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 11
- 6.2 April 10
- 6.3 April 9
- 6.4 April 8
- 6.4.1 The Oldest College Football Rivalry in North Carolina
- 6.4.2 The First female Paraoh of Egypt, Hatshepsut
- 6.4.3 House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna
- 6.4.4 List of Dragon Quest characters
- 6.4.5 dynamic instability
- 6.4.6 Easter basket
- 6.4.7 Peyton List (actress/model)
- 6.4.8 Peyton List (adult actress)
- 6.4.9 Peyton List (teen actress)
- 6.4.10 The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence
- 6.4.11 Hotties
- 6.4.12 How to Train Your Dragon 4
- 6.4.13 Wikipedia:30/500
- 6.4.14 Bren Law
- 6.5 April 7
- 6.5.1 Donald Bren Hall School of Law
- 6.5.2 Get schwifty
- 6.5.3 Emo metal
- 6.5.4 Work of art essay
- 6.5.5 Oeuvre
- 6.5.6 Massimo Antonio Doris
- 6.5.7 Professor of Politics
- 6.5.8 Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge
- 6.5.9 Wikipedia padlocks
- 6.5.10 Criticism of Jimbo Wales
- 6.5.11 Poochie dog
- 6.5.12 Hundreds-and-thousands
- 6.5.13 Section header
- 6.6 April 6
- 6.7 April 5
- 6.7.1 Panamagate
- 6.7.2 Red grey
- 6.7.3 Armed conflict
- 6.7.4 Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment
- 6.7.5 Force XXI
- 6.7.6 Major wars
- 6.7.7 List of ongoing political conflicts
- 6.7.8 Actual wars
- 6.7.9 Redirects containing the phrase "world conflicts"
- 6.7.10 Redirects containing "conflict" without a non-time descriptive adjective
- 6.7.11 Current communist rulers
- 6.7.12 List of Refernce Tables
- 6.7.13 Current computer and video game events
- 6.7.14 ANE Resources
- 6.7.15 Basic topics
- 6.7.16 Current Canadian Navy ships
- 6.7.17 List of ships Canadian Navy ships
- 6.7.18 Current War in Afghanistan
- 6.7.19 Current leaders of San Jose, California
- 6.7.20 IPhone 5SE
- 6.7.21 Yahoo.cm
- 6.7.22 Lyin' Ted
- 6.7.23 Parent, Ontario
- 6.7.24 Northern China (disambiguation)
- 6.7.25 Chimmer
- 6.8 April 4
- 6.9 April 3
- 6.10 April 2
- 6.11 April 1
- 6.11.1 Mandarin chinese
- 6.11.2 Wikipedia:Mandarin (language)
- 6.11.3 Germany—Serbia relations
- 6.11.4 Wikipedia:Mandarin
- 6.11.5 Chinese Mandarin Chinese
- 6.11.6 Popularize Mandarin
- 6.11.7 Standard Mandarin language
- 6.11.8 Chinese, Mandarin
- 6.11.9 Mandarin vs Other
- 6.11.10 Nike Elite
- 6.11.11 House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)
- 6.11.12 Version 2
- 6.11.13 Mandarin language
- 6.11.14 Multiple redirects to EBSCO Information Services
- 6.11.15 UEFA mafia
- 6.11.16 Zelena Stranka
- 6.11.17 Conjugal dictatorship
- 6.11.18 20??
- 6.11.19 The next millennium
- 6.11.20 This millennium
- 6.11.21 This century
- 6.11.22 Spinning records
- 6.11.23 Mandarin (linguistics)
- 6.11.24 Northern Chinese
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 11
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)
April 10
Simon Ignatovski
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
April 9
George Welles
- 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)
Sluiced
(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)
Yokeless
(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)
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
- 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)
Youssou
- 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)
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)
Poochy dog
- 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)
Poochy (Power Instinct)
- 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)
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, [1], 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)
April 8
The Oldest College Football Rivalry in North Carolina
- The Oldest College Football Rivalry in North Carolina → North Carolina–Wake Forest rivalry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The oldest diving suit in the world → Raahe Museum#The Old Gentleman (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The oldest Fourth of July Parade → Bristol Fourth of July Parade (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete all: These three and The Oldest Latino Fraternity in Existence also nominated today are the only four redirects in English Wikipedia with names that begin "The Oldest ..." whose target articles do not also have the word "Oldest" in their titles (not counting The Oldest Path (EP), which properly redirects to The Coral as the former is an actual EP of the latter). Of millions of possible articles, such as The oldest human fossil, The oldest university, The oldest university in Alaska, The oldest typewriter, ... Wikipedia has only four articles, so I conclude that these are aberrations and all four should be deleted as nonstandard. Do we want a proliferation of The oldest toaster in the world-type redirects? Moreover, "The Oldest College Football Rivalry in North Carolina" and "The oldest Fourth of July Parade" are capitalized incorrectly. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense; WP:PRECISE, and whatever else it is that says don't start articles with "The". Si Trew (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, the Bristol Fourth of July Parade is, in fact, "the oldest Fourth of July celebration in the United States of America" and "the oldest annual parade in the United States". The redirect in question there is apparently only used once though so far on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The First female Paraoh of Egypt, Hatshepsut
- The First female Paraoh of Egypt, Hatshepsut → Hatshepsut (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete: Capitalization is wrong ("First", "Paraoh"); spelling is wrong ("Paraoh"); there are no Wikipedia articles with names beginning "the first woman" except The First Woman Who Passes (an actual film) and this is the only Wikipedia article with a name beginning "the first female" out of millions of possibilities The first woman doctor, The first female speaker of the United States House of Representatives, ..., so this redirect is contrary to the norms of Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete: WP:R#DELETE suggests that redirects which are "novel or very obscure" synonyms for an article name should be deleted as not useful. Even if this redirect was correctly spelt, it would still be so obscure as to practically guarantee that it would never be used. Especially as Hatshepsut was not even the first female pharoah. Sobekneferu predated her by 350 years, and Nitocris (if she existed, and was actually a woman) was a few hundred years before that. Overall, the redirect is highly unlikely to be used, potentially confusing, and wrong, and there is no good reason to keep it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna
- House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna → Zamagna (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Very obscure, unused redirect. Zoupan 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've also listed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_1#House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić). Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Neither "obscure" nor "unused" are valid reasons to delete a redirect. According to the content currently on the target article, both "Zamanjić" and "Džamanjić" are allowed transliterations from the original serbo-croatian. The "/Zamagna" grammar in the redirect title is an artifact of the pagemove process that was used in 2009. Rossami (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:RFD#DELETE #8 gives "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" as a reason to delete. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Three variant names lumped together with inconsistent punctuation makes this look like an extremely unlikely search term to me. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per BDD and WP:R#D8. This easily passes as a novel or obscure synonym, and is definitely an implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 8 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)
- 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)
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)
dynamic instability
- dynamic instability → Microtubule#Dynamic_instability (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete, with ideally creation of new stub or DAB. The notion of dynamic instability is far broader than the business of microtubules. It just so happens that is a famous example. This is a general phenomenon occurring in nonlinear dynamics and dynamical systems. I think at least a stub/DAB page with links to various article sections is warranted. As it stands now the redirect is too limiting and potentially confusing (e.g. I read an article about dynamic instability ecology [2], and when I enter the phrase into WP I get taken straight to a page on cellular biology). Here is a list of research publications that discuss dynamic instability and have nothing to do with microtubules [3] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep.If nothing else mentions dynamic instability, there is nothing to DAB. (Anyway, isn't instability by definition dynamic? What would be static instability?) Si Trew (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- — it would be another name for convective available potential energy, apparently. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- In aerospace, the opposite of dynamic instability is dynamic stability ; we seem to have an article covering it at Aircraft dynamic modes (instability and stability) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - While the terminology is broad and relates to multiple fields, we still have what appears to be a primary topic by far. I don't doubt that we could have other pages created, possible hatnotes put in place, and so on in the future. We'll see on that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – if and when another article is created where it makes sense to have a redirect from the same name, then we can convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. Per SimonTrew, right now there is nothing to disambiguate. Boghog (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Create a DAB - It's true that "dynamic instability" is a popular meme among the structural biologists and has produced a recent flurry of MT papers. But dynamic instability is an old and important concept in fluid mechanics: we have the category Category:Fluid dynamic instability, it is mentioned in Instability#Fluid instabilities where the microtubule redirect is inappropriate, and in Atmospheric instability#Forms. The term is also used in aeronautical engineering, for instance it is discussed in Aeroelasticity#Flutter. All aerodynamic and hydrodynamic instabilities are dynamic instabilities. Disambiguation seems needed. --Mark viking (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note This redirect was not tagged for deletion. I've just tagged it. Please do not close until 7 days after the timestamp on my signature. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- DAB/SIA the various uses of "dynamic instability" in various fields. Deryck C. 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Drafting a dab for this title might help solidify consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've drafted a SIA (call it a DAB if you wish) below the RfD tag. Deryck C. 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Convert to DAB. Despite what I said earlier, patently other things do use the term "dynamic instability", although for some reason (my incompetence, probably) I couldn't find any when I searched. Si Trew (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Set index article as created by Deryck Chan seems to solve all the problems. Not unique to one field and current link is not primary for the topic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- DAB/SIA as drafted on the article (I edited it a little) - Nabla (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Easter basket
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was procedural close, no longer a redirect. An article has been created at Easter basket. I will retarget Easter baskets there as an {{R from plural}}. Contact me with concerns. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Easter basket → Easter egg (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Easter baskets → Easter Bunny (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think, that in ENwiki would be new article called as Easter basket. This subject is developed in theese articles. Relevan informations there are also for example in pl:Święconka. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Retarget the first'to Easter Bunny (as the second goes), mentioned in lede of that but only buried further down in easter egg.
