not the list. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Generally, because the list was deleted as some point and redirected to the article to stop it showing as a red-link, and was then recreated at the List of... name once fresh sources came along. ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- So, just an oversight, then? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per above. This kind of nerd grammar is baffling to outsiders but is genuine, in the same way that you'll find some die-hard Wikipediots insisting that the plural of "infobox" is "infoboxen". ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
And the plural of sow is swine
And coronets rest upon brine
Then pumpkins can hang from a a vow
Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget' as above. If you think using a Latin/Greek plural on this is bad, what do you think about the Old English plural for VAXen? Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per IvanVector, this is a real world usage plural form. Unices, Unixes, Unixen -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Violent conflict
- 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 by nominator, namely (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Violent conflict → War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
After the recent discussion for Armed conflict, I'm wondering whether this should be retargeted to the DAB at Conflict as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
. Although wars are generally violent, not all violent conflict is war; domestic violence for example. The "violent" is really redundant unless one wanted a distinction with peaceful conflict or nonviolent conflict which we have not got, although I guess if we did they would go to Pacifism or Passive resistance or somesuch, if not just to negotiation or diplomacy.
Nothing links to it, stats are below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete; my preference would be a dab page to Police action and War, but that would mean a good deal of writing for little benefit to reaaders. @Si Trew, the opposite of "violent conflict" isn't "peaceful conflict", it's cold war (a page which could use some serious rewriting, but which is certainly a genuine concept). ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Making a DAB page is not a big deal, we turn redirects into DABs quite regularly here. Considering that you had to pipe cold war (general term) as "cold war" indicates that even cold war (disambiguation) needs, er, disambiguation (and it is at Cold War (disambiguation). Tat's by the by, we're not discussing "nonviolent conflict" but "violent conflict". (Although you're right, I hadn't thought of that one.) As far as I can tell, "violent conflict" is used by sloppy journalists in reliable sources to mean "conflict", not always physical violence. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, this is not something I intend to lose sleep over. There may well be a reader out there thinking "why isn't there a word for when a bunch of soldiers start shooting at each other?", but they're not a reader whose opinions matter. It strikes me that a decent dab page would also need proxy war, endemic warfare, range war, nationalist terrorism and all those other cheery things that lie on the spectrum between "the absence of war" and "we begin bombing in five minutes", and providing even minimal descriptions would cause a lot of aggravation for very little benefit. ‑ Iridescent 19:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Making a DAB page is not a big deal, we turn redirects into DABs quite regularly here. Considering that you had to pipe cold war (general term) as "cold war" indicates that even cold war (disambiguation) needs, er, disambiguation (and it is at Cold War (disambiguation). Tat's by the by, we're not discussing "nonviolent conflict" but "violent conflict". (Although you're right, I hadn't thought of that one.) As far as I can tell, "violent conflict" is used by sloppy journalists in reliable sources to mean "conflict", not always physical violence. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (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.
Ohad Shem-Tov
- Ohad Shem-Tov → Ale Yarok (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
While this person was, in fact, the head of the Ale Yarok party at one time, he was later expelled from the party, and became the head of a different party - Pirate Party of Israel. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search per WP:XY, and WP:REDLINK. He's mentioned once in each, Ale Yarok and Pirate Party of Israel – in the second, linked in the infobox, not linked in the first. Neither article says anything about him (or her?) beyond a mention. Si Trew (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Religious explanations of gravity
- Religious explanations of gravity → Theistic science (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The target says nothing whatsoever as to how religions explain gravity. We have intelligent falling, but this is obvious parody of religious explanations of life, and not really about gravity at all. This redirect resulted from this articles for deletion discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I don't really see much consensus at the deletion discussion for changing the (embryo) article into a redirect – two !votes to retarget, one to keep, and one to delete. It seems to me that the retarget option is chosen really as a default, but as Oiyarbepsy points out, the current target makes no mention of gravity. I enjoyed the intelligent falling article, I had not heard of that before; but that presumably would be an irreligious explanation of gravity. I presume most explanations in history have been in some way religious if anybody thought much about it at all until the Rennaissance; History of gravitational theory is perhaps a possible target? Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete Having looked at a few of the references listed in the AFD, it's clear to me that none of them actually had explanations beyond "since God created the universe, he created gravity as well." Other than that I cannot find anything that goes beyond prescientific "things fall to earth because it is their nature to do so," which is hardly religious; History of gravitational theory mentions a few ancient musings on the matter, none of which have any relationship to religion. the redirect as an alternative to deletion that should have failed in the face of more complete research. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Conatus. As with most scientific history pre-Industrial Revolution, Wikipedia's coverage is fairly awful, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that most readers searching for "religious explanation of gravity" want to know "what did people believe before Newton and Galileo", which in the case of Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe was the theory of the conatus. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Linux++
Non-notable distro, not in the list of Linux distributions or anywhere else. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, because until HP's "The Machine" becomes reality, Linux++ is pretty much only a non-notable hype. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
April 13
The SpaceX private launch site
- The SpaceX private launch site → SpaceX South Texas Launch Site (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Useless double redirect now that target page has moved to a better name — JFG talk 21:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Deletion is not cleanup. If the target is wrong then fix it. Actually, normally bots fix it within a couple days, and the redirect would have been fixed, but I don't think bots fix redirects at RfD. This is also a very plausible redirect, and I could see curious people typing in exactly this to learn about the launch site. In case you haven't noticed, keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've updated the target article listed here. If the redirect is kept, this is where it will point. --BDD (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete SpaceX private launch site already exists, and isn't correct, since SpaceX has multiple private launch sites. Grasshopper was launched at their testing site, and not this South Texas site. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This redirect was a placeholder, it is unused except for this discussion and a user page. And SpaceX private launch site was the tentative name given to their future launch site before they selected the Texas location. I moved that page to clarify, and incoming links should be cleaned up soon. — JFG talk 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Update: All links from mainspace to SpaceX private launch site cleaned up. — JFG talk 08:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reluctantly Keep per WP:RFD#K5, somebody once found it useful. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment 2: I just realized that this redirect was not used at all before I submitted it for deletion. The aforementioned user page only points there because of the RfD. The similar SpaceX private launch site redirect is the only one used, and that can stay (search will pick it up). — JFG talk 08:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'd noticed that, but just the act of creating it presumably means once upon a time someone found it useful. It's annoying to Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners such as myself because it is just so much flotsam but there's no real reason to delete, it's not harming anything. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Odd that we don't have an entry for obsessive cleaning. Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd noticed that, but just the act of creating it presumably means once upon a time someone found it useful. It's annoying to Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners such as myself because it is just so much flotsam but there's no real reason to delete, it's not harming anything. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There's already one without the "The" that can be searched as it does not require "The" in the name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the existence of other redirects neither allows nor disallows the existence of this one. It can't go WP:RFD#D1 "hinders search" and it is not confusing, or any other deletion criterion. It is annoying but harmless; gets people where they want to go. It doesn't even clutter search results because by a Byzantine algorithm that only the Wikimedia folks know, redirects to the same target are pared down in search results. We have WP:THE, but it's often argued that that applies strictly to article titles and not other pages. Si Trew (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Pablo Picasso/African
- Pablo Picasso/African → Picasso's African Period (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete as an unlikely search term. There is no page history. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not a {{R from old history}} since this was created after subpages were shutdown in mainspace. Can't see how someone would search in this fashion and none of Picasso's other periods have similar redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- What do you mean, "subpages were shutdown in mainspace"? Is that some policy thing or a technical thing in the MediaWiki software now? I am unaware of it. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a little of both, but has been in effect since 2004. See Wikipedia:Subpages#History of subpages for more details. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean, "subpages were shutdown in mainspace"? Is that some policy thing or a technical thing in the MediaWiki software now? I am unaware of it. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No attribution/merge history to preserve. No potential use as search term. czar 06:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Ursula (Spider-Man)
- Ursula (Spider-Man) → Spider-Man in film (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Ursula Ditkovich is a minor character in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. There is no mention of this character in the target article, and there is no standalone list of Spider-Man film characters she could be added to. Reach Out to the Truth 13:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, there is List of Spider-Man supporting characters, but she's not on there either, and you did say specifically film characters. Si Trew (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Martin Luther King Jr. International Airport
- Martin Luther King Jr. International Airport → Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in article, created by blocked sockpuppet. SSTflyer 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly WP:G3 vandalism. No evidence to support this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Heathrow Airport says "the man convicted of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., was captured and arrested at Heathrow Airport" but that seems an unlikely target, one would have to imagine someone typing in this to answer a question something like "which airport was MLK's assasin arrested at?", and it would probably be better to let them find that out from search. I am surprised there isn't a Martin Luther King (jr.) Airport but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. There is not an airport named for Dr. King, certainly not this one. Speedy declined. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Susan B. Anthony International Airport
- 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 deleted as WP:G5 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Susan B. Anthony International Airport → Greater Rochester International Airport (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in article, created by blocked sockpuppet. SSTflyer 12:50, 13 April 2016 (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.
Fauxcahontas
- Fauxcahontas → Elizabeth Warren (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:BLP: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Although some reliable sources have used "Fauxcahontas", it is not used in any Wikipedia article (excluding redirect). WP:BLP doesn't explicitly comment redirects, but first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT is probably applicable to this case.
WP:RNEUTRAL isn't too helpful guideline for us here since it doesn't comment on the BLP burden that pejorative redirect titles dump on BLPs. Difference between this case and e.g. Dirty Desmond is that "Dirty Desmond" moniker is well established and properly sourced in the article.