- It's wholly encouraged to convert a redirect to an article, it doesn't have to come here first. There's no case for a WP:REDLINK delete because there is information at the target. The singular form is tagged with
{{R with possibilities}}
) already. Si Trew (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- There is also Święconka in ENwiki, and there is also redirect Easter Basket to List of Robot Chicken episodes Dawid2009 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate all the "Easter basket" terms on a page with the targets found above. Deryck C. 03:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Retarget both to Easter egg.Delete Easter baskets. Why would the plural form redirect to Easter bunny? That makes no sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC) updated 17:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I support the nominator's thoughts that there should be an article on this concept. I'm going to try to put one together. If this doesn't happen by the time this needs to close, I support WP:REDLINK deletion in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 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.
Peyton List (actress/model)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete (by RHaworth). (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Peyton List (actress/model) → Peyton List (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Recently created via a series of page moves. Unnecessary as not descriptive and current Peyton List (actress) is sufficient as a search term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – unnecessarily disambiguated; Peyton List (actress) is a sufficient redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – both List (born 1986) and List (born 1998) have been models. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete as WP:G6 housekeeping. Were it to unnecessarily disambiguate it would not be a problem, we have
{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
for that. But to send something that looks like a disambiguated page to a disambiguation page is absurd. I've marked this, Peyton List (actress), Peyton List (teen actress) and Peyton List (adult actress) for WP:CSD. Si Trew (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That is why
{{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
exists. Peyton List (actress) fits that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- That is why
- 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.
Peyton List (adult actress)
- 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.
- Peyton List (adult actress) → Peyton List (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The term adult actress typically refers to a performer in pornography, Neither of the actresses linked are in that business, thusly the redirect might be offensive. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, with prejudice as implicitly libelous of one or two current BLP topics. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Both actresses were teens when they landed a notable role. And neither of them have been adult film stars. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:37, 8 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.
Peyton List (teen actress)
- Peyton List (teen actress) → Peyton List (actress, born 1998) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Recently recreated via page move that was undone. Ephemeral disambiguator, target will age out of this so this redirect serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:EPHEMERAL. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Both actresses were teens when they became notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; in addition to the comments above, I'll point out that the article was at that page for all of five hours, it's highly unlikely that an external site would have linked to it for that time. TJRC (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete, I've marked this and others as CSD WP:G6 housekeeping as a vestige of a series of page moves, since it is absurd to have a page title that looks like a disambiguated page point to a disambiguation page. Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 9 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, [4] 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)
Hotties
- Hotties → Physical attractiveness (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It's highly unlikely that someone looking for articles about beauty or attractiveness will need this redirect. Slashme (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to disambiguation page Hottie instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hottie as the term is already defined there. Guy1890 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget as no-brainer
{{R from plural}}
. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC) - Retarget to Hottie, personally I don't think it needed a discussion but guess it's better to be safe than sorry, Anyway retarget. –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
How to Train Your Dragon 4
- 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, WP:G7, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- How to Train Your Dragon 4 → How to Train Your Dragon (franchise) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The film series is so far on 2 films with a third in production - no mention of a 4th. Really not needed as WP:TOOSOON Nordic Dragon 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When there's enough reliable sourcing to warrant a mention, then it can be recreated. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix, and as a redirect creator. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete per WP:G7 author requests deletion (I have so tagged). Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 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.
Wikipedia:30/500
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. It has been demonstrated that the usefulness of the shortcut outweighs the potential for confusion. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:30/500 → Wikipedia:Protection policy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The software interprets this as a subpage. WP:30 redirects to Wikipedia:Third opinion and has since 2006. This could cause confusion. Perhaps there is a technical solution that can be implemented with a template. Short of that, what should be done? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and possibly change to "WP:30-500" - I believe that the shortcut is needed and will definitely prove to be helpful in the future. However, the MediaWiki software sees "WP:30/500" as a sub-page (due to the slash "/" that exists in the middle of the shortcut), fooling tooltips and potentially causing confusion and headache in the future as Wikipedia grows and expands. We should definitely resolve this issue now and before it becomes any more confusing (as well as potentially adding more work and difficulty to fix and roll out later). I think that the best solution for this shortcut and this situation is to drop the slash and add the dash... Hey, that's kind of catchy! :-D. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - It is useful for the link to have the "/". The convenience of editors should rank above easily worked-around technicalities of the backend. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep 30/500 and indeed 30-500 are plausible redirects to the new 30 500 protection level and might as well both exist. I don't see how anyone searching for third opinion could plausibly do so by searching for wp:30/500 which leaves that free to be this redirect. ϢereSpielChequers 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Plausible search term, subpage (of an unrelated page) or not. Steel1943 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The slash is intuitive because it's the way such expressions are almost always written. For instance, we write 24/7, not 24-7. The fact that it brings us to a subpage is only a problem if we're going to stop it from being a redirect, and even then, the only problem would be the automatically generated "go one level up" link at the top. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per above. 30/500 is much more common and likely to be found. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per above - plausible search term. –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 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.
Bren Law
- Bren Law → University of California, Irvine School of Law (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no "Bren Law" (or "Bren's Law") is at the target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Donald Bren Hall School of Law. This one veers in the other direction by being not only incorrect but extremely vague. We do have redirects like Newton law and Parkinson Law, perhaps themselves unhelpful, but it is not as if this is a scientific "law". Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment as noted at the other discussion there are Donald Bren Law School, donald bren school of law, Donald Bren School of Law and Bren School of Law from which "Bren Law" would be a logical abbreviated form in U.S. English -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the existing Donald Bren redirects -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why would it? We don't have Bren Environment for the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management or Bren Information for the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences. Would Americans really abbreviate it this way? Si Trew (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not the common name for that law school. Searches on Google also have it mixed with the Bren School of Environmental Sciences (UC Santa Barbara)'s Council of Legal Advisors. [5] as well as other lawyers who go by Bren. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like a temporary name for the school as of 2007 and was undone in 2008 in order to standardize it with other UC schools. [6] The only notable alias that should be retained is Donald Bren School of Law as that is how it's been referred to in related articles. [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per D8 (obscure synonym) and D2 (potential for confusion). Rebbing 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
April 7
Donald Bren Hall School of Law
- Donald Bren Hall School of Law → University of California, Irvine School of Law (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Term used in virtually no sources. Extremely unlikely search term; appears to be a misunderstanding of the naming history of the target article (see University of California, Irvine School of Law#History) Regards, James(talk/contribs) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlikely search term, especially with the "Hall" in there, and WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY, since information about Bren's involvement with this school is also at Donald Bren#Education. It's also WP:RFD#D5 nonsense since the school is not a hall (and there's no mention of a hall) and his name is not Donald Bren Hall. I've nominated another on April 8's log, WP:RFD#Bren Law (perhaps unwise to combine). Si Trew (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. We also have Donald Bren Law School, Donald bren school of law, Donald Bren School of Law and Bren School of Law to the same target, which are perhaps OK as
{{R from incorrect name}}
; I'm undecided whether to nominate them too. Considering that "it was decided between the chancellor and Mr. Bren" not to name the school after him, it seems a bit previous for Wikipedia then to name the school after him; but redirects don't have to be accurate, only useful.Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Those names are virtually nowhere to be found in external sources; I don't think they qualify as incorrect names, as they were never used as names for the institution in the first place. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)- Upon further review of external sources, I withdraw my earlier comment. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Donald Bren School of Law" (without the confusing "Hall" qualifier) was used in early coverage of the law school ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]), so I believe that phrasing can be kept. I am unsure about Donald Bren Law School and Bren School of Law. They seem like reasonable alternative forms of the law school's original name, but I can find no mention of these phrasings in external sources. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think they can be kept, considering that school of law → law school. I boldly tagged them with
{{R from incorrect name}}
, and{{R from former name}}
would be wrong; but we could have{{R from other name}}
or{{R from short name}}
; school of law has no tags to guide us there. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think they can be kept, considering that school of law → law school. I boldly tagged them with
Get schwifty
- 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/Keep - I actually assumed this was one of those baby shows hence the nomination .... Turns out It's the complete opposite , Plus I wasn't aware of the sources either (Had I been aware of both we wouldn't be here now), Anyway no harm with the redirect so closing as Withdrawn/Keep. –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Get schwifty → Rick and Morty (season 2) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Article was 2 days ago deleted and then today redirected to Rick and Morty (season 2),
Whilst "Get schwifty" is included in the article I don't believe every episode title nor episode song needs to be created as a redirect to the article(s), If the title or song was extremely notable then fair enough but it seems to be a run of the mill episode/song...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Pinging everyone in the AFD discussion: Knowledgebattle, DennisTheTiger/Dennisthe2, Bishonen. –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
- Delete Can't imagine anyone searching the song title (improperly capitalized). Article was speedily deleted after brief discussion. No suggestion to make redirect during discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. All the information that a user is searching for with this redirect is at the target article, which means it's meaningful per WP:POFR. Since this redirect is both the episode name and a song that features prominently in the episode (unlike most other episode names), this is likely one of the more meaningful redirects for the show. These types of redirects are also suggested by WP:EPISODE, which says: "If the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." Granted, it appears that the original title was actually improperly capitalized, but that is easily fixed. I also don't see how the deletion of this redirect would qualify under any of the reasons for deletion at our redirect guidelines, WP:RDELETE. If not wanting episode titles w/o articles to redirect to their respective season/show pages is the main concern, you are always free start a discussion somewhere in a relevant forum to change this on a site-wide basis. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Most if not all viewers aren't going to have a clue on what the song is and I'd imagine most aren't going to bother to find out either, (Granted they may search but if they were too they'd check Google and then the artist - Redirecting to the episode isn't helpful as it gives no info on the song if people did want to know the song info),
- Also not every programme episode title needs to be created and redirected nor do songs featured in episodes need to be redirected to episodes (For instance tons of songs have been in Breaking Bad episodes but we don't start creating song names and redirect back to the Breaking Bad episode .... the songs are created as actual articles....), Anyway as I said above If the episode or song was notable in some way then I could understand but it's not ..... –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've actually seen the episode, but the song as used in the episode clearly goes above and beyond the point where viewers would know that it's a song. The season presents a synopsis of events in the episode leading up to the performance of the song by the protagonists (e.g. "In desperation, Rick and Morty compose and perform the song "Get Schwifty"."), and if the reader wants to find more information, they can follow the relevant link to the show. If there is a song in Breaking Bad which shares the name of the episode, is sung by the two most important protagonists as part of a major plot event in said episode, whose title comes up repeatedly in the song's lyrics, and whose title does not otherwise contravene our guidelines on redirects, I would absolutely create the redirect, as I did in this case.
- As further evidence that the song isnt' just a run of the mill song in a show: Paste magazine gave the song heavy praise ("Last fall, Rick and Morty might have composed the best song in any 2015 television show with “Get Schwifty,"), The A.V. Club acknowled its catchiness ("And thankfully for anyone who’s had the tracks stuck in their head for a few days, both of those songs are now available to stream and download to appease the giant heads within everyone."), and the song prompted covers that became the subject of more traditional news coverage). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Most if not all viewers aren't going to have a clue on what the song is and I'd imagine most aren't going to bother to find out either, (Granted they may search but if they were too they'd check Google and then the artist - Redirecting to the episode isn't helpful as it gives no info on the song if people did want to know the song info),
- Keep obviously, makes total sense as an NN episode to redirect to the season article. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - someone typing this as a search might just be looking for info on the episode, since this is its title, and the target is where that info is. There's also some discussion there about the song. Far from useless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 8 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.
Emo metal
- Emo metal → Melodic metalcore (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Emo Metal → Melodic metalcore (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Emo Metalcore → Melodic metalcore (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These redirects should be deleted since there is no evidence presented in any Wikipedia article that would suggest any connection between emo and melodic metalcore; from my experience, the genres are compared by people who dislike both. The closest thing that exists to "emo metal" would be emoviolence which carries some influence from metal through grindcore, so the term could alternatively redirect to that. --MASHAUNIX 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Work of art essay
- Work of art essay → The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Nothing links to this and it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Hits well below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOTESSAY this misleadingly indicates we host essays on works of art -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Oeuvre
- Oeuvre → Work of art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Œuvre → Work of art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Body of work → Work of art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure. A person's oeuvre, in English, usually means his or her life's work (or lifework apparently; Life's Work is a sitcom). It may be a bit WP:RFD#D5 to direct it to a concept article about works of art generally. It is at the target, but only as a WP:DICDEF. But I don't know if there is anything better. output (economics) is too broad, collected works perhaps too narrow, but perhaps better. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps just add collected works to the DAB at Oeuvre (disambiguation)? And perhaps move the DAB over the redirect too? I'm not sure that work of art is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; mentioning someone's oeuvre almost always means the sum of their output. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect all to dab page and add collected works to the dab as you said. Occasionally we have a term that has multiple meanings, but the primary topic has no article, only a dicdef. I thought this was the case long ago, and I still do. I think the main target of all these redirects should be the dab page, unless an article about the primary topic can stand on its own merit. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SteveStrummer: thanks for that. @Widefox: you seemed to think that "work of art" was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and said so at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation)#undo move when moving it back with this change, but Widefox and SteveStrummer were the only participants in that discussion. Really the "discussion" consists of two statements separated by three years, because SteveStrummer's was in 2012 and Widefox's in 2015; the talk doesn't make that clear because Widefox's statement starting "disagree" is above the "Undo move" section and thus looks like an unsigned comment, even though it was added with the same edit and so technically is not. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect all to dab page and add collected works to the dab as you said. Occasionally we have a term that has multiple meanings, but the primary topic has no article, only a dicdef. I thought this was the case long ago, and I still do. I think the main target of all these redirects should be the dab page, unless an article about the primary topic can stand on its own merit. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or Disambiguate: The term "oeuvre" may refer to a single work, or to a whole body of work of one individual. It may refer to works of art, music, or literature. So, Work of art is wrong both on limiting the number of works to one and on limiting the work to art. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not every noun needs a Wikipedia entry. As for Body of work, it's wrong to redirect that to Work of art, when it means something altogether different.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except the current primary topic covers that scope, so is fine, and there's a clear edit consensus for all three redirects. Widefox; talk 08:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please show us the clear consensus? It is not at the move request page, which was for one editor moving it and another, three years later (yourself) moving it back. Consensus in dictionaries is that its primary meaning is the body of work, not a singular work. That depends on how dictionaries are arranged; most use what they consider the most popular usage first, but some etymological dictionaries list bu the earliest usage first, the OED for example. WP:NOTDIC, but if the consensus of dictionaries is that the primary meaning is the collection, not a singular work, we are foolish not to follow suit. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:EDITCONSENSUS & WP:SILENCE 1. The three redirects have held for years as primary topics and 2. the scope of Work of art has oeuvre (didn't check how long). Widefox; talk 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- 1. WP:Consensus can change. 2. The two uses in the target are essentially dictionary definitions with no further content (as I said in the nomination). Were they not, I'd suggest refining to a section in that article. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:SimonTrew 1. Yes, there is no WP:consensus must change so until a convincing argument is made per, say, the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it is the consensus, and it should not be flipped. 2. OK, it must be said that I'm not against a rearrangement, just unconvinced by the argument above. We obviously will not redirect to the dab so this is all moot here per WP:MALPLACED. Switching the dab is a WP:RM. This is going nowhere here, sorry. Widefox; talk 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- 1. WP:Consensus can change. 2. The two uses in the target are essentially dictionary definitions with no further content (as I said in the nomination). Were they not, I'd suggest refining to a section in that article. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:EDITCONSENSUS & WP:SILENCE 1. The three redirects have held for years as primary topics and 2. the scope of Work of art has oeuvre (didn't check how long). Widefox; talk 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please show us the clear consensus? It is not at the move request page, which was for one editor moving it and another, three years later (yourself) moving it back. Consensus in dictionaries is that its primary meaning is the body of work, not a singular work. That depends on how dictionaries are arranged; most use what they consider the most popular usage first, but some etymological dictionaries list bu the earliest usage first, the OED for example. WP:NOTDIC, but if the consensus of dictionaries is that the primary meaning is the collection, not a singular work, we are foolish not to follow suit. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Except the current primary topic covers that scope, so is fine, and there's a clear edit consensus for all three redirects. Widefox; talk 08:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep & Gain broader consensus for change to the primary topic (PT) for these three redirects - this has been flipped before without broad consensus (which is what I undid). WP is not a dictionary, so just because "Oeuvre" != "Work of art" that isn't to me a strong policy based argument to change the PT. The term is bold in the article and so far I see no other candidate to rival it as Collected works is a dab, and no strong case being made yet. @SimonTrew: Suggest nom puts note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT likely to be resolved only by consensus. @SteveStrummer:: add done, I've added "Redirect from related word" to the first redirect, so await other opinions. Widefox; talk 08:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Widefox: I have no idea what "Suggest nom puts note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT" means. I don't mind if you put a note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT, and refer back to here. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clarify/Comment: procedural close to do a WP:RM with broader participation including notifying dab project @SimonTrew: I don't see any convincing argument above based on policy/guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT) so see no need apart from the danger of limited consensus, sorry, I don't get it. Widefox; talk 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, RfD is a reasonable place to have the discussion. Were I to have the initial intention of requesting a move, then this would have been the wrong forum; at least one thing I think we all agree on so far is that we don't want this to be deleted (WP:XY), so we are left with either keeping it as it stands or retargeting it, (assuming that we couldn't write encylopaeidic article content about "oeuvre" as such, which would probably be WP:NOTDIC). Since a DAB already exists, it makes sense to move it over; which is the same as !voting for retarget to Oeuvre (disambiguation) with the exception that the likely outcome is that the two would be swapped; that's just a technical thing. Were I to just write DAB content at the redirect, then technically it would also fall out of RfD and I could ask for a procedural close; I think you and I are agreed that we need to discuss this more fully somewhere, and since the discussion started here, it might as well stay here: no use comes of moving it. Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not cross-language; this is an English word via French from Latin: opera, work (singular opus in English WP s a DAB, I don't know if that helps anything). :fr:oeuvre -> fr:Œuvre is actually an article, that distinguishes four meanings in its lede, but all of them talk about a single work, which is not the case for the English word. The Wikidata language links for fr:Œuvre have a "please create this article" placeholder for English. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clarify/Comment: procedural close to do a WP:RM with broader participation including notifying dab project @SimonTrew: I don't see any convincing argument above based on policy/guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT) so see no need apart from the danger of limited consensus, sorry, I don't get it. Widefox; talk 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Widefox: I have no idea what "Suggest nom puts note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT" means. I don't mind if you put a note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT, and refer back to here. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've left notes pointing to this discussion at both WT:WikiProject Disambiguation and Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - since there are competing articles matching (either variant spelling) of Oeuvre (Work of Art and Collected works) it is fitting they should land on a disambiguation page. Put another way, I think there are sufficiently different things that people would be looking for when they enter the word that a DAB page would be more useful to all people than the annoyance to that subset of people who would find what they want on the Work of Art page. I think that would meet the goals of the primary topic policies. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Whether or not that happens, the disambiguation currently at Oeuvre (disambiguation) could be a good candidate for an Interwiki link from the French fr:/Œuvre, because that is a kinda-dabby-listy-set-indexy article listing the various meanings in French (and not much more). The definitions in French are broadly similar to those in English, except that oeuvre is not used in French to mean the collection of work. Through that circuitous route I also found that we have chef d'oeuvre -> Masterpiece (which is mentioned in the opening of its first sentence), which is not at the DAB. (Chef d'œuvre and Chef d'ouvre redirect to it too). Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- My procedural close point is because the discussion of changing/removing a primary topic as detailed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:D / MOSDAB is often / usually about what's most likely (the actual arguments listed at PT). The fact that there's several ambiguous articles means yes there should be a dab. There is. There should be hatnotes. Yes. A wider consensus may be useful. Is the PT more likely than others? Common PT arguments have not been made yet. Simon, have I not seen one of these discussions before from you, where it went to several venues? I can't remember the outcome? I find a PT argument based on dict def rather not convincing. User:Jwy Collected works is a dab. There's no article, maybe we're missing one, don't know, but we only disambiguate current articles. Widefox; talk 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, didn't do due diligence. This is a tough one. More thought... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The issue is a WP:RM of the dab, ie removing a primary topic. It would benefit from a better venue and arguments based on the guideline. In the mean time, I added Chef d'œuvre which is a WP:PTM but arguably worth adding to the dab. With that, I see nothing wrong with the current setup - the PT is bolded in the article and I see no rival articles for the PT. I consider this closed, ping me if you want any more discussion. WP is not Wikt User:SimonTrew. Widefox; talk 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't do due diligence. This is a tough one. More thought... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- My procedural close point is because the discussion of changing/removing a primary topic as detailed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:D / MOSDAB is often / usually about what's most likely (the actual arguments listed at PT). The fact that there's several ambiguous articles means yes there should be a dab. There is. There should be hatnotes. Yes. A wider consensus may be useful. Is the PT more likely than others? Common PT arguments have not been made yet. Simon, have I not seen one of these discussions before from you, where it went to several venues? I can't remember the outcome? I find a PT argument based on dict def rather not convincing. User:Jwy Collected works is a dab. There's no article, maybe we're missing one, don't know, but we only disambiguate current articles. Widefox; talk 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Whether or not that happens, the disambiguation currently at Oeuvre (disambiguation) could be a good candidate for an Interwiki link from the French fr:/Œuvre, because that is a kinda-dabby-listy-set-indexy article listing the various meanings in French (and not much more). The definitions in French are broadly similar to those in English, except that oeuvre is not used in French to mean the collection of work. Through that circuitous route I also found that we have chef d'oeuvre -> Masterpiece (which is mentioned in the opening of its first sentence), which is not at the DAB. (Chef d'œuvre and Chef d'ouvre redirect to it too). Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Massimo Antonio Doris