See also: Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Rubiobot. Politrukki (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Never heard of this one, and its returning fewer than 10% of the Ghits that Lyin' Ted and Little Marco do. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and refine target to Elizabeth Warren#Native American heritage controversy. It is a well known alternate name for that documented controversy. I share the BLP concern but the proper thing to do is to correct it, not delete it, per WP:PRESERVE. I'm not entirely sure how we should do that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's not actually a section or anchor at the moment (just a semicolon heading), but that is easily fixed. I guess we need to add some info at the target. Nothing in BLP says that they have to be hagiographies with no "negative" aspects, they can be provided there are reliable sources. I wouldn't be knowledgeable enough sensibly to do so, I think. If not, we should delete it just as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; which is entirely separate from any BLP issue. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't test my link, but yeah it's easily fixed. I think this is allowed under WP:RNEUTRAL, it is a name that reliable sources have used for the controversy, just like Climategate or Attorneygate. I guess the difference is that this is a denigrating moniker for a person, not the controversy itself, but we normally keep those too if they're in reliable sources. I don't think we really need to modify the target either, other than adding an anchor, I think most readers will be able to figure out how "fauxcahontas" came about by what's already written there. We don't need to hit them in the head with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think we do need to hit them in the head with it. Otherwise it's just WP:NEOLOGISM. Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so really, "Attorneygate" does not appear in Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I suppose it comes down to editorial discretion, and that should be settled on the article's talk page. As a redirect, it points to the correct location. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it does, because if the term existed at the target then there would be little to argue about (or at least its inclusion would be contested at the article page and not here). I haven't waded through the article history to discover whether it ever existed at the target; I'm basing my delete !vote on a rather gung-ho attitude that if it's useful someone will recreate it, and at that time they will need to add a good RS or two to the target. So let's assume there were some content and it has been deleted, then the redirect should have been dropped to as a dangling pointer. But if the content was never present, then this was a purely speculative creation and can be speedily deleted as WP:R3 (or is it R2?) novel or obscure term. Either way, it can't stand up to scrutiny unless it's at the article. Wikipedia is not a cryptic crossword puzzle, we shouldn't require people to make French mental leaps (leapfrog?), but tell them straight. Si Trew (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- But the content is there. The description of the entire controversy is right there in the section, in fairly decent detail. It just so happens that some sources have used this non-neutral name to refer to it, and as such people are somewhat likely to search for it by that title. It's unlikely we would write an entire separate article about this. I'm wary of including any detail about political opponents' deliberately insulting soundbites for things in the bodies of articles which are supposed to be neutral, but that's a long way off from pretending that they don't exist and that readers aren't going to search for them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that it exists. I don't work for Minitrue but there has to be some boundary and to me, having the term in the article is a decent boundary. The first result I get from Google is from the National Review but totally stalled my Computer when accessing it and popped up with something asking for a donation. There's an op-ed here at The New York Post which is presumably RS, but the first one is better because it specifically has Native American in the headline (I think, it buggered my computer up). Wiktionary doesn't have it, but I don't know its rules for entries. Most of the sources I find are not reliable, but yours may differ. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- But the content is there. The description of the entire controversy is right there in the section, in fairly decent detail. It just so happens that some sources have used this non-neutral name to refer to it, and as such people are somewhat likely to search for it by that title. It's unlikely we would write an entire separate article about this. I'm wary of including any detail about political opponents' deliberately insulting soundbites for things in the bodies of articles which are supposed to be neutral, but that's a long way off from pretending that they don't exist and that readers aren't going to search for them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it does, because if the term existed at the target then there would be little to argue about (or at least its inclusion would be contested at the article page and not here). I haven't waded through the article history to discover whether it ever existed at the target; I'm basing my delete !vote on a rather gung-ho attitude that if it's useful someone will recreate it, and at that time they will need to add a good RS or two to the target. So let's assume there were some content and it has been deleted, then the redirect should have been dropped to as a dangling pointer. But if the content was never present, then this was a purely speculative creation and can be speedily deleted as WP:R3 (or is it R2?) novel or obscure term. Either way, it can't stand up to scrutiny unless it's at the article. Wikipedia is not a cryptic crossword puzzle, we shouldn't require people to make French mental leaps (leapfrog?), but tell them straight. Si Trew (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so really, "Attorneygate" does not appear in Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I suppose it comes down to editorial discretion, and that should be settled on the article's talk page. As a redirect, it points to the correct location. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not actually a section or anchor at the moment (just a semicolon heading), but that is easily fixed. I guess we need to add some info at the target. Nothing in BLP says that they have to be hagiographies with no "negative" aspects, they can be provided there are reliable sources. I wouldn't be knowledgeable enough sensibly to do so, I think. If not, we should delete it just as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; which is entirely separate from any BLP issue. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. There was a long spate of edits around the end of February 2015 by User:Steeletrap on this section (and others), that user may be able to shed some light on the matter. As far as I can tell, this term was never in the article before, during or after those edits, but I may have missed something. The redirect itself was created on 15 July 2014, so well predates that edit session. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- retarget to Elizabeth Warren#Native American heritage controversy more or less along the above lines. Just because it's pejorative doesn't mean people aren't going to search for it. From what I can see the article gives a dispassionate, neutral description of this flash-in-the-pan controversy, so if we're going to document it at all we should link to it by a name used by her opponents. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Rubiobot
- Rubiobot → Marco Rubio (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:BLP: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Although some reliable sources have used "Rubiobot", it is not used in any Wikipedia article (excluding redirect). WP:BLP doesn't explicitly comment redirects, but first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT is probably applicable to this case.
WP:RNEUTRAL isn't too helpful guideline for us here since it doesn't comment on the BLP burden that pejorative redirect titles dump on BLPs. Difference between this case and e.g. Dirty Desmond is that "Dirty Desmond" moniker is well established and properly sourced in the article.
See also: Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Fauxcahontas. Politrukki (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Rubiobot is known is reliable sources, is easier to type than the full name which helps a great many readers, and it may be used in articles later down the line. The 321 kiddo (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- 'Redirects do not have to be neutral; WP:RNEUTRAL. However if the information is not at the target then it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing, so delete it. I'm happy to change my !vote if information is added, but I'm not competent to do so myself, since the coverage with this name in my part of the world is minimal if not nonexistent and I'm in no place to judge how common it is in the US. Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. It is sourced and the redirect may help confused people. Bod (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Doesn't this refer to his performance at Eighth Republican Party presidential debate, February 2016 in Goffstown, New Hampshire? (what a mouthful!) If so, by far the most common "nickname" I've seen from that was Marco Roboto, not this. -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix. SSTflyer 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Current leaders of San Jose, California
- Current leaders of San Jose, California → San Jose City Council (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current leaders of San Jose, CA → San Jose City Council (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current Leaders of San Jose, California → San Jose City Council (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misleading redirects since the word "leader" is ambiguous. (Dies it refer to political leaders, motivational leaders, leaders of movements, etc?) Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as we avoid relative time, and per Steel1943. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. While I really don't like the "current ..." articles, redirecting them to the article about the right topic prevents them from being endlessly recreated. I find no ambiguity in these redirects. The leaders of a political entity (in this case, the city) will of course be the political leaders. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The word "political" is nowhere in these redirects. The redirects assume that the reader is not looking for any other sort of leader, which is misleading. Also, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current leaders of Seattle for a similar discussion where deletion consensus was established. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, "political" is implicit in the thing that they are the leader of. In common english usage, the leaders of a city/state/country/township/etc. are the political leaders. No one would use that phrase and expect to find a motivational speaker or even a religious leader. If you wanted that more generic list sorted by geography, the common english usage would be something like "prominent citizens of ...". I still do not see your argument that this is misleading. Rossami (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The word "political" is nowhere in these redirects. The redirects assume that the reader is not looking for any other sort of leader, which is misleading. Also, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current leaders of Seattle for a similar discussion where deletion consensus was established. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. They're redundant, but these will not really go out of date (assuming the article is kept reasonably current). I don't like redirects starting "Current" either but WP:RFD#K5, presumably somebody finds them useful. Leaders patently, in common English, means the people at the top of the organisation – be they elected or dictators, non-political or political, or indeed religious leaders in a theocracy. The only time it's likely to be at all ambiguous is for people such as constitutional monarchs or other figureheads with no real executive power, such as Queen Elizabeth II (is she the leader of Canada?) Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No other type-in searches for "Current leaders" bring up such lists besides these three. Current Leaders is not a proper noun name for this leadership. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a rationale for (or against) deletion. But the weird caps do not a proper noun make; a proper noun is a proper noun because it is (a person, place, and so on), however you capitalise it. Personally I'd delete all three, but that's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, "leader" is vague. While the target gives the current political leaders, there are other types of leaders. Religious leaders are one example: Bishop Patrick Joseph McGrath is the current leader of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
IPhone 5SE
- IPhone 5SE → IPhone 5S (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this be retargeted to iPhone SE? sst✈ 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with deletion. "iPhone 5SE" was a rumored name for the iPhone SE. sst✈ 08:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I also disagree. After all, the SE is essentially an iteration of the 5S; I can imagine a handful of people typing "iPhone 5SE" instead of "iPhone SE". Philip Terry Graham 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to iPhone SE. It's a plausible mistake to make per above. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to this redirect having an WP:XY issue, there are other issues. For one, the redirect is somewhat erroneous to a point where it could be misleading since Apple Inc. has a specific way they number their iPhone product, and this redirect could be thought to redirect to a phone in the "iPhone 5" series, which it doesn't, nor did the iPhone 5 series have an "SE" version; this redirect could make readers believe that the iPhone SE is part of the "iPhone 5" series when it is actually part of the "iPhone 6" series. (Speaking of which, I think I'll create IPhone 6SE now.) Also, this redirect reflects some of the criticism that some people have seem to have stated about the target that may not be encyclopedic: There is criticism that the target is an iPhone 5S case with iPhone 6S series hardware. Lastly, this could potentially be an erroneous title for the iPhone 5S anyways since a reader could think the redirect means "iPhone 5 Special Edition". For these reasons, it would be best to delete this redirect as erroneous, misleading and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I already commented above, but to add: I believe that besides my own opinion, the confusion presented by the nominator regarding where the redirect should be targeted in itself is the equivalent of rationale for this redirect's deletion. This redirect could be an erroneous name for multiple subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Iexplorer.exe
- Iexplorer.exe → Internet Explorer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Iexplorer → Internet Explorer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a separate program, this is never used for Internet Explorer. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as
{{R from incorrect name}}
(which it already is). WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there are plenty-o-sites to tell you "what is this file?", but I can't see they do any harm, in the absence of anything else going by that name.iexplore.exe
is mentioned at the target, but notiexplorer.exe
. I think it's just a misnomer. I'd be more worried if it were malware and we had inspired a false sense of security, but I don't think it is. Iexplore and Iexplore.exe already target there. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
April 12
Project Unity
- Project Unity → University of Manchester (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I came to this 9-year-old redirect through a link about the Laotian Civil War, so it's much broader than the redirect suggests. Also, it isn't mentioned at all in the target. I suggest that we delete it. ansh666 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC) ansh666 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate there are many Unity projects -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- But do they have articles? Please give some examples. ansh666 07:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- SAS (software) covers one, Unity: The Latin Tribute to Michael Jackson covers another, Operation Sourisak Montry VIII details a particular batallion of Project Unity in battle. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think those are too obscure to create a disambiguation page. The first has only one mention with barely any detail of...something, I'm not even sure what it is; the second has alternate title "The Unity Project" which is at least moderately plausible as a redirect target; and the 3-4 Laotian Civil War articles that mention the term don't even bother to explain what it is. ansh666 07:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- SAS (software) covers one, Unity: The Latin Tribute to Michael Jackson covers another, Operation Sourisak Montry VIII details a particular batallion of Project Unity in battle. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- But do they have articles? Please give some examples. ansh666 07:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Little Marco