- Massimo Antonio Doris → Banca Mediolanum (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It make no sense to redirect a name (the CEO) of the bank to the bank (and nothing inside the bank article for that person) Matthew_hk tc 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- He's in the infobox. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Redirects from a non-notable child-topic to a more notable parent are not only allowed but often encouraged because they send an implicit signal that we don't want an article at that title. It might be different if there were potential for confusion or ambiguity but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't know that they send that implicit signal; "Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged" (right at the top of RfD). If anything, they can encourage article creation, because unregistered users can edit pages, but not create new ones. Of course, most readers don't edit Wikipedia anyway. Keep. Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Professor of Politics
- Professor of Politics → Daniel arap Moi (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Non-neutral, implausible redir, serving no valid purpose. Not recently created, and not a typo, so not subject to R3. DES (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, though I would also be fine retargeting this to Politics in education. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search per WP:XY. Category:Professorships by subject does not have a subcategory Category:Professorships in politics, though. I suppose many of the universities listed at Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics#List of universities offering PPE must have such professorships. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I would guess most searches on this term are not looking for Daniel arap Moi. For what it's worth, I did a Google search for "professor of politics" (with the quotes) and of the first 200 results, only 3 mention Daniel arap Moi, the first of which is the 74th result. That result happens to be "Moi: Professor of politics at 90 years", Daily Monitor (Uganda), September 7, 2014—and notably the headline does not use "Professor of Politics" with a capital P, nor is the alleged sobriquet used anywhere in the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I guess that Dan's would be an Honorary professorship (-> Honorary degree), then. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge
- Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge → Bulldog breeds#Alternative bulldogs (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Not mentioned at target article, and not a synonym of Olde English Bulldogge; it's a WP:NFT "backyard breeder" attempt to invent a new dog breed by crossbreeding. We have no article on it, and surely will not unless some day a major kennel club (probably UKC, being the most permissive) recognizes it as a standardized breed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It was added on 13 March 2010 by User:Ranveig with this edit. It was removed on 26 May 2015 by User:Oknazevad with this edit as promotional. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As Simon noted I removed it as promotional. Looking for sources, as it had none, I only could find other promotional websites, and as SMc mentioned, it isn't a breed as recognized by any major kennel club. Not notable and no redirect needed. oknazevad (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia padlocks
- Wikipedia padlocks → Wikipedia:Protection policy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Possibly misleading WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete - on one hand it's not a useful redirect if there's no encyclopedic coverage of Wikipedia's protection system. It's possible there's a case for having such an article, but I'm not sure where it would be. On the other hand, you can already click on the padlock and be taken to the protection policy, so maybe this is actually harmless. I'm leaning delete because clicking on the padlock icon is already a better shortcut. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Being able to find this by typing a search term, rather than clicking a small or nonexistent icon, might offer greater affordance to some users. (Does the icon appear on mobile versions?) Si Trew (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Wikipedia:Padlocks and Wikipedia:padlocks are red, but Wikipedia:PADLOCKS → Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks, a subpage. This perhaps should do likewise, if kept. Si Trew (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- SimonTrew, excellent point on the PADLOCKS bit. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:XNR to non-encyclopedic content. The padlock has no effect on the readership, it only affects editors -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not part of the article space of this encyclopedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -
we need to somehow make the redirect Wikipedia:Padlocks work, even if no capitals are used. Fine with your deletion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)I will be adding the redirects that SimonTrew had suggested. Fine with your deletion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:XNR. I don't buy 70.51's argument that it leaks into reader space, though; loads of other things do (thing like
{{unreferenced}}
for example, that really are only signposts to editors or potential editors), yet other things like{{translated page}}
that could genuinely inform readers are banished to the talk page (I believe that there is an article-space template for this that can be put into the references section, but can never remember what it's called and is used neither frequently nor prominently). Si Trew (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC) - Delete per WP:XNR and above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - all solved. Just get this whole thing out of me by just deleting it. Whatever. Just delete it. I don't care. I have made this long ago and I have evolved while I have been editing the wiki. I constantly evolve to become better and better in this wiki, as well as anywhere else. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of Jimbo Wales
- Criticism of Jimbo Wales → Jimmy Wales (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Seems to be too negative to be appropriate, especially considering that Jimmy Wales is a BLP. Also, this redirect seems to meet WP:R#DELETE criterion 10: this could be expanded into its own article, and the article about Wales has very little information about how he has been criticized. Everymorning (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep, the article has secttions on both Jimmy Wales#Controversy regarding Wales's status as co-founder and Jimmy Wales#Controversies (in section Wikimedia Foundation); it says in Jimmy Wales#Other Issues that he was criticized, too. redirects do not have to be neutral, but the fact that Jimmy Wales has been criticized – like pretty much everyone else on the planet – is not of itself shocking or even non-neutral.
- "Criticism" itself isn't necessarily a negative term, although I doubt in this case we were expected to find out that Jimbo dabbles in literary criticism or somesuch.
- It's not a particularly useful search term, but it's not harmful either. But, it hasn't any incoming links in article space (stats page seems dead at the moment). Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Criticism of..." pages are usually either break-outs or companion articles to a main topic. They are frequently merged back into the main article. When that happens, we should emphatically keep them as a record of the history. This "criticism of..." page, however, was never anything more than a single, vague sentence. It was turned into a redirect within minutes of creation and nominated for deletion shortly thereafter. That nomination was rejected on procedural grounds but the escalation to RfD was inexplicably delayed for 8 years. So while I agree with Si Trew that criticism articles and even redirects are often allowed and that the negativity of the redirect title is irrelevant, I nevertheless think that it's finally time to clean up this irrelevant not-even-a-stub-leftover. Delete. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete in the absence of incoming links, I think we should be led by the fact that there are several sections of the article that address this topic. Someone should just read the article and there is no reason to need to be redirected here via that link when the subject is really just the general article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Stats are back, and apparently nobody finds it useful. Since the criticism is scattered across the article, we can't target a section, so it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing: someone searching specifically for criticism would be disappointed or WP:ASTONISHed that they don't get spoonfed the information that is there. Si Trew (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Poochie dog
- Poochie dog → List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Poochie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Poochie the dog → List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Poochie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] added Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Might be confused with a type of dog breed. Music1201 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Weak retarget both toPoochie (The Simpsons), which I found on the DAB at Poochie (disambiguation) → Poochie, which I found on the DAB at Pooch. But at Poochie, there is only one entry that is not a dog (the Peanuts character), so that is a good if not perfect fit, too – we can split the DAB into sections for dogs and others. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I've taken the liberty to add Poochie the dog to the nom, with the section they both target. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Poochie -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep/Retarget I don't get the logic that a redirect to an informative article might lead to confusion with a type of dog breed. I would have thought such confusion would result from the lack of such a link. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- So which is it, keep or retarget? If retarget, where? Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is a Keep which is the most important part; but I worry that if someone feels the Retarget is the better option...and someone feels it is not...my keep vote will be used to argue that age old fallacy that there is no consensus to move. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- So which is it, keep or retarget? If retarget, where? Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To clarify, the question is: Should these titles point to the breed of dog, or the character in The Simpsons?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Poochie is a disambiguaiton page, it lists all those topics. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The relisting comment doesn't clarify the question at all, it begs it. The DAB to which some wish to retarget does not list any breed of dog. The original nom didn't have a question. Si Trew (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Retarget both to Poochie given that every page option is presented CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Poochie. Other notable dogs have been presented with the same name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget both to Poochie#Dogs. Three of the entries there are not dogs, but we can split into sections "People", "Dogs" and "Others". Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- CommentRedirect Poochy (Power Instinct) is at the DAB at Poochie (disambiguation); but the article has no content about it, so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_9#Poochy (Power Instinct), crossreffing here. Si Trew (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Poochy dog redirects to the same target; I've listed it at Wikipedia#Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 9#Poochy dog, referencing here, but we can probably combine. Si Trew (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hundreds-and-thousands
- Hundreds-and-thousands → Sprinkles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Hundreds and thousands → Nonpareils (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Hundreds & thousands → Sprinkles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- 100's and 1000's → Sprinkles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- 100s and 1000s → Sprinkles (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure per WP:XY, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Both targets mention both "hundreds and thousands" and "hundreds-and-thousands"; nonpareils also has "hundreds & thousands" (not linked) in the infobox, but Sprinkles, which it currently targets, doesn't use the "&" form. Hundreds & Thousands is an album; Hundreds And Thousands and Hundreds-And-Thousands are red.