- Little Marco → Marco Rubio (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Keep Similar to #Lyin' Ted below, this properly tagged redirect from a non-neutral political epithet will help readers who come across the term without proper context. (Nominating as a courtesy to editors who objected on my talk page.) BDD (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as we would any other intentional insult to a WP:BLP. These are not notorious or lasting nicknames (yet, if ever) and Wikipedia is perpetuating this insult between living politicians in the middle of a campaign. Wikipedia is helping generate notoriety. If they come into common and widespread use after the election, then they are notable enough to be saved as redirects. Scr★pIronIV 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an attack page - we should not be creating redirects for every insult Trump dreams up about someone. This is not Trumpinsultopedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not because it's a pejorative (those are explicitly allowed at Wikipedia) but because I can't find any evidence that this common phrase is at all notable or linked to the target by other than a transitory mention. If someone can present evidence that the phrase is commonly used in this specific context, I will reconsider. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Marco Rubio presidential campaign, 2016, which is where criticism of Marco during the campaign should be. wp:NOTCENSORED widespread coverage of this label. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Technopolitics
- Technopolitics → wiktionary:technopolitical (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Originally a Neelix redirect, it was speedied and then recreated as a Wiktionary redirect. The problem I have is that there isn't a Wiktionary entry on "technopolitics," it instead redirects to "technopolitical." I think Wiktionary redirects should only be redirected to an entry on that exact title, otherwise there's potential for confusion. I don't believe this to be a word frequently searched for on Wikipedia, so I think it should be deleted, WP:R#D8 should cover it. If we want an alternative to deletion, the closest subject I could find was Technopoly. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete one of a long string of Neelix invented words to a single target. It should have stayed deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Weakly retargetto Technoculture which in the second sentence of the lede says "it refers to the interactions between, and politics of, technology and culture". Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep as is. Despite the comment in the Technoculture article, culture and politics are different things. Wiktionary has separate entries for every grammatical variant. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not (and should not) follow that same pattern, so I don't see a problem with soft-redirects to Wiktionary going to a grammatical-variant title as long as the concept is the same. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete'. As Rossami points out, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The problem with soft-redirects is that it makes it seem so. I presume the consensus is still to have that distinction, otherwise it would not have been made, or Wiktionary would have been subsumed into Wikipedia. If we are to "window" every unencyclopaeidic word to Wiktionary, we might as well do it in the search engine and be done with it. What a soft redirect says is "we don't have anything about this". Which is what a redlink says, but more consisely: WP:Competence is required by readers as much as editors. The advantage of a redlink is that one doesn't have to load a useless page on a slow device just to be told that. What a blue link does is hold out the candy and snatch it away. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Batman and Superman
- Batman and Superman → Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Does not necessarily have to refer to the film. SSTflyer 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - We should have a new page that mentions the various media involving the two superheroes, which includes not just the 2016 film but also works such as Superman/Batman: Public Enemies as well as Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to DC Comics since they are the owners of both characters and the original source of the concepts. It's a bit general, though so I can also see the argument to disambiguate with more targeted content. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. In addition to above, I also found Superman/Batman, The Batman/Superman Hour, The Superman/Batman Adventures, and even Superman and Batman versus Aliens and Predator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate, as above. Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambig: There are all kinds of comics and such to which this can refer, that pre-date the film. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- This doesn't look like a great candidate for disambiguation, since many of these wouldn't actually be called simply "Batman and Superman". However, I'm positive there's an encyclopedic article to be had about crossovers between them generally we decide to call them. I'm notifying WikiProject Comics and registering a WP:REDLINK weak delete for myself. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambig - I agree that a full article could probably be created for this, but until it is, this should give users an option. The page's history shows that a small number of people (usually single digit) visit it daily. It is worth noting, I think, that it redirected to a subsection about a crossover film between the two characters since its creation in 2007 until it was changed to the film's article in 2015. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dismbiguate following CoffeeWithMarkets and Tavix. Emperor (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily disambiguate.Why does this get relisted for further comment when every !vote bar one (from User:Rossami) in the first round was to disambiguate it? The only reason it wasn't, I imagine, is that nobody wanted to do so themselves because they were involved in the discussion: because all of them have made draft DABs before to be considered at RfD, so it is not for their want or effort. Let's just do it now and close this: I would do it myself but I am not a Batman fan, so one of the others would be better to do it, and we can just speedily close it as done. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:INTERNET
- Wikipedia:INTERNET → Wikipedia:Notability (web) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misleading redirect. The internet and world wide web are not the same thing, as described in our own articles about those subjects. I am aware that those terms are often erroneously used interchangeably due to confusion, but redirects like this only serve to promote such confusion. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - It confused the heck out of me. Even after seeing the redirect target here, I still reflexively clicked Wikipedia:INTERNET to see where the heck it redirected to. Somehow my brain just didn't want to parse that it pointed to WP:Notability xyz. Alsee (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It's a short-cut to Wikipedia:Notability (web) that has quite a number of uses, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Marino (online newspaper). Sure the web is not the Internet, see this week's Signpost, but the vast majority of stuff "on the Internet" is either web-based or can be accessed using a web front-end.
It's not our job to police the back room use of terms, though we might strive for such accuracy in content pages.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet and hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dabify with links to the current target and Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not an encyclopedia article title, it's a Wikipedia maintenance page so our standards for confusion are looser. That said, I can see the potential for Tavix's alternate target. I think the history of usage argues against retargeting and a disambiguation page with only two links is less than ideal. Hatnotes may be useful, though. Rossami (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix. This is confusing, but it's also something that can be a useful shortcut for something more appropriate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix. Hatnote seems to cover all the bases --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix and hatnote. I'm not concerned with the difference between the web and the internet—this just doesn't go where you'd expect. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I was confused at the outset with the nominating remarks. Just because the Internet and the World Wide Web are not the same thing does not mean that WP:INTERNET and WP:WORLDWIDEWEB are not the same thing. So after that I am still totally lost. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix - The previous one although technically makes sense is still stupid....., Retargeting to the wikiproject's much better. –Davey2010Talk 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Popularize Mandarin
- Popularize Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Popularize mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This was discussed before, but we didn't consider alternative targets really (and we didn't consider Popularize mandarin, so it was a good job we decided to keep). Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment shouldn't popularize mandarin be included in this nomination, instead of the other? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's included in the batch immediately below. I shepherded this one out because it had been discussed before. Mandarin Chinese was a redirect before 30 March 2013 when Wikipedia:Mandarin (language) was moved over it (how long for, I don't know: there was no histmerge) so the previous discussion wouldn't have included that possibility. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the redirect targeted to Standard Chinese. The Mandarin that is being popularized is the standard, not the language group. — AjaxSmack 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Create disambiguation page I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but when I first saw this I thought of Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign. Presumably it could also refer to Chinese schools or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the last discussion until and unless a better article specifically about the Chinese government's policy is available. The Singapore campaign is similar but not, I think, the same. Rossami (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: "Popularize mandarin" was originally listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#Standard Mandarin language. I have moved it here as several people objected to it listed there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete both. This phrase can equally refer to Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign, China's Tuipuji Campaign, or any general attempt to popularize the language. Until such a time when a specifi bit of prose about the China's "Popularize Mandarin" campaign is written in the target article, we should not have this redirect, because the current situation leaves readers feeling confused. Deryck C. 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Deryck. That was sort of my inclination anyway, but I don't know too much about the subject and am happy to defer to him. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. "Popularize" is only in the target in a reference (11, as I write) with title "State Councilor urges more efforts to popularize Chinese language"; "Popularise" nowhere. I could think it might be valid for Promotion of Mandarin or somesuch, but I can't find anything likely. Official Mandarin is red, too. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete both per Si Trew. Making a disambig page for non-title matches probably wouldn't be a good idea. ansh666 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)- Actually, retarget to Varieties_of_Chinese#Language_policy, it's probably mentioned there in untranslated form and it's unlikely someone searching for it would be looking for anything else. ansh666 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Deryck Chan, hopefully he can verify whether this is actually related or not. ansh666 04:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, retarget to Varieties_of_Chinese#Language_policy, it's probably mentioned there in untranslated form and it's unlikely someone searching for it would be looking for anything else. ansh666 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete both per Deryck. Is there a notable specific program or organization called Popularize Mandarin or series of Popularize products such as Popularize Cantonese? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)
- House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić) → Zamagna (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense disambiguation. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- How exactly is this "nonsense"? According to the content at the Zamagna title, it is about a noble house and both "Zamanjić" and "Džamanjić" are alternative transliterations of the serbo-croatian name. Moreover, keep to preserve history. Rossami (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a nonsense disambiguation; there is no other House of Zamajić, and even if there were, this would not be the way to disambiguate it. House of Džamanjić is already directing to this target. Deleting a page does not delete its history, but anyway the history consists of four bot retargets for double redirects, so there is no creative content in the history. Stats for the last 30 days show exactly 0 hits including this discussion (although a few of the bars are a couple of pixels deep showing 0 hits) so I don't trust those at all – although perhaps they mark bot hits? In March there were 2 hits. Si Trew (talk)
- Say what? This isn't disambiguation at all. It's a straightforward redirect from an alternative transliteration. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a nonsense disambiguation; there is no other House of Zamajić, and even if there were, this would not be the way to disambiguate it. House of Džamanjić is already directing to this target. Deleting a page does not delete its history, but anyway the history consists of four bot retargets for double redirects, so there is no creative content in the history. Stats for the last 30 days show exactly 0 hits including this discussion (although a few of the bars are a couple of pixels deep showing 0 hits) so I don't trust those at all – although perhaps they mark bot hits? In March there were 2 hits. Si Trew (talk)
- Delete - seems to me plausible search terms (transliterations, as mentioned earlier in the discussion) would be House of Zamanjić and House of Džamanjić with the same target, a hybrid is unlikely to be searched for. Hit logs mentioned above would corroborate this. C679 13:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Tag as unprintworthy, but a construction like "Zamanjić (Džamanjić)" is plausible in the wild. Unlike the item linked in the nomination, which includes three forms of the name and two types of punctuation, I can just imagine this one used as a search term. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - yeah it's wrong but it's harmless and unambiguous. WP:RFD#K5. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Si Trew and C679. Keeping the bracketed term implies a disambiguation that isn't there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Moderate conservatism
- Moderate conservatism → Liberal conservatism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
In American usage only, these terms would be equivalent, but in a global context, it's a very misleading redirect. I don't know if there's any page that really addresses moderate varieties of conservatism in general. This has some of the same problems as Progressive conservatism. BDD (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The best analogy I have for this would be to compare them as Dungeons & Dragons alignments: The redirect is "Neutral Good" or "Neutral Evil" whereas the target is either "Lawful Evil" or "Chaotic Good", depending on one's opinions regarding political stances. Anyways, the redirect is not the same as its target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cast a spell of delete per Steel1943. If it's not the name of a specific political ideology, then "moderate" is just an undefined modifier on conservatism. It could be middling conservatism or mild conservatism or conservative-ish or leaning conservative
or compassionate conservatismbut none of those actually mean anything. There are many possible targets but none that are really matches in an encyclopedic sense, so we should let the reader refine their search before we try to guess at what they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oops, compassionate conservatism is a real thing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. In the European context "liberal conservatism" and "moderate conservatism" are used mostly as synonims. --Checco (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As above, it works as a redirect for a synonymous term. Also, En.wiki is a 'world' resource, and should not be limited to North American English terminology.--Autospark (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Then, that means this term has initiate ambiguity, depending on where the term is used. That seems more likes grounds to delete or disambiguate this title. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Let's not disambiguate this. Without a proper definition, listing various ideologies under a heading of moderate conservatism (as we would on a dab page) is entirely POV. We might as well have a crunchy apple dab page where we list all the varieties of apple which are crunchy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Moderate, like Moderate (politics) does. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Lyin' Ted
Delete per WP:RFD#D3. Offensive nickname that Donald Trump uses (though Trump spells it "L-Y-E-N... with a big... apostrophe") for Sen. Cruz. Not mentioned on target page or presidential campaign page. Politrukki (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep See WP:RNEUTRAL. I accordingly created the redirect with {{R from non-neutral name}}. I'll also note that the usage has gone beyond Trump and his surrogates, such as a Kasich super PAC. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- When Sen. Cruz called Donald Trump a "sniveling coward", the incident received international coverage in RS. However, I don't think we should redirect "Sniveling coward" to "Donald Trump" unless the target article mentions incident like this.