I've cross-refed the merge discussion (at Talk:Nonpareils#Merger_proposal_with_Sprinkles_and_Muisjes) with this one. Personally I'd merge the two targets and split off chocolate nonpareils, but it doesn't look like the merge discussion will finish any time soon. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Hundreds-and-thousands (-> sprinkles) is at Glossary_of_British_terms_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States as "coloured sugar sprinkles used for dessert decoration (US: sprinkles, non-pareils, jimmies)". (non-pareils -> nonpareils.) Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep & retarget to Sprinkles The pictures at sprinkles & non-pareils are what I recognise as 100s & 1000s. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS I've created a new one for hundreds & thousands (to sprinkles - they say eskimos have a hundred different words for snow. Us Brits have only one word for Hundreds-and-thousands...er...ok it is actually three... whereas it would seem you Americans have two. Unfortunately our one word -Hundreds & Thousands - has not been systemised in its spelling. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not American. British English also has "sugar strands". American English has "jimmies". To clarify, the "new one" was created at 100s & 1000s, not hundreds & thousands. If the pictures at both the targets are what you recognise as 100s & 1000s, why would you prefer one article over the other? Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have fond childhood memories of Sprinkles which came in a container from the cake baking section - Nonpareils used to come on white chocolate buttons which were never my favourite. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not American. British English also has "sugar strands". American English has "jimmies". To clarify, the "new one" was created at 100s & 1000s, not hundreds & thousands. If the pictures at both the targets are what you recognise as 100s & 1000s, why would you prefer one article over the other? Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Disambiguate choose one and turn it into a disambiguation page for the two current targets shown, and all other uses (such as "many", as in the first two choices found at many) ; and redirect all the others to the new disambiguation page. Also indicate hundred thousand in the see also. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
There are three issues: typography, lexicography, and the culinary basics. It is clear how to settel all these for the best:
- for typography, have an article with title (exactly, mind) Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) and list every last variation, capitalization, and/&, punctuation. DO the usual with music albums, book titles, movies, anything else, and links.
- for the lexicography, give the article now called "Nonpareils" (which is definitely useless) the title Sprinkled confectionery nad begin by stating that this means a range of products known by a variety of names, then list all the names. Yes, ALL of them, and I mean the other European ones too because this is international cookery, people!! So: sprinkles, nonpareils (North America only), hundreds and thousands (British at least, with spelling & punctuation variations perhaps in a later note not here), strösseli (just in Wikipedia Finland is not enough to justify giving this but paste it into Google, click Images and just see the images you get!!), Muisjes (the aniseed core can be explained below), and any other terms by which English speakers may come across multicoloured sugar-coated stuff to be sprinkled on desserts or anything with sweet or sugary content as part of a fun sweet dish or snack.
- for the culinary stuff, base the new on the existing page called "Nonpareils"; integrate the page now called "Sprinkles" because the only difference in the items discussed is that the latter are described as "strands"... Here some may quibble because the two definitive shapes are distinct, where the "Sprinkles" shape is the one in the top photo in the box called "rainbow sprinkles". But the 2nd photo there has much fatter, often shorter coated sugar particles that are often not geometrically distinct from the "nonpareils" in the photo in the box top right on that page though literalists might argue that these are by nature spherical and with a glossy finish. That is really just a detail. Then integrate also the page Muisjes.
92.21.221.68 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- That is all probably better off stated at the merge discussion, since it doesn't really affect the redirects. But I think we should convert to a DAB per 70.51, at Hundreds and thousands, and retarget all the others to it. Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) can then be created as a
{{R to disambiguation page}}
; to put the DAB itself at (disambiguation) would imply a primary topic, which is exactly what we do not have right now. (If we did, we could just redirect all of these to that topic.) Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is all probably better off stated at the merge discussion, since it doesn't really affect the redirects. But I think we should convert to a DAB per 70.51, at Hundreds and thousands, and retarget all the others to it. Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) can then be created as a
- Comment. I've created a draft DAB below the redirect at Hundreds and thousands. I don't think we need list every permutation of spelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 03:52, 7 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)
- Delete per 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)
April 6
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)
- ^^^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[14], [15], [16]. 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.[17] But to have that we must have this. And a better example for Twitter is that is used in Dan Scavino's[18] and Corey Lewandowski's[19] 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 [20], [21]. 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)
- 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 [20], [21]. Wickypedoia (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
List of basic classical topics
- List of basic classical topics → Classics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not a list of basic classics topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Outline of classical studies. Years ago, all of the basic topics lists were renamed to outlines. A few redirects were missed. The Transhumanist 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I'd noticed that some others were like that, but was unaware of this article's existence. Speedily retarget. Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Outline of classical studies as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Outline of classical studies per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep because the title held non-trivial history before being moved, then merged. No objection, however, to overwriting with a better target. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
List of basic humanism topics
- List of basic humanism topics → Humanism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not a list of basic humansim topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Outline of humanism. Years ago, all of the basic topics lists were renamed to outlines. A few redirects were missed. The Transhumanist 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I'd noticed some others were like that, but was unaware of this article's existence. Speedily retarget. Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Outline of humanism per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
List of basic art topics
- List of basic art topics → Art (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not a list of basic art topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Outline of the visual arts. Years ago, all of the basic topics lists were renamed to outlines. A few redirects were missed. The Transhumanist 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I'd noticed some others were like that but was unaware of this article's existence (which kinda proves the need for the redirect per WP:RFD#K5). Speedily retarget. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Outline of the visual arts per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Unarmed combat
- Unarmed combat → Hand-to-hand combat (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The second sentence of the lede says that "While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons" (the article's emphasis not mine). And since unarmed combat isn't always hand-to-hand combat, it's hard to make sense of this redirecting there. But I don't know what to suggest other than delete, which seems a bit harsh. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- See also Armed conflict at April 6's log (Armed conflict → War). Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think we either need an "Unarmed combat" subsection within the hand-to-hand combat article, or a separate unarmed combat article to be created. Possibly both, since unarmed combat is a substantial topic in itself, that covers a wide variety of martial arts and martial arts techniques. -- The Anome (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This title has existed since 2003 and is extensively used in multiple articles across the project. I understand the distinction you are trying to draw. In modern military contexts, "hand-to-hand" includes any non-firearms techniques including bayonet, rifle butt, entrenching tool and, yes, bare-handed. You could theoretically write a stand-alone article just about those bare-handed techniques. But I must admit some skepticism about that proposal. First, most martial schools and traditions have a fairly smooth transition from bare-handed technique to techniques involving small tools and/or improvised aids. Second, even bare-handed combat is "armed" in a sense. As any good instructor will tell you, once trained you are never unarmed because your brain is your most important weapon. I wouldn't object if someone wants to try writing that stand-alone article but I also see no real confusion if we leave the redirect as is. Rossami (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep As directly above. If someone wants to write a stand alone article go ahead but there is also no problem keeping it as redirect.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
15 (song)
- 15 (song) → Fifteen (song) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Propose retargeting to 15 (disambiguation)#Songs, because there are songs named "15" and not "Fifteen". SSTflyer 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the hatnote at the target should be enough.
If required, we should disambiguate the target's title.There is no need, this is the only one we have an article about, anyway, my vote is still keep. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I've refined the hatnote at the target to the Songs section of the DAB and added a courtesy note per MOS:LINK2SECT. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep since the new hatnote solves the dab issue --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Work life
- Work life → Employment (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
In addition to Employment, the phrase could refer to Career or Job just as easily. None of the pages use the phrase, but Career uses the word "lifework", and seems to use the word "life" more frequently than the other two. Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps DAB it with those above and working life (→ Employment), shelf life, work-life balance (a weird phrase, as if work was death), working age (→ Legal working age), mean time between failures and so on. But probably unnecessary, we're not a thesaurus. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - our search engine does a fine job of listing articles in which this phrase or two words appear if someone were to type this. The current target is not really correct, and there's a big WP:XY problem as Si Trew demonstrates. Personally I see this as referring to a person's productive employment years, i.e. the time between getting one's first job and retirement. But there doesn't seem to be a perfect article for that. Plus all the other possible meanings. A dab page would be full of partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but not necessarily as is. Not everyone navigates the wiki via the search engine. That cannot replace the need for redirects. And I don't see the XY problem as serious or even significant in this case. The proposed targets are all related and sufficiently cross-linked that a reader following this redirect will quickly find their desired article regardless. That said, my intuitive expectation for the phrase "work life" was the concept of "work-life balance" so if we are going to retarget, I'd prefer that title. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- While not everyone navigates the wiki via the search engine, bad redirects can hinder them if they do (per WP:RFD#D1), because an exact title match will from many search boxes automatically go through the redirect rather than enumerating the search results; one has to go to Special:Search to stop that (or perhaps there are other ways I am unaware of). I don't suggest deletion simply out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but because I want readers to get where they want to go smoothly; sometimes it's better to list search results.