I assume you were referring to rule #3 of WP:RNEUTRAL? R3 uses "Attorneygate" as an example, but there are cruzial differences between "Attorneygate" and "Lyin' Ted":
- "Lyin' Ted" is, as far as I can tell, always directly attributed to Trump (or recently pro-Kasich super PAC and so on). "Attorneygate" for example in here or here is said in source's voice.
- "Attorneygate" target, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, is not a BLP. Hence simply using a word "Attorneygate" is not defamation against the persons involved in that article. Ted Cruz obviously is a BLP. WP:BLP says All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. I'm afraid we fail to follow WP:BLP if contentious redirect title like this is not – at least – mentioned in the target article. Politrukki (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- When Sen. Cruz called Donald Trump a "sniveling coward", the incident received international coverage in RS. However, I don't think we should redirect "Sniveling coward" to "Donald Trump" unless the target article mentions incident like this.
- Delete per Politrukki; Wikipedia should avoid the appearance of agreeing with one or more politicians who criticize one or more other politicians; could revisit if the term becomes as widespread as Tricky Dick. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Keepper BDD. Wikipedia documenting the prominent usage of an insulting term used by political opponents of a particular person is different from Wikipedia inventing the insult, and the former is true here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)- Retarget to Ted Lyons. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per BDD, Ivanvector. GABHello! 23:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - We went through eight years of President Bush with various goofy sayings being made up and getting a smattering of notice, didn't we? Every silly utterance doesn't necessarily merit a redirect or page. If this had anything like the reasonable notice and coverage of, say, "Tricky Dick" then that would be one thing... but that's not what's here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not discussed the target, and it's not a widespread term either, so any discussion of it at the target would probably be inappropriate. MelanieLamont (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- As BDD notes, the pejorative nature of the redirect is irrelevant. Redirects are deliberately not held to the same standards of neutrality as article content. The relevant question here is notability - how common is this particular phrase. I find little evidence that this phrase is in significant use unique to this context. Delete unless better evidence of prominence is presented. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The pejorative nature should still be taken into account. There's a difference between "non-neutral redirects", such as the examples of Climategate, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, Attorneygate listed at WP:RNEUTRAL, and a straight up attack on a BLP, which is the case here. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 since this is only a term used in the current POTUS campaign, due to the Ben Carson and Marco Rubio vote-stealing complaints -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCENSORED it has been used by several 2016 candidates, used prominently in the news, so should point to his 2016 campaign as criticism of him. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I think there's a difference between "non-neutral" redirects such as as the examples listed at WP:RNEUTRAL (Climategate, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, Attorneygate) and one that is a straight-up attack on a BLP. I'm also reserved as to the usefulness of this redirect, since "Lyin' Ted" is always used in the context of Ted Cruz, so it's highly unlikely someone knows about "Lyin' Ted" but not Ted Cruz. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Little Marco, another Trump-insult-turned-attack-page also exists and redirects to Marco Rubio. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 01:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- That should similarly redirect to his 2016 POTUS campaign article. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- This term isn't going anywhere but up. This Esquire article calls it the "most durable" of Trump's insults. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an attack page - it serves no purpose. Anyone dumb enough to search this term without knowing it refers to Ted Cruz does not need Wikipedia to help them along in finding the Ted Cruz page. Do we have Small hands Thrump? Slick Willy is surprisingly a dab. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- And Tricky Dick is a redirect. These are classic {{R from non-neutral name}}s. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as we would any other intentional insult to a WP:BLP. Tricky Dick and Slick Willy are more problematic, as they are longstanding and nationally known. Reporting those decades old nicknames is different from what we are doing here. In the case of Lyin' Ted and Little Marco Wikipedia is perpetuating an insult between living people, and adding to its notoriety. Wait for them to become synonymous with their respective targets, and if they do become part of the lexicon of American politics, then we add these redirects. Scr★pIronIV 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If we are going to keep the insults, they should be targeted at Donald Trump along with mexican rapists and blood coming out of her whatever for he is the person known for saying these things. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bit of a side note, but we do have a series of "Rape in [country]" articles, and a Category:Rape in Mexico. If a corresponding article were created, Mexican rapists might well redirect there. As for the other item you mention, First Republican Party presidential debate, August 2015 in Cleveland, Ohio would be the best target if there were discussion of the phrase there. That article should have more on the aftermath of the debate, though I don't know whether or not if that should include what you referred to. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear - I don't think any Trump insults should be targeting the people insulted by Trump. This is not Trumpedia or the Trump Urban Dictionary of insults. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bit of a side note, but we do have a series of "Rape in [country]" articles, and a Category:Rape in Mexico. If a corresponding article were created, Mexican rapists might well redirect there. As for the other item you mention, First Republican Party presidential debate, August 2015 in Cleveland, Ohio would be the best target if there were discussion of the phrase there. That article should have more on the aftermath of the debate, though I don't know whether or not if that should include what you referred to. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- If we are going to keep the insults, they should be targeted at Donald Trump along with mexican rapists and blood coming out of her whatever for he is the person known for saying these things. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional delete. To further the Tricky Dick analogy, the difference in my mind between that and the nominated redirect is that there is a sourced discussion of Tricky Dick at Richard Nixon, and there isn't any mention of "Lyin' Ted" to be found on Wikipedia. I've been watching this closely to see if someone would add anything, and I'm quite surprised that there isn't a mention anywhere. A sourced mention would bring "legitimacy" to the redirect, and will give those looking for information about the insult some actual information. Until then, it's going to disappoint those looking for the origin of the nickname, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I tend to be quite conservative when adding information; I take the stance that we have to argue the redirect as it exists at the time rather than what it could be, otherwise we're trying to hit a moving target. That's partly laziness, but I even had what I thought would be a rather uncontroversial rcat for misspelling at Ouevre reverted without explanation, so I hesitate to dip my toe in this hot water. Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (changed !vote from above) - yeah, it's a one-off, media didn't really pick up on it, and Cruz really isn't notable enough that any random insult is going to have lasting prominence (the Tricky Dick case). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Pubic region
- Pubic region → Hypogastrium (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The hypogastrium or hypogastric region is not the same as the pubic region, but instead lies above the pubic region. This redirect is an error. Bfpage |leave a message 09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Bfpage: well it seems that there is a pubic region – and certainly the term is used in plenty of articles. But what is it? Do we not have a good candidate for a retarget?
- Pubis is a DAB with pubic bone and mons pubis as entries; pelvic region is a redirect to pelvis. Genital area redirects to sex organ; but genital region and pubic area are red. I am aware that pubes also grow on areas other than what we non-anatomists call the naughty bits (-> intimate part), so perhaps there is no accurate target? Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Pubic hair pipes the target as "Pubic region" in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. It redirected to Pubic hair from 9 May 2003 to 18 November 2006. Si Trew (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It's pretty weird that we don't have somewhere to send this. "Pubic" is most often (in the WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sense, not necessarily in technical literature) used in reference to humans, and we already have a weak tradition of preferring the human-focused target article in such cases or questionable ones (vs. very general ones like Brain). So, I'm thinking this should go somewhere human, as should public area, while genital region should follow genitals, pudenda, etc., to sex organ. If we don't think of or create a human target for the pubic ones, I guess redirect them to sex organ. A related problem is that pudendum inexplicably goes to vulva (a human article), when the term is not human-specific, nor female-specific, and should follow its plural to sex organ. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: your pubic region may be a public area (-> public space) but my pubic area ain't. Not sure if you just typo'd that, or meant something else. Si Trew (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Crotch, maybe? Maybe too broad. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of human anatomical regions just defines it as "encompassing the area above the genitals", which could be the torso or upper body (-> thorax or many other things, so that is not much help except perhaps to add weight to SMcC's feeling that in common use this is mainly human. Si Trew (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget as Genital area does to Sex organ. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Árvore da Vida
- Árvore da Vida → Kabbalah (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Arvore da Vida → Kabbalah (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These are Portuguese for ‘Tree of Life’. pt:Árvore da Vida lists many trees of life, not just Tree of life (Kabbalah). If one of those trees is specifically Portuguese, which I doubt, these redirects should be retargeted there; otherwise, they should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:RFOREIGN. pt:Árvore_da_Vida is a DAB, the entries on which Transwiki to Tree of Life (biblical), Tree of life (Kabbalah), Phylogenetic tree and a redirect pt:Árvore-da-vida to Thuja (in both PT and EN at same title). The botanical sense could possibly be regargeted there. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose we could retarget to Tree of life (disambiguation) as
{{R from other language|pt}}
but WikiData would only allow us to tidy up one of them; and presumably tying up the two DABS directly is better. For some reason I can't do that and it doesn't help that Wikidata presents pages to me in a combination of Portuguese, Hungarian and English. Sheesh. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)-
- Yes, I pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. I propose WikiData linking the Portuguese DAB at pt:Árvore_da_Vida to the English one at Tree of life (disambiguation). That is just a sensible thing to do that does not impact these R's in themselves; there is by no means a one-to-one correspondence on those DABs but the topics in common (including Kabbalah) are on both. We can then retarget both to the DAB as [
{{R from other language|pt}}
(or delete them as WP:RFOREIGN). We could retarget them both to Tree of life (Kabbalah); but that makes little sense to me. Si Trew (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. I propose WikiData linking the Portuguese DAB at pt:Árvore_da_Vida to the English one at Tree of life (disambiguation). That is just a sensible thing to do that does not impact these R's in themselves; there is by no means a one-to-one correspondence on those DABs but the topics in common (including Kabbalah) are on both. We can then retarget both to the DAB as [
-
Wikipedia:BO
- Wikipedia:BO → User:Deiz/Awards, Best of and Top 100 lists (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a redirect to a userspace essay that has been in the userspace for almost a decade. However, the usefulness of this redirect is quite questionable: out of all the less-than 20 incoming links to this shortcut, the only one where it was attempted to be used in a context other than referring to it as a two-letter shortcut on a two-letter shortcut table is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur, but it was obviously erroneously linked to since the link there was intended for WP:BIO. With that being said, Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard is probably a more appropriate target for this shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
MorroWindHelp
- MorroWindHelp → The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible old redirect that's only half-way on topic to start with, as the article it redirs to isn't a game-guide or otherwise fitting the 'help' part of the title (that'd be outside Wikipedia's scope and all that).
Between the camelcasing and the needlessly capitalized W, this is neither something that's likely to be useful within articles nor the first search term for folks looking for Morrowind—unless they already know the game's called Morrowind in which case they don't even need this redirect. "What links here" shows no in-wiki links; with not even 60 hits in 90 days, there almost certainly isn't anything (beyond google search) linking to it outside wiki, either.
Should probably be deleted, because it isn't useful but may cause confusion about the actual article's scope. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as confusing. Sounds like a game file --09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenticel (talk • contribs)
- Keep - old enough to be a {{R from CamelCase}}, we normally keep those. Even though the former article definitely fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Per WP:CamelCase, it hasn't been necessary since January 2002. This was created more recently than that. -- Tavix (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject of the redirect's target is not "Morrowind Help", etc. The article formerly in the redirect's history is an instruction manual for installing the game. The redirect is misleading and its former content is unencyclopedic. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The "confusing" nature of the title is an artifact of the old CamelCase naming conventions. A redirect this old is highly likely to have external links. The reasons offered for deletion are not, in my opinion, sufficient to outweigh the evils of linkrot. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not for getting "help" on a game. -- Tavix (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Nasb-cover.jpg
- File:Nasb-cover.jpg → File:New American Standard Bible cover.jpg (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Orphaned, ambiguous redirect to a file FASTILY 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete since "NASB" can pertain to the Bible version and several institutions --Lenticel (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not orphaned (it's used in lots of old revisions of New American Standard Bible). There's no need to create lots of red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The redirect's name doesn't violate any aspect of WP:FNC. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
April 11
Oops/version 2
- Oops/version 2 → Oops (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Another {{R from history}} that seems to not have an existing article that corresponds with its edit history. The edit history is a mix of 4 parts "Redirect to Wiktionary" (WP:NOTDIC) and 1 part about a non-notable band named "Headley Grange". Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The redirect is an artifact of a series of pagemoves. Despite that, this title contains nontrivial history (such as the debate about whether we should have an article titled "oops" or whether that title should be soft-redirected to Wiktionary). Rossami (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There isn't history needed for attribution purposes (a la WP:MAD), so this can safely be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
ISO 639-1:er
- ISO 639-1:er → Burushaski (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect was originally created as part of User:Kratie222's Erina language hoax. Through a path I can't fully follow it was retargeted to Burushaski. I bring it here in hope that someone more knowledgeable than can determine it is a legitimate code or a continuation of the vandalism. —teb728 t c 22:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I know or can tell from reference works, there is no such ISO 639-1 code. The codes en (English), el (Greek), and es (Spanish) exist, but not er. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The ISO 693-3 code in the infobox for Burushaski is
bsk
, although it's not listed at the DAB at BSK to which bsk redirects; I'll add that. Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
UEFA mafia
- UEFA mafia → UEFA (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
To me this doesn't seem like a useful redirect. Why would anyone write "UEFA mafia" instead of just "UEFA"? Laber□T 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 15:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment plausible search term, 600+ hits on Google News within quotes and 36k without; 47k and 495k respectively on the regular Google search. Possibly retarget to the currently sparse-looking UEFA#Corruption and controversy, where relevant information could be included. C679 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects from non-neutral terms need to be sourced at the target article, and we don't have that here. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Delete - as nonsense. GiantSnowman 19:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I understand your concerns. 'Nonsense' is "spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense". I don't feel this applies. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion". I have added sourcing from BBC, AP, Guardian and Eurosport, which I hope would fall under WP:RS. @Laberkiste, Tavix, and GiantSnowman: Any other objections? C679 21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I tend to write "WP:RFD#D5 nonsense" as a shorthand since D5 says "the redirect makes no sense", but that's using nonsense in the dictionary sense you give above (and I also link to the policy, so there's no doubt), which I don't think is GiantSnowman's meaning here. Before your additions, I'd have been more inclined to say it fell under WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. But not now. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Refine to section UEFA#Corruption and controversy, or create an anchor "Mafia" there and
{{R to anchor}}
it. @Cloudz679: would you be happy with that? Thanks for adding the content and sourcing. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - Keep. Not only is this plausible but RNEUTRAL says the exact opposite of what Tavix implies above. Redirects are deliberately held to a lower standard of neutrality than article content or main titles. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I agree with you that there is a lower standard, but there still needs to be some standard. I believe WP:RNEUTRAL supplies that standard in the last paragraph: "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful...may be nominated for deletion." In this case, sources have been added to prove that it's an established term, so I have stricken my !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Zelena Stranka
- Zelena Stranka → Greens of Serbia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Зелена странка → Greens of Serbia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] Cyrillic equivalent added by Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This redirect has been incorrect from the very first version. Zelena Stranka, or the Green Party (Serbia) (currently without a Wikipedia article, but with a website at http://www.zelenastranka.rs), has never been the same as Zeleni Srbije, or the Greens of Serbia (website: http://www.zelenisrbije.org/). All subsequent versions were inappropriate as an article.
Without a proper target to redirect to, there's only two things we can do here: create an appropriate article on Green Party (Serbia), or delete this redirect. PanchoS (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, unless there is a better target, there is only one thing we can do here, delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. If an article is created, the R can be recreated to target it (as
{{R from native name|sb}}
). Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC) - Google-Translate suggests that this is direct translation of "Green Party" into Serbian. While not the correct title for the party itself, it seems to be an entirely plausible error that a non-serbian-speaker might make. Greens of Serbia is a political party and seems like a reasonable target for this title. Rossami (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how a non-Serbian speaker would expect to get to a different party by typing this in. I can understand why they might type in an English translation such as "Greens of Serbia" or "Serbian Greens" or "Serbian Green Party" or something similar and not be sure which green party of Serbia they wanted; but if they type (or copy-paste) the Serbian name, I think it's reasonable to assume that they want the article about the party of that name and not another one; it's very important not to misinform them if they are unaware of the distinction. I think that's more likely that a Serbian speaker would get confused than a non-Serbian; but Serbian WP doesn't have an article on sr:Зелена странка either: in fact, it was speedily deleted on 6 May 2007, within an hour of its creation. Si Trew (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete It would be one thing to redirect a translation, but redirecting a transliteration of one party to the other is plainly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
•Electorate of Hesse-Cassel
- •Electorate of Hesse-Cassel → Electorate of Hesse (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Impaussable and unused title; seems to be a typo from creator. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete highly unlikely typo involving a leading bullet point -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Interpretation (version 2)
- Interpretation (version 2) → Interpretation (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't normally nominate {{R with history}} redirects for deletion, but this one is an exception for a reason. The edit history of this redirect shows it to contain a topic which it seems as though Wikipedia currently doesn't have an article: interpretation's dictionary definition (WP:NOTDIC.) For this reason, this edit history seems to represent neither its current target, nor any other page listed on the disambiguation page. For this reason, the edit history on this page does not seem to need to be retained since it does not correlate with any existing article's subject. As a functional redirect, it's misleading as a odd "version 2" redirect. For these reasons, I think this redirect should either be deleted or weak restore and send to WP:AFD (for a discussion to delete the contents of the page.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Restore and send to AfD restore to being an article, rename to Interpretation (linguistics) and send to AfD -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Artifact of a pagemove which also contains significant history for the edited pages. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Restore and send to AfD. I'm not sure the rename is helpful. Yes, it will clutter search results, but so will any other name. Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ouevre
- 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 no consensus. See the linked discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ouevre → Work of art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Really a procedural listing; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Oeuvre. I'm only listing so it doesn't get missed; it would be perverse to differently for this than what we do for that, but it's four days apart, so I hesitate to combine (don't mind if someone else does). In the meantime marking as {{R from misspelling}}
. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this redirect should follow the same result. (I also agree that given the timing, it was appropriate to list this separately rather than try to expand the prior discussion. Thanks.) Rossami (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The
{{R from misspelling}}
was reverted, I can't think why, because wherever it goes it would be a misspelling. But I'm not getting into an edit war over it. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2016 (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.