- A rather garbled sentence fragment at Employment, "maintaining a balance with the employee and creating social equity that benefits the worker so that he/she can fund and enjoy healthy living; proves to be a continuous revolving issue in westernized societies[ref]", is the nearest it comes to naming work-life balance, let alone linking to it. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment we also have work-life -> work-life balance, which perhaps confuses things further (different targets based only on a change in punctuation). There is also an article about the work-life interface which has a section on "Work-life balance" but nothing in it apart from
{{main}}
link to it. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Crişeni/version 2
- Crişeni/version 2 → Crişeni, Romania (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Please see the following discussions/pages:
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 2#Pashtun (disambiguation)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 29#Ikbal Ali Shah/version 2
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 25#LLVM/version2)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 3#Charles-Joseph, 7th Prince of Ligne/version 2
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 29#High Stakes (game show) version 2
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 5#Atlanta (version 2)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 25#Shiva (disambiguation) (version 2) → Shiva (disambiguation)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 21#Flipnote Studio 3D/version 2
...and even the majority of User:Steel1943/CSD log#April 2016. As seen at the aforementioned links, deletion of such "version #" redirects has been deemed uncontroversial by multiple administrators and/or uncontested by the community, as long as the edit history has been moved elsewhere. However, the deletion of this redirect uncontroversially was contested by a patrolling administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As Steel notes, I was just going through CAT:CSD. This title has existed for six years; while of course we don't need to worry about the page history, we still have the issue of deleting a harmless-and-old redirect. There's no good reason to create linkrot here. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- This redirect fails WP:RFD#D2 as misleading since readers would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what a "version 2" is and how it has anything to do with the redirect's target; is the subject of the article a "version 2"? Is the town/city referenced in this redirect the second version of the city? Also, the redirect clearly fails WP:RFD#D5. So, no, this redirect is not harmless. Steel1943 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as confusing. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Steel and Nyttend. There is nothing confusing about a "version 2" artifact remaining in the project's history. WP:RFD#D5 is also patently inapplicable. "Crişeni-something" to "Crişeni-something else" is nothing like "Apples" to "Oranges". Rossami (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It is misleading and confusing (the original article was created to get around something I think) and the fear of linkrot is not viable. The very few links to this redirect were created because of this recent discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The existence of these pointless "version 2" redirects makes it all but impossible for someone searching for a real "version 2." Since the history has been dealt with, there's no reason to keep it around as it's not a search term and there's potential for harm. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. These titles will only lead to confusion and clutter. Because there are no history issues to worry about, deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Embattling
- Embattling → Battlement (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Embattled → Battlement (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Embattles → Battlement (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Embattle → USS Embattle (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Neelix redirects that make no sense to me. I think of embattled more like this: 1. Prepared or fortified for battle or engaged in battle: embattled troops; an embattled city. 2. Beset with attackers, criticism, or controversy: an embattled legislative minority. Actual fortifications is not even a correct meaning. I've included the root word Embattle as it targets a ship and the ship is not a suitable retarget candidate for the others. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep "Embattle" to USS Embattle since we have a topic for ships called "Embattle". A hatnote at the ship article can link to Wiktionary wikt:embattle. No idea what to do with the other ones. Besiege/Siege, Under attack, Order of battle, fortify, etc -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep "Embattle". Retarget the others to Battle. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep Embattled per WP:RFD#K5 useful, it has over 200 incoming links and most of them, if not all, are used about buildings (particularly churches and castles), i.e. for part of the structure that forms or resembles a battlement. Term is explained at the target. I've hatnoted to embattled (heraldry), and marked that as
{{r to section}}
(which it is, in Line (heraldry)). Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC) - Delete Embattles and Embattling as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.
-
- "Embattling" seems not used in the wild to mean the thing so embattled (like skirting or coving), and WP:NOTDIC for the two 18th-century references I found for its use as a present participle.
- I found two journal titles, A research based on adaptive genetic algorithm optimal embattling method, apparently, doi:10.1109/ICIS.2014.6912105, and A Fast Method for Embattling Optimization of Ground-Based Radar Surveillance Network, but these may be a bad translation/neologism (reologism?), the authors of both papers look to be from China. We we don't have anything about optimal embattling but it seems to concern the "virtual battleground" or "virtual battlefield" (in military technology) or whatever they call it these days, the strategic planning of the real battlefield using (remote) computer assistance. There might be a topic or subtopic for that but I can't find it. The stub virtual battlefield has a short para about its real-world use in the military before going on to discuss video game simulators.
- It is the method that is fast and the embattling that is optimal, so there's no tautology there. It could equally apply to the simulated battlefield, but there's no mention of it there. Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BLUELOCK
- Wikipedia:BLUELOCK → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Could now equally point to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection (a darker blue lock). It's been around since 2010, but has under 20 incoming links. We could replace occurrences with the more common WP:SALT shortcut and eliminate it, or do something else. What should be done? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Godsy: It's worth noting that the creation of this redirect predates the institution of Arb 30/500 protection by several years. There's not really any need to delete this, as there is at least one acceptable target and it doesn't violate policy. It should either a) be kept as is, with another redirect (such as WP:NAVYLOCK or WP:INDIGOLOCK assigned to the new protection), b) retargeted to the new protection level, and something else (WP:SKYLOCK assigned to creation-protection) or c) made a disambiguation page. I'm inclined to say keep as is. pbp 01:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, as I said, its been around since 2010. My idea above was just what came to mind for me, I don't necessarily think it needs to be deleted, hence the We could and the question What should be done? In my opinion, the problem with keeping it as is, is that it is now ambiguous (WP:XY).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection per nom. Currently, Wikipedia:BLUELOCK has less than 50 incoming links that could be easily fixed before this retarget happens. Also, on a related note, I have created WP:SKYBLUELOCK to target the nominate redirect's current target; this redirect matches the name of the file used for represent the lock for creation protection: File:Padlock-skyblue.svg. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget - To Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget and correct the existing links to the creation protection section. Making this protection a darker blue was an unfortunate choice. I don't think the redirects to WP:SALT are of much use anyway, since the [sky ]blue lock could only ever appear on pages that cannot be created, so nobody ever sees it. Unless admins can see it, I don't know that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection – Ivanvector has a good point: the sky blue lock is never actually shown on the pages it applies to, and when discussing the protection level, the WP:SALT shortcut is overwhelmingly preferred. Retargeting to the 30/500 makes sense, since we actually see a blue lock now. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support to retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection as it uses file File:Padlock-blue.svg. Eyesnore 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget - To Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection - If no ever sees the blue lock then we're not really confusing anyway, Makes sense to retarget imho. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
April 5
Panamagate
- Panamagate → Panama Papers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
From what I gather, "Panamagate" and "Panama Papers" are actually two distinct controversies. The first news reports of the "Panamagate" controversy, which specifically surrounds Maltese minister Konrad Mizzi, were released early March 2016: [22][23][24]. The broader "Panama Papers" controversy was first covered in papers (according to the current article's lead) on April 3, just recently, and it implicates far more politicians than just Mizzi. To prevent confusion, this redirect should be deleted or retargeted to a more appropriate article if one exists. Retarget to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Politics. Mz7 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC), revised 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
keep.You gather it wrongly. "Panamagate" happened in several countries, under exact same name. At the moment the term is described only in the Panama Papers page, hence it is a valid redirect. In the future, in the course of events, we quite possibly will have Panamagate (Malta), Panamagate (Russia), Panamagate (Ukraine), to name a few. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Delete for now at least.By redirecting it to Panama Papers, we are likely to lead our readers into thinking the two are the same thing. I recognise Panamagate is used to refer to the Panama Papers in other languages, but this is the English Wikipedia. I'm open to it being redirected to something which is about the Maltese political scandal last month or if Panamagate does become a common term for the Panama Papers. Jolly Ω Janner 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Question. Where is the content that was on that page before?Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- Create a disambiguation page with several entries that meet MOS:DABMENTION until articles are created (somewhat per Altenmann.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- my suggestion is: 1) make two cells in List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Politics: Panamagate (March 2016) event (to cover Konrad Mizzi event, using above sources from user Mz7 (article text can be restored from [25]), and Panamagate (April 2016) event (to cover Panama Papers); 2) make redirects: Panamagate (March 2016) to List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Politics and Panamagate (April 2016) to Panama Papers pages respectively; 3) make Panamagate a disambiguation page, like it was suggested above by user Steel1943 with links to Panamagate (March 2016) and Panamagate (April 2016), and maybe new links for country-specific articles from Panama Papers event if they will be made in future. 37.229.198.55 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. These appear to be two different things and I could not find any RS evidence (or much non-RS for that matter) that "Panamagate" is the same thing – or closely enough related to – the Panama Papers. The Examiner (Malta Today) has a headline with it "From Panamagate to Panama Papers", but then doesn't use the word in the body text; anyway, the headline implies they are distinct things. If so, the link to Panama Papers needs removing from the list article, of course. Si Trew (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- comment I would agree with the suggestion to re-redirect it to the "List of -gates" article. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would be okay with retargeting to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Politics as well, since now we have a direct mention of this title there. Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Politics (or if it can be directed to just the Panamagate section even better). I've added some info on the Malta scandal as well, but couldn't figure out how to split cells within a row. Jolly Ω Janner 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Red grey
- Red grey → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This Neelix redirect fails WP:RFD#D2 because seal brown does not have a shade of red in it. I also nominate these Neelix redirects for the same reason:
- Redgrey → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Red gray → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Redgray → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gray red → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grayred → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grey red → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Greyred → Seal brown (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- comment. None but the first redirect has been tagged. @MrLinkinPark333: can you do that please? I thought we'd had these before but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete all per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- comment Is there a way I can point the nominations to April 5th? If i nominate them now, they go to April 6th due to Wikipedia's server time. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333: just copy and paste from the top nom's note. There are Spans around each here so the templste defaulted section link will be fine. The date's embedded in the template instance. There's no need to notify the creator since that's done for the first one. I'd have done it myself but am on a tablet at the moment and hard to do copy paste, sorry. Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: Okay, no worries. I've tagged all of the above. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per previous discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Armed conflict
- Armed conflict → War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Armed conflicts → War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hmm ... This redirects' target War states that the article's subject is the "state of armed conflict" but doesn't state that "war" and "armed conflict" are the same. Are these redirects accurate, or should the redirects be deleted per WP:REDLINK? Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It should be obvious to readers that "armed conflict" and "a state of armed conflict" are the same thing. -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, they are indeed synonymous. GABHello! 23:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- comment in the Suez Crisis, Eden said "We are not at war with Egypt. We are in a state of armed conflict". [26]. To him at least there was a distinction - a legal, political one. This is perhaps ambiguous, not all armed conflicts are wars in a formal sense (a shootout, for example). There are related artcles that use the term in their definitions, such as battle. Maybe DAB it. The question is why would someone use "armed conflict" instead of "war"? Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- comment armed combat -> combat. violent conflict -> war). I think, need to double check. Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The distinction between a declared and undeclared war is not important enough to merit two articles the size of war. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to turn armed conflict into a disambiguation between war and undeclared war, since we actually have an article on that and that might be what a speaker means by "armed conflict". I'll note the Uppsala Conflict Data Program uses "armed conflict" as a more general term, and classifies them as "war" if they produce more than 1,000 deaths per year. -- Beland (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Si Trew, hmm ... Shouldn't Armed combat actually target Battle? (Wow, more to nominate, I guess.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Have can will worms. I thought I might get some clue by looking at unarmed combat, but that is an R to hand-to-hand combat which says in the second sentence of the lede "While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons"; so we have an R to an article which covers some kinds of both armed and unarmed combat, which is slicing it rather diagonally. (Not all unarmed combat is hand-to-hand combat, and vice versa; I'm leaving aside the riddles about fighting with hands but no arms. Well, nearly.) Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've listed it, at April 6's log. Si Trew (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Have can will worms. I thought I might get some clue by looking at unarmed combat, but that is an R to hand-to-hand combat which says in the second sentence of the lede "While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons"; so we have an R to an article which covers some kinds of both armed and unarmed combat, which is slicing it rather diagonally. (Not all unarmed combat is hand-to-hand combat, and vice versa; I'm leaving aside the riddles about fighting with hands but no arms. Well, nearly.) Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't delete. I'm mildly in favor of keeping the current title, but I wouldn't oppose disambiguation. Deletion would be a bad idea, because we shouldn't encourage the creation of an article at this title. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I've dropped a note at WT:MILHIST. Si Trew (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Armed conflict is on the DAB at Conflict (as the second entry). WP:DABPIPE [sic] strongly discourages that, but I'm hesitant to change it while we're discussing this. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The redirect from Unarmed combat to h2h combat is a poor one, as has already been pointed out. Not on board with redirect from armed combat to battle. All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares. Otherwise, support the suggestion to disambig for war and undeclared war. The distinction can be important. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as is. The nomination is attempting to draw a distinction without a difference. There is no potential for confusion on the part of our readers and no better target for the redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, as I agree with Beland and GAB. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Force XXI
- Force XXI → Transformation of the United States Army (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Force XXI Army → United States Army (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The term "Force XXI" doesn't seem to be mentioned at either target except as a source in an external link. This subject probably had something to do with the United States Army, but neither target articles helps specify what this is. However, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (a possible related subject) exists, and Force 21, an unrelated subject, exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - The term "Force XXI" appears to have three distinct meanings: A)a video game, B)a communications technology project, and C)a U.S. Army wide modernization initiative (see "Force XXI: Redesigning the Army Through Warfighting Experiments"). All of the them, I think, do merit Wikipedia pages and shouldn't be confused with each other. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Major wars
- Major wars → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Wars aren't limited to ongoing ones. However, I'm unsure of a retargeting option for this because I cannot find any type of criteria for what type of war would be termed a "major" war. So, this redirect might fail WP:NPOV (I'm not sure.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the sources List of ongoing armed conflicts uses put the dividing line between a "minor conflict" vs. war or "major conflict" at 1000 deaths per year. The page currently uses the term "Major wars" and used to have a section header (but that's now List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#10.2C000.2B_deaths_in_current_or_past_year). If we changed that to "Deadliest wars" it would be slightly more objective, given that there are other ways to measure the subjective importance of a conflict than deaths per year, if that's what "major" is taken to indicate. I think Major wars should be a disambiguation page that lists both List of ongoing armed conflicts in case you mean current major wars, or List of wars by death toll in case you meant major-est wars of all time, and that leaves room for future links to "List of wars by amount of territory conquered" or whatever other metrics Wikipedia might come up with. -- Beland (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, having just found Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects I think this falls well within what is tolerated for redirect POV, though I still think a disambiguation page would be an improvement. -- Beland (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of wars by death toll, List of military conflicts spanning multiple wars or World war maybe? I'm not sure what exact criteria a "major" war would have, but these seem to be the only standalone lists that lists some important wars.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
create a dab at redlink major war and retarget this to it asAs the above suggestions show, it is ambiguous. Si Trew (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC){{R from plural}}
.
-
- I agree with creating a dab as per above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per the nomination. I also cannot find any definitive criteria for defining a war or other armed conflict as "major" and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to invent that definition. Various sources given in the lists suggest criteria based on cumulative death toll or death rate (as suggested above), while others suggest that "major war" is the same as total war, while still others suggest that any identifiable conflict where government resources are deployed is a major war. Many external lists have no criteria at all. The conclusion is that "major" is just a WP:PEACOCK descriptor here, and this is no different from any other undefined descriptive redirect to war or some list, like if we had popular wars or bad wars or wet wars or justified wars. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Ivanvector's right, might as well let the search engine do it. We don't have minor wars, although we do have miner wars. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 6 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 conflict 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: [27] but there are also external web pages which would have broken links if we delete this redirect: [28] 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)
Actual wars
- Actual wars → List of ongoing armed conflicts (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
For one, the redirect is inaccurate since there are also wars/armed conflicts that are no longer ongoing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- This seems like a weird thing for a user to type in. Would they be looking for real-world wars as opposed to fictional wars? In that case, this is the wrong target. Maybe User:M4gnum0n actually did type this in and was looking for ongoing wars, but the edit summary makes me think it was speculative. I'm not opposed to a delete outcome for this one, but I'm open to assertions it should be a disambiguation page if people really are typing this in. -- Beland (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- we have virtual war and phoney war in opposition, but the first at least is a real war and a bit of a misnomer, it's not as if it's a computer game, but it's a real life misnomer not a Wikipedia one. Real war is red. I guess this use of "actual" to mean "current" is a bit of a false friend so perhaps it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Or D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 6 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
List of Refernce Tables
- List of Refernce Tables → Portal:Contents/Lists (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Besides the fact that this is a WP:CNR, it is also both misspelled and doesn't seem to target what the redirect's name claims that it targets. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: Turns out that List of reference tables targets Portal:Contents/Lists as well, but I'm choosing not to group it with this one since the nominated redirect has the even more confusing spelling issue (which is confusing enough since the nomimated redirect is a WP:CNR.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- What does "reference table" even mean here? --BDD (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BDD: The only clues I could find to answer you question in the least are this page move, and the very odd edit history of Reference tables. Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- What does "reference table" even mean here? --BDD (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete, CNR. Might just as well go to Category:Lists or Category:Lists of lists. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. "List of..." is where the content existed before the Portal-space was created. And while this is a typo, it's an innocent one that's been around since 2003. The cross-namespace argument does not apply to redirect to the Portal space. We expect those to work. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is a confusing redirect that is also misspelled. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Current computer and video game events
- Current computer and video game events → Portal:Video games (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current computer and video games events → Portal:Video games (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Possibly-misleading WP:CNRs since the target is not a page in the article namespace about events. Also, at this point, most, if not all, other "Current ... events" redirects that targeted pages in the "Portal:" namespace have been deleted. Please see the referenced previous RFD discussion for further information; most "Current ... events" redirects listed there have since been deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the prior RfD decision. WP:CNR does not apply to redirects to the Portal-space. The very point of portal pages is to replace (and more efficiently manage) those interminable list pages. But knowing the "Portal:something" grammar is not something that we expect new readers to know. Redirects help those readers find the content they want. There is no good reason it harder for those readers. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Cross-space redirects doesn't apply in this case since portals are reader focused, not editor focused. And in this case it makes sense - the portal has a listing of current events on it. Many of the other such redirects pointed to portals that didn't actually have current events listing, so those deletions made sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
ANE Resources
- ANE Resources → Portal:Ancient Near East/Resources (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- ANE resources → Portal:Ancient Near East/Resources (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- ANE Topics → Portal:Ancient Near East/Topics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- ANE topics → Portal:Ancient Near East/Topics (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These WP:CNRs could be seen as ambiguous and misleading. Since in the article space, ANE is a disambiguation page, these redirects assume that the reader both think that "ANE" means "Ancient Near East" and that they are not looking for an article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above, WP:CNR does not apply to redirects to the Portal space. These have existed since 2008 without causing any apparent confusion despite the ambiguity of the acronym ANE. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The word "portal" is nowhere in the page WP:CNR targets. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Steel1943 It does include this text: "Many of these arguments concern mainly redirects from the article namespace to organisational namespaces, like Wikipedia or Template; they may not be as applicable to redirects to other content namespaces, like Category.". Portal is a content namespace, so the page basically says that CNR does not apply to redirects to portals. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because of the ANE abbreviation whose meaning isn't obvious to most of our readers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Basic topics
- Basic topics → Portal:Contents/Outlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Basic topics list → Portal:Contents/Outlines (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Rather confusing and misleading WP:CNRs. As these are in the article namespace, the question remains ... What Basic (a disambiguation page) topics? Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete.