Work of Art
- 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 boldly disambiguated by User:Csinlep. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Work of Art → Deborah Cox discography#Studio albums (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think it's a WP:SURPRISE that this is not a redirect as {{R from other capitalization}}
to Work of art. Work of art has three hatnotes, but this isn't in any of them; I think it cries out to Çreate a DAB together with the hatnotes at the top of Work of art. I imagine making a DAB is fairly uncontentions, but do we make it at Work of Art (this redirect) or Work of art (disambiguation)? (It wouldn't make sense to have the DAB proper at Work of Art (disambiguation) unless this was retargeted to Work of art). Five links in article space; one at least Polly Morgan is wrong (I'll fix that so it makes four). Until this edit of 5 October 2015 by User:Jax 0677 it targeted Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Chicano was wrong; should have been changed to The Next Great when retargeted; Michael Leavitt (artist) and NewNowNext_Awards#Nominees, left only Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1930s, which I have turned into a redlink (to Work of Art (book)) by Sinclair Lewis; it is that target but only as a list entry (maybe create a
{{R to list entry}}
to there?) And then there were none. Si Trew (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to lower-case work of art. FYI: Work of art (disambiguation) now exists, and contains half a dozen links. Cnilep (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- ...and I added Si Trew's redlink at Sinclair Lewis so the DAB would have somewhere to point to. Cnilep (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why do I bother. This is a fait accompli, so there is no point discussing it farther. Do what Cnilep says and Csnilep, I hope, will follow up doing the tidying up (I will be watching.) Csinelp's option ain't bad, but it weren't the only one on offer; that is why I left em red. An admin can delete the disambiguation page, but I certainly can't so procedurally closing, please fix up the redirect to it. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2016 (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.
"Untitled" projects with titles
- Atlee's Untitled Project → Raja Rani (2013 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Harish Shankar's Untitled Project → Ramayya Vasthavayya (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Harish Shankar Untitled Project → Ramayya Vasthavayya (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Kiruthiga's Untitled Project → Vanakkam Chennai (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Krishna Vamsi's Untitled project → Govindudu Andarivadele (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Lingusamy's Untitled Project → Rowdy (1966 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Nara Rohit - Kumar Nagendra's untitled project → Tuntari (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Prabhu Deva's Untitled Project → Ramaiya Vastavaiya (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Ravi Teja - K. S. Ravindra untitled project → Power (2014 Telugu film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Shakun Batra's Untitled Project → Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Reema Kagti's Untitled Project → Talaash: The Answer Lies Within (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Shakun Batra's untitled film → Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Stephen Frears' Untitled Lance Armstrong Biopic → The Program (2015 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sukumar's Untitled Project → 1: Nenokkadine (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Trivikram's Untitled Project → Attarintiki Daredi (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Bruce Willis comedy → Going Under (2016 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Detective comedy film → Going Under (2016 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Cullen brothers film → Going Under (2016 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Illumination film → Sing (2016 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Illumination project → Sing (2016 film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Srinu Vaitla project → Bruce Lee - The Fighter (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Venkatesh - Maruthi Project → Babu Bangaram (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Untitled Venkatesh - Maruthi project → Babu Bangaram (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Venkat Prabhu's Untitled Project → Venkat Prabhu (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Venkatesh - Maruthi Untitled Project → Maruthi Dasari (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Venkatesh - Maruthi untitled project → Babu Bangaram (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Vijay Milton's Untitled Project → 10 Endrathukulla (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete, another batch of "untitled" redirects to targets that do have titles and have no significant history. These are unneeded and could cause confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. They all now seem to have titles, and these redirects could have a WP:XY issue if another "untitled" work is in production or if more than one "untitled" work is in production at the same time by the subject(s) referenced in the respective redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Firething
I don't see evidence of Firefox being known as "Firething." -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:REDLINK. This seems to be a song --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:REDLINK. I don't think the Gudrun Gut song by this name is at all notable, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Castro's
- Castro's → Fidel Castro (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Similar redirect to the one deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 21#Apple's. Castro doesn't redirect to Fidel Castro, which makes this redirect different than the base title. I don't think a retarget to Castro would be helpful. Since that's a disambiguation, it can't be used as a piping shortcut. Therefore, I believe the best option is to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Castros is red. (And so is Castroes.) Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Retarget to Castro per wikt:'s where "'s" is a method of creating a plural term in English. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, we don't have Castros. I am not sure we generally have plural forms redirecting to surname DABs, do we? Obviously there are articles for things like The Simpsons (to which Simpsons redirects. Thatchers is a twodabs with some British woman and a brand of cider; Joneses targets The Joneses, etc; I couldn't find any that targeted a surname DAB, but there probably are some (loads). Si Trew (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Castro; this one is pretty harmless. For the record, Castro's is a bar down the street from me which has the best beer selection in The Beaches, you should go if you're in town. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as is. Every inbound link is in the context of the Cuban leader. Our articles frequently use just a person's last name (after their first mention in the article) and not everyone knows the wikimagic that makes [[foo]]'s work the same as [[foo's]]. If the consensus is to retarget, however, since it's a possessive (and there are no bars named in the current Castro disambiguation page), the least bad target would be Castro (surname). Rossami (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Which Cuban leader, Fidel Castro or Raúl Castro? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. I would have thought "Castro" primarily meant Fidel, but patently I am in the minority there, because it's a DAB that I imagine was hard fought over. Given that it is a DAB, there is little point taking this anywhere but the DAB; Retarget; I can't think of a suitable rcat (
{{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
is not quite right; throw on{{R from incorrect punctuation}}
or{{R from plural}}
if you want; I am well aware of greengrocer's apostrophe. The incoming links will just have to be fixed and (perhas) piped; presumably Raul will more commonly be known as just "Castro" than his ancestor, in the not too distant. Looking at the Spanish, es:Castro is a name DAB too, at which Fidel and Raul are listed near the top in section Personalidades. Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. I would have thought "Castro" primarily meant Fidel, but patently I am in the minority there, because it's a DAB that I imagine was hard fought over. Given that it is a DAB, there is little point taking this anywhere but the DAB; Retarget; I can't think of a suitable rcat (
- Which Cuban leader, Fidel Castro or Raúl Castro? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Momsanto
"Momsanto" is mentioned at The Series Has Landed, but it's a trivial reference. Would people be more likely be looking for Monsanto itself as a typo? Or perhaps it's better to delete per WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to The Series Has Landed. It is mentioned there, however briefly. I think this is a typo that ought not to be corrected: if a reader is searching for information on the agricultural conglomerate by typing this, they're making an error that should be corrected, otherwise we might be saying that "Momsanto" is a verifiable alternate name for the company, and it's not. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's not a very subtle parody is it, in The Series Has Landed#Cultural references. I don't think that helps many people to target it there; if they thought "I heard this on The Series Has Landed but didn't know what it meant" they would search for The Series Has Landed; if not, they are most likely looking for Monsanto which is after all one of those made-up marketing names like Diageo or Mondeo deliberately intended to be equally incomprehensible worldwide but kinda sounding like it should mean something in a Latinate language; "monsanto" presumably is supposed to echo sounds of "mum's health" or "my health" even though it doesn't mean that, or indeed anything other than the trade name. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Monsanto as
{{R from typo}}
. The letters N and M are next to each other on many keyboard layouts, also in many alphabets. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC) - Retarget to "Leela and the Genestalk", the episode that features this company in the plot. "The Series Has Landed" used the actual company name Monsanto and is therefore not the correct target. Reach Out to the Truth 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That article does not mention the term "Momsanto" at all, which at least The Series has Landed does with a reference saying "Also, The Goophy Gopher Revue is said to have been sponsored by "Momsanto", which is a parody of the agricultural-bioengineering conglomerate Monsanto, from the United States.". That's still pretty WP:WEASEL since Monsanto is not "from" the United States (it is an international conglomerate listed and headquartered in the US; employees <22,000, essentially a holding company (as at Ref. 88 ""Monsanto Forms Holding Company to Invest in International Fruit and Vegetable Seed Companies") and there is no need to apologise and say "it is said" if you provide a reference. Nevertheless, retargeting it to an article which makes no mention of it would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The source says it's Monsanto in the second episode, and I remember it being Monsanto. I'll check the subtitles tonight, but for now I've reverted the Momsanto mention due to verification problems. (Confirmed: "The Series Has Landed" says "Monsanto" and not the later parody name. Reach Out to the Truth 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)) I agree the exclusion of Momsanto in the Genestalk episode should be remedied but I've not seen it yet. I'll see what I can do. Reach Out to the Truth 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are hoist with your own petard. There is no doubt, at least not here, that Monsanto goes to the company (although that article can't seem to make its mind up what it is called in the lede). What remains is two sketches alluding in a not-so-subtle way to the company. It's a fairly standard trick, but even if they did, the intent is to make people think of Monsanto. They are not trying to find information on Momsanto, if they got the joke, they knew that already and where it came from (unless they have very short memories). Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The source says it's Monsanto in the second episode, and I remember it being Monsanto. I'll check the subtitles tonight, but for now I've reverted the Momsanto mention due to verification problems. (Confirmed: "The Series Has Landed" says "Monsanto" and not the later parody name. Reach Out to the Truth 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)) I agree the exclusion of Momsanto in the Genestalk episode should be remedied but I've not seen it yet. I'll see what I can do. Reach Out to the Truth 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That article does not mention the term "Momsanto" at all, which at least The Series has Landed does with a reference saying "Also, The Goophy Gopher Revue is said to have been sponsored by "Momsanto", which is a parody of the agricultural-bioengineering conglomerate Monsanto, from the United States.". That's still pretty WP:WEASEL since Monsanto is not "from" the United States (it is an international conglomerate listed and headquartered in the US; employees <22,000, essentially a holding company (as at Ref. 88 ""Monsanto Forms Holding Company to Invest in International Fruit and Vegetable Seed Companies") and there is no need to apologise and say "it is said" if you provide a reference. Nevertheless, retargeting it to an article which makes no mention of it would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Pocket Windows
- Pocket Windows → Microsoft Windows (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete: No evidence that any Microsoft product was ever named or nicknamed "Pocket Windows". There are no hits in the microsoft.com or msdn.com domains. Also "Pocket Window" is a term used for a type of window (the kind that houses have, not the kind that computers have). See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#What is Pocket Windows? Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY. Pocket is an application which released a Windows version in 2013, called "Pocket Windows". But that release is not inherently notable, it definitely shouldn't redirect to the OS, and there are other things that this is ambiguous with. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:XY per WP:RFD#D1, hinders search. Pocket (application) is the application, I dunno why Ivanvector piped it in the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It seems the redirect as created referred to "Windows Mobile running on a Pocket PC device", but this does not seem to have been a common usage even when the platform was current. Since there are other more plausible possibilities, this should be deleted. Reach Out to the Truth 21:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- This is purely navel-gazing but I was a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional when Microsoft first tried to introduce handheld devices with Windows CE. (That is, someone who uses Microsoft products but does not work for them and is not expected to agree with them: the award comes without warning and you get lots of free stuff, but genuinely they don't want you to agree with them, they want to hear your views of how their product sucks.) I never heard the term "Windows Pocket" even as insider slang. Unless the trade press started using this term, it seems to me unlikely to refer to the platform rather than a particular application. Considering that Microsoft's vision was "A computer on every desktop", something they pretty much achieved, I could imagine that their vision changed to "Windows in every pocket", or some such, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Citation needed
- Citation needed → Wikipedia:Citation needed (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Is this an appropriate WP:XNR? (Note: I did not create this redirect. I only added redirect categories.) SSTflyer 07:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to keep it. It's actively in use in articles and even if fixed, it's likely to be used again - the format of 'citation needed' tags is such that it can confuse people into assuming it's a simple link. Not sure there would be a net benefit to removing it. Andrew Gray (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- As to "likely to be used again", I just got a notification that it had been added to a couple of articles in the past couple of days. Someone promptly updated it to be the templated version. I guess this shows the system works :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- No it doesn't. It shows that some editors review and correct their texts. What you don't have is the co-respondent list of articles where it might be misused to mean the template, and not corrected, such as in Esperanto culture, Faster-than-light, Hasidic Judaism, Centenarian, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War to pick the first five on my WhatLinksHere. However, it seems more to be used in talk pages. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't dispute editors will try to use it, considering my own ineptness with typing the right brackets/braces, but since typing
[[citation needed|date=April 2016]]
makes itcitation needed and not in bracketed superscript, [citation needed], it's a bit confusing either for the reader (if it's left like that) or for the hapless editor who wonders what has gone wrong; the error would probably be more easily detected were it a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - Keep, refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed, and a similar example Cite web. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete a citation being needed is not reader content, it is editor content, so WP:XNR to non-encyclopedic pipework. Further, needing citations is not something that is exclusively a concern of Wikipedia, it is something that comes up in academics, so is not properly helpful to those who are trying to read something about citations and lacking thereof and the effects of that. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XKCD and WP:CNR. As above. Wikipedia's citation tag is not a notable topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As Andrew Gray points out, this is a common error by new users who do not know our arcane wiki-space conventions. There is little possibility of confusion since there is not and will not likely ever be an encyclopedia article appropriate to this title. Readers and new editors are trying to get to the Wikipedia template and we should not frustrate them with arbitrary rules. A redirect at least points them in the right direction. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't think there is doubt that it is a common error. The thing is do we allow the error to rest or do we encourage it to be fixed? I feel that it would be better to have it red, and that would allow new editors more quickly to learn their mistakes. But (and I am not bragging here, just kinda declaring an interest) I am one of the rare class of editors who created families of templates, sometimes, before the days of Lua, so I am very familiar with the horrors of template syntax. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's even worse, attaching a wikilink to the redirect to indicate citation needed is a very bad idea. It will appear as if it were encyclopedic material. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Technical comment. If an editor uses the redirect in article space instead of the template, the article will not be put in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2016 (or whatever month). This might be deliberate on talk pages but seldom, I think, on article pages. There are plenty of redirects in template namespace (I use
{{cn}}
). But simply mentioning the redirect does not invoke the categorisation behaviour; if it did, this discussion page would be in the category. (It's the Use-mention distinction.) Also, I think, parameters to a redirect are not passed along to the target, but I might be wrong there. Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
April 10
Simon Ignatovski
- 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 RHaworth per WP:CSD#R3. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Simon Ignatovski → Communist party (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Please delete. There is no connection between this high school swimmer and any Communist political organizations. This is very likely a WP:BLP violation and it may be considered an attack page. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, just speedy this, it's very recently made. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Tagged and deleted. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2016 (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.
Ancestral Thames.
- Ancestral Thames. → Ancestral Thames (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think there is precedent against this. Implausible (but well-intentioned) redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I think this falls under WP:R3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The accidental inclusion of a period at the end of a redirect does not qualify for WP:CSD#R3. That criterion is restricted to truly implausible redirects - things so unlikely that they were probably created in bad faith. These, on the other hand, are good-faith attempts to fix the following scenario.
User A edits an article and links "foo" at the end of the sentence. Not paying attention, he puts the brackets outside the period. User B reads the article and notices that "foo" is redlinked. Surprised, he goes to create the article but quickly realizes that foo does already exist. Thinking that others might make the same mistake, he redirects foo. to foo. While not the preferred way to fix the situation, it was not implausible as we use that term here. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The accidental inclusion of a period at the end of a redirect does not qualify for WP:CSD#R3. That criterion is restricted to truly implausible redirects - things so unlikely that they were probably created in bad faith. These, on the other hand, are good-faith attempts to fix the following scenario.
- Delete per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a stylization or a title of a work that has a period in it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's Marry
- Let's Marry → Let's Get Married (Russia) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:SURPRISE. Could easily refer to other things. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search as WP:XY; Channel One Russia says (with the redlink) that Davaj pozhenimsja ("Let's marry", Давай поженимся) is also a programme even though that is different Russian (not Добро пожаловать, as at the current target). There's also Pelli Chesukundam (but not Pellichesukundam) thus translated, and other things. Could DAB it I suppose, I don't know what a common-sense application of WP:PTM would suggest for (sensible) translations of titles. RU:WP has a DAB at but I can't see how it's related. I guess the target should be interwiki linked to the TV programme at but since it's currently a one-sentence article
{{under construction}}
with no information on the programme that's by no means certain.
- Please note' this was recently created (two days ago) by a new editor; the target is their only contribution. WP:Please don't bite the newbies. Si Trew (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the newbie has requested assistance, at my talk page, for building the target location's article -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi i am person who created this new entry. Please don't delete. In Russian there are two ways of saying this title, lets marry or lets get married, depending on the translation. Both are correct. thank you! Moscowamerican (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article
- Portal:Nautical/April/10/Selected article → TEV Wahine (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Violation of WP:NFCC#9: this redirect is used for the purpose of including a non-free image on Portal:Nautical. Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Once again, the easy fix for this is to put
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags around the non-free image in the article, so that the offending image does not display in the portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) - Keep. It's not a WP:CNR out of article space so WP:RFD#D6 does not apply. The NFCC criterion still applies; and I don't see how a redirect circumvents it; it just doesn't work (and John's solution equally applies). (I guess it circumvents some page patrol?) It's not as if we have reams of redirects for the selected article for each day. Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
File:PPA logo.png
- File:PPA logo.png → File:Poker Players Alliance (logo).png (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused, overly generic/ambiguous redirect to a file FASTILY 10:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The file was under this name for several years. There is no reason to insert red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Stefan2. "Generic" is not a listed reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Pashtun (version 2)
- Pashtun (version 2) → Pashtun (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- TRW/version 2 → TRW (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Fanon/version 2 → Fanon (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Quietism/version 2 → Quietism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Anura/version 2 → Anura (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- John Blain/version 2 → John Blain (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Sims/version 2 → Sims (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- CQC/version 2 → CQC (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Orange Walk/version 2 → Orange Walk (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Krøller eller ej/version 2 → Krøller eller ej (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There are a ton of these "version 2" redirects. I don't think they serve any useful purpose and certainly aren't' likely search terms, and therefore should be deleted. However, some have rather lengthy histories and we may need to merge the histories of these to their current targets. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all and ensure all have the proper merge tags. History merges probably aren't worth the effort. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WP:MAD / WP:CWW -- has any of the content here been merged elsewhere? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Move Krøller eller ej/version 2 to Krøller eller ej (song) without leaving a redirect behind; so we can get rid of the "version 2" name -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't understand what advantage it has to move the redirect, nor why you single out this one in particular. Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Moving the redirect will result in a pagename that is useful instead of useless. Thus eliminating a useless pagename. If it was merged means keeping the edit history per WP:CWW, so displacing the page instead of deleting it is to be done. As for why I chose this page, it was the easiest one to find a solution for, since each would have a different solution, so there is no single place to rename these things to. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- All of the pages listed above are disambig pages, except Krøller eller ej. With some of these pages, in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests I or someone was called on to move page X to name Y, but there was already matter at Y (often merely redirects, or a much shorter article (or a disambig page) on the same subject with no purpose in text-merging and often cluttered with old redirects). In such a case I moved that existing old Y aside to another name such as Y/version 2, as in my experience it is not safe to let a long parallel history sit deleted under a visible article with a long history. I have found that Quietism and Fanon and Anura and Pashtun could be history-merged with their /Version 2 pages, and I have history-merged them; the rest are WP:Parallel histories. Some of these pairs of pages seem to have arisen by two people independently starting disambig pages for the same word or name. @Notecardforfree: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{intitle|version 2}} shows these "version 2" pages also:
- Dreamwave Productions/version 2
- Galičnik (version 2)
- Golden share/version 2
- Finland–Latvia relations/version 2
- Finland-Latvia relations/version 2
- Germany–Serbia relations/version 2
- Ikbal Ali Shah/version 2
- Iraq–Serbia relations/version 2
- Iraq-Serbia relations/version 2
- Millennium of Love/version 2
- San Benedetto in Perillis (version 2)
- Serbia–Syria relations/version 2
- Serbia-Syria relations/version 2
- Suchitepéquez (version 2)
- System resource (version 2)
- Template talk:Bundesliga seasons/version 2
- Template talk:Pedro Almodóvar/version 2
- Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2
- Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2
- I have deleted all of these except Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2 and Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2 because their histories proved to contain only redirects and (except for the Template ... pages) a speedy-delete tag. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: {{In title}} only works to find pages that aren't redirects. Most "version #" pages are {{R with history}}/{{R from merge}} redirects, and thus will not show upon that search. (In fact, all of the pages you listed that were in the "Article" namespace that have now been deleted were pages that I recently tagged for speedy deletion after moving their edit histories elsewhere. Thus, that was the reason you found them with "In title"; they were no longer redirects since the WP:CSD template converted them into soft redirects.) The only way I know to find these pages is to do a regular search for "version 2" to find the redirects.Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: That "regular search" finds far too much by-catch, in this case 297,560 results; an example is Version 2 Version: A Dub Transmission. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: Agreed, a lot of the results are not the "version 2" redirects, but to my knowledge, I don't think there is another method in which to make these pages appear in a standard Wikipedia search through its internal software. I have seen editors compile lists of pages where a certain string of text is located anywhere in the page name, but I'm not sure how they did it; it probably required the use of some sort of external tool. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Steel1943: The Wikipedia software maintainers should add to search-in-pagename an option to search in redirect page names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I have just found Template:The King of Queens/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: Thank you for the the thorough explanation about the history of these redirects and for your hard work tracking down the rest and merging histories. I can imagine that this took a fair amount of time to do, and I very much appreciate your efforts. How do you recommend we proceed with the pages that have parallel histories? I hadn't seen WP:Parallel histories until you linked it above, but that seems to suggest that we should leave the parallel histories at their current titles (i.e. at "Article X/version 2"), and I just want to make sure that is the correct method of preserving a parallel history. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Notecardforfree: If page Y was started by copying-and-pasting X, and they can't be history-merged, put an edit history note at the start of page Talk:Y . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another solution, available on the German Wikipedia but not on the English Wikipedia, is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cloning an article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Anthony Appleyard: thank you for your advice and guidance with this matter. The cloning idea sounds intriguing, and certainly could help resolve these issues in the future. I wonder if there are other procedural safeguards that we could implement during the article creation process to prevent the creation of duplicate articles? Perhaps there is a way to inform authors about similarly-titled existing articles? On the other hand, if these are all the "version 2s" that exist in the world, it may not be that common of a phenomenon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete any that does not have history that would need to be attributed. If there is history, history merge it if possible. If not, keep as the simplest option. -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Notecardforfree, Tavix, and SimonTrew: Please see a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Discussion regarding titling standards for moving parallel histories. The edit history has to be moved somewhere, but probably to a likely redirect term. For disambiguation pages, this is more difficult since community-accepted names for disambiguation pages are limited to only the ambiguous title and the ambiguous title plus "(disambiguation)". Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also, I have "resolved" Template talk:Populated places in New Castle County, Delaware/Version 2 and Template talk:The King of Queens/version 2. The will probably be deleted uncontroversially soon. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fanon/version 2, Quietism/version 2 and Anura/version 2 per Tavix; these titles do not have substantial edit history that needs to be retained. Keep the rest per WP:CWW and per my previous comment stating that I do not know where to move the edit histories of the other pages since they were disambiguation pages prior to becoming redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
April 9
George Welles
- 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 George Wells. Deryck C. 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- George Welles → Orson Welles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Although Orson's birth name was George (Orson) Welles, I think it's better to retarget this to the DAB at George Wells. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support seems logical. I'd consider putting Orson up in the main lists even though the spelling differs. I would habe not guessed he uses the e. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I see you've changed the DAB at George Wells to have a "See also" for George Orson Welles instead of George Welles, which makes sense; but to clarify even more I've added "full name of Orson Welles", after it. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2016 (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.
Sluiced
- 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 per unanimous consensus on the hatnote solution. Deryck C. 12:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(Neelix redirect.) 'Retarget' to sluicing, where it is used, whereas it is not at the current target. I've marked it as {{R from verb}}
. sluices -> sluice probably doesn't suffer that problem because although it can be both the plural noun and second person form of the verb, it isn't used in either article and someone is unlikely to search that way for sluicing. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose you use sluices and sluice gates to sluice material, which is then sluiced through the sluices. I would say that the mining use is the most likely. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I added a hatnote. I think this can be speedily closed as keep. Sluicing already had a hatnote back, which I hadn't noticed before. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2016 (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.
Yokeless
- 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.
(Neelix redirect.) This is at the target (once) but only in the etymology, and WP:NOTDIC. Presumably anything without a yoke is yokeless, so either delete it or retarget to yoke or yoke (disambiguation) as {{R from opposite}}
. I think it is sometimes used of aircraft controls, but I haven't checked that. Si Trew (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment apparently in YASA Motors the Y stands for "yokeless". Other than that we don't have any instances of this word on EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Yokeless noodles are ones without egg yokes. Maybe retarget to yolk Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- They would be Yolkless noodles, but we don't have yolkless either. egg selection -> oocyte selection, but that seems a bit far-fetched as it's to do with selecting eggs for in vitro fertilization and not, for example, to preselect for double-yolked eggs. Is it possible to have a yolkless egg? I suppose it would not be an egg since the common definition of an egg is white + yolk (+shell sometimes). Similarly targeting albumen as being the non-yolk part of the egg would seem a bit abstruse. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to the disambiguation page. I think yokeless in motor design refers to the frame in a field coil, to which I have just added a dab link. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete The problem really is that we don't know what is yokeless, so pointing to a disambiguation page about yokes isn't helpful, because the ultimate target (the thing that doesn't have a yoke) isn't going to be on that page. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2016 (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.
Highth
- 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 deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
(Neelix redirect) Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. This is not the Children's Encyclopaedia and after nursery school none of us spells it this way. Unlikely spelling error or typo. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense is correct and G6 housekeeping Neelix nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (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.
Vicci
- 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 anthroponymbiguated. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Vicci → Vicci Martinez (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect). There's also Vicci Laine. Neither hatnotes the other, although Martinez hatnotes to other spellings of the name. The hatnote would imply that Martinez is commonly known just as "Vicci", but it is not a {{redirect}}
hatnote and no internal evidence that that is the case. Neither article has ever been moved.
Probably delete as WP:RFD#D1 per WP:XY, unless one is clearly primary topic; I'm not sure that a DAB with two people would make life easier. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this is why we should not redirct common given names at people who are not widely known by them like Hillary Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Create an WP:ANTHROPONYMY page listing everyone who has the given name "Vicci." This is common practice and there's no reason there should be an exception in this case. I have one drafted below the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Convert to whatever it is called that Tavix has drafted (a name page?) Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Anthroponymify per Tavix. Sideways713 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2016 (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.
Youssou
- 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 name index / keep individual names as discussed. Deryck C. 12:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Youssou → Youssou N'Dour (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Youssof → Youssof Kohzad (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Yussuf → Ayila Yussuf (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not 100% sure. (Neelix redirect.) Lots of people are called Yussuf or Youssof, but we don't have a name article for these particular variations. We do have an article at Yusuf so that's probably better, but some other variations target Joseph.Legacypac kindly found them and added them below. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Yoseif, Yoseph, Youssef, Yuseif and Yôseph all target Joseph but Yusuf covers many variations and links tons of people by the name. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment None in the nomination has any incoming links beyond this discussion. Stats are well below noise level (<1/day) for all three. I haven't checked links or stats on the others mentioned, which sharpening Occam's Razor I don't intend to nominate right now. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have a split !vote:
-
- Create a name index for Youssou and Yussuf. There are a few people who have that name. I have created drafts below the respective redirects.
- Keep Youssof per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, it's a typical {{R from given name}} as he's the only notable Youssof. Hatnote to similar names if you think it's necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2016 (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.
Yes guy
- Yes guy → List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Yes guy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure but perhaps better to target the DAB at Yes man, where it's listed. Si Trew (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as is he's the only Yes Guy on the DAB page, so this would be superfluous. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Yes man. "guy" is a colloquial synonym for "man".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Poochy dog
- 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 Poochie, as with the other discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Poochy dog → List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Poochie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Poochie dog. Same target. Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel that this should be kept. Many people remember Poochy from the Simpsons and may type this in.Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Poochy is not the character from The Simpsons; it's a redirect to the DAB page Poochie, as anyone typing it in and then clicking "search" will find out. The character actually has its own redirect Poochie (The Simpsons), and is listed on that DAB. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2016 (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.
Poochy (Power Instinct)
- 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.
- Poochy (Power Instinct) → Power Instinct (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Poochy (Power Instinct character) → Power Instinct (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#/Log/2016_April_7#Poochie_dog. This is on the DAB at Poochie. Hits below noise level; the first was an article before being turned into a redirect on 1 July 2007 by User:TTN. No links in article space other than the DAB. The second is an {{R from move}}
from the first on 20 April 2007, before it became an R itself. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The first of these (that was an article until July 2007) is fully protected so I've left the RfD note on the talk page. I can't find any discussion of why this was protected, or by whom. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not even a casual mention of a Poochie / Poochy character at Power Instinct article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (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.
Temple of Christ
- Temple of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Temple of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford (links · history · of Christ stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The temple of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford (links · history · temple of Christ stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The house of Christ → Christ Church, Oxford (links · house of Christ&action=history history · house of Christ stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
My instinct tells me this should be retargeted to a Christianity related topic, not to a college at Oxford. Also nominated:
Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Christian Church (disambiguation), which will cover it -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is presumably based on alternative translations of Christ Church's name in Latin, Aedes Christi, but no-one would ever actually use these names to refer to Christ Church - the closest such usage is "The House", which is already covered on the dab page for that. Retarget per the IP's suggestion, unless anyone thinks of a better target. BencherliteTalk 07:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak retarget as above. I wondered whether Christ's Cleansing of the Temple would be a good target for those containing "temple", but probably not. The House of God is a satirical novel, so that's no good either. Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I've added the correct section link to the RfD notes for the bottom three. Someone should probably notify the creator, though, User:Neelix. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as Neelix nonsense. I added links for ya SimonTrew. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Lots of churches with the Temple of Christ name, [19], not necessarily affiliated with each other, so this would not suit WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oxford one didn't even come up. If the Latin name is the primary name then retarget that one. This is like redirecting Sacred Heart Cathedral to the Paris building. The lower-case situations are even more general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- sacre coeur and sacre-coeur do indeed redirect to Sacré-Cœur, Paris, as does Sacre Coeur. (Not sacre cœeur, , Sacre-Coeur or Sacre-Cœur though. It might not be a bad ide to mention the Paris cathedral the DAB at Sacred Heart Cathedral (it currently isn't), although it is, indirectly, at Sacred Heart Church. Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose retarget to Christian Church (disambiguation) since Church of Christ (disambiguation) also exists. (I was hoping that the nomimated redirects could be {{R from erroneous name}} redirects for this target, but now due to the other disambiguation page referenced here, they would still be ambiguous.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. We don't really have any good target for these titles, as the discussion thus far has shown. Deryck C. 22:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|