Is portal namespace outside CSD for XNRs? If not, speedily delete.Si Trew (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - The notion of what is or is not a 'basic topic' is an extremely general concept. This is maddeningly vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Even though we have redirects for lists of basic topics, most of which seem to be redirects to "Outline of" article, we don't have List of lists of basic topics, neither do we have Category:Basic topics nor Category:Lists of basic topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] →
Misleading redirect since in this case, the word "current" could be seen as ambiguous. Besides the redirects current target, the page Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) exists as well, and this page also has a list of ships, none of which seem to still be in use. So, the word "current" can be seen as ambiguous since it could mean "currenltly-existing ships" or a "current list of all ships ever". Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep; unlike others the maintenance burden is at the target not the redirect. "Current" patently should not mean just "the current version of this page", but that's not the case here - there's been a deliberate choice to split out historic ships. That one is weird because not every old ship is historic, but I suppose the distinction between historic and historical has died. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is the title where the content existed before being moved. It's clear that any reader looking for content with this title will be most likely looking for the current target. Rossami (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] →
Besides the fact that per the redirect's edit history showing that this title's creator didn't seem to create this title intentionally, this redirect is a very unlikely search term due to the the use of the word "ships" twice. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete as unlikely typo that, but for its age, would be CSD WP:R2 or is it R3, implausible typo. Si Trew (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - There's good reason to be generous about spelling errors and other such mistakes being legitimate uses for redirects, but this is pretty silly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Current War in Afghanistan
- Current War in Afghanistan → War in Afghanistan (2001–14) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The redirect is outdated since War in Afghanistan (2015–present) exists. Since this redirect could require continuous maintenance and has the possibility of being ambiguous, I'd say delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as we avoid relative time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, too ambiguous and may well cause issues in the future (if there is a sudden outbreak of peace, hopefully!). GABHello! 23:11, 5 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)
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)
Yahoo.cm
Delete, while this one appears to be owned by Yahoo, the security concern is still a problem for me, see .cm#Reputation, where .cn was rated "the world's riskiest domain." I don't think it's worth the risk, especially since it's not used (.05 hits per day over the past 90 days.) -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It is a typo by omission of the "o" in ".com" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see a risk to readers by correctly identifying this as a property of Yahoo Inc. Anyone researching the domain should have that connection made for them. -- Beland (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, just an ordinary typo, and I agree with Beland that people won't take this redirect as an indicator that Yahoo really uses this precise name. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 6 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)
- Keep per 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)
Parent, Ontario
- Parent, Ontario → Thunder Bay District (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is no mention of the name "Parent" in the target article. I could find no such place via Google, though it might have been obscured by the many web pages about Ontario mothers, fathers, etc. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further search, I did find this, but it gives very little information. Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's listed at List_of_townships_in_Ontario#Thunder_Bay_District, so a redirect seems reasonable. I don't suspect the township is sufficient enough to have it's own article, but either reidrecting to the district, or the list of townships makes sense.--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Unorganized Thunder Bay District. It seems to be a former/historic(/geographic, I don't know what that means) township in the unorganized part of the district. There is a Parent Lake in the unorganized part of the district, close to Geraldton, Ontario, which is the best I can find of things this could refer to, and this memo from the Ontario government referring to the closure of a waste disposal site in "Parent Unorganized Township" close to Geraldton seems to back that up. Although it's not really significant or mentioned anywhere so it wouldn't be awful to delete this either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The "geographic" townships are a system of making sure that every piece of land in Ontario has a "name" for land management purposes, such as tracking forest fires and/or recording natural resources (e.g. mining, forestry, etc.) claims. They can occasionally have a more practical application as well — my parents' house is inside the boundaries of one of Ontario's larger cities now, but when they first bought it in the early 1970s it was in a completely unincorporated, not-yet-annexed rural area and their only official mailing address was "Lot #, Concession #, Name of a Geographic Township" (although even today, with their mailing address being "Conventional Street Address, Name of Actual City", the geographic township name still does technically exist for internal government purposes — they're a completely separate thing from the system of municipal governance.) But in reality, for our purposes on here they nearly always mean great gobs of nothing at all, in the absence of reliable source coverage about them — which is extremely rare at best, and usually completely nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not an incorporated place in its own right, but is one of Ontario's geographic townships. Per the provincial ClaiMAPS system, I was able to confirm that it is indeed near Geraldton, but is not part of the municipality of Greenstone (although the next geographic townships to its immediate north and east are — if you look at our map of Greenstone, you'll see a small downpointing notch roughly at the midpoint, and Parent is the very next thing immediately to that notch's left. It is not a thing that would be likely to qualify for an article of its own, however, as I'm unable to find any reliable source coverage about it. Our usual standard for geographic locations which aren't notable in their own right is to redirect them to a larger related topic if possible, and this was simply the wrong choice of topic — redirecting to Unorganized Thunder Bay District would indeed be preferable. I also wouldn't object to outright deletion if that's the consensus, however, as this is unlikely to be a thing that very many people are actually looking for information about at all. Literally nothing in mainspace, for example, links to this title at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of townships in Ontario#Thunder Bay District, where it's listed. I oppose retargeting to Unorganized Thunder Bay District as long as Parent isn't discussed there. While I'm afraid this isn't going to be very helpful either way, the former at least gives the redirect context. Someone already familiar with Parent might understand the retarget to UTBD, but since it's not included there, it seems too likely to confuse readers for my comfort. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- If it exists (or has in the past), I don't see why we wouldn't include that information in Thunder Bay District, which would then make it an appropriate redirect target. bd2412 T 11:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Then why not Unorganized Thunder Bay District, where it is actually located? The unorganized area is within Thunder Bay District, not the other way around (like a township within a county, but the township has no local government). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Northern China (disambiguation)
- Northern China (disambiguation) → North China (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I would normally boldly do this but considering the fun we are having with the Chinese redirects lately, I think better of it: this is not an R to a DAB page. No doubt it was so when User:BD2412 created it to target Northern China as an {{R to disambiguation page}}
, but was bot fixed when the DAB was changed to a redirect. Retarget to North China (disambiguation) but see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#Northern Chinese. Northern China already targets same place. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment these double-redirect bot fixes can be a nuisance; a human editor would be expected to go through the incoming links and judiciously change them before moving the page, so perhaps it would make sense for the bot to avoid "fixing" redirects to redirects when doing double-redirect fixes. Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget as proposed. A "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect should not point to a non-disambiguation page. bd2412 T 11:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to North China (disambiguation) which was where the disambiguation page was moved to a few years ago, before the double redirect bot fixed the retargeted page that was left behind -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I think with the closure of the discussion for Northern Chinese (linked above), we can close this now a little early as retarget, since it would make little sense after the outcome of that discussion to do anything else. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Chimmer
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per WP:G6 Neelix concession by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't figure out why this would redirect to room. Any ideas why? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it was created by Neelix, and after participating in deleting thousands of his redirects, I've given up understanding his thought processes. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete is okay. Closest possible target that I got is List_of_ice_hockey_nicknames where one of the athletes is nicknamed "Chimmer"--Lenticel (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - utter nonsense, even for Neelix. Chimmer is also supposedly an insult. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This one is actually real with a literary background. Thomas Hardy illustrated the Wessex dialect of "broad Dorset" with words like "chimmer", meaning room. Short Stories by Thomas Hardy. Whether this usage merits a redirect I leave to others, but this one isn't something Neelix just made up. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Neat, not utter nonsense then. But is it useful as a redirect? I find it doubtful (but not completely implausible) that someone would see chimmer in one of Hardy's works and come here to find out what the word means, and if they did, they would not find any information about its usage at room, nor at say chamber. I see from searching that the podcast The Football Ramble has a character named 'Chimmers "Chimmers" Chimmers', but no further details available. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely search term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I can understand if somewhere this connection existed in English poetry, novels, etc, but it's still unhelpful and useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:01, 6 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.
April 4
Cho Su-bin
- Cho Su-bin → Subin (singer) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Subin (singer) is named Park Su-bin, according to the only reliable source I found (her Melon profile). Random86 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, I think this redirect should be deleted, since there isn't a subject with this name. Random86 (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete for now. Korean wiki has a article about a news anchor by the name of Cho Su Bin (조수빈) in case anybody wanted to know.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:WORDGARBAGE
- WP:WORDGARBAGE → User:CFCF/Verbage (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Wikipedia:Verbage → User:CFCF/Verbage (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- WP:VERBAGE → User:CFCF/Verbage (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NEO, WP:CNR, etc. (See also MfD/RfD actions that moved WP:DICK and WP:DIVA and effectively salted those shortcuts.) We do not need cross-namespace redirects for material created specifically to attack another individual editor (which this was [29]). The MfD about this essay/rant concluded with consensus to userspace it, but punted the decision to remove the Wikipedia-namespace redirects for later RfD (which was unnecessary, since userspace without redirect is the conventional outcome for essays that the community forcibly userspaces because they are not appropriate in the project namespace). "Verbage" also a neologism/typo (note the spelling) that no one is likely to use, making the redirect implausible, even if there were a legitimate reason for a WP shortcut for this, which there's not. Various real-English redirects to this page, such as WP:Succinct and WP:Verbiage, have been redirected to Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, being a real WP-namespace page on the topic. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 3#Grammar Nazis for another RfD about a redirect created simply to attack another editor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the redirects were generally transferred even after userification. If that was the concern, you could have brought it up with me. I think one of those was used before the otherwise, I don't oppose deletion of the redirects. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: No worries; I'm not "challenging" you, just complying with the close that suggested RfD. I don't have a problem with cautious admins. :-) I simply meant that because it's routine to ditch redirs when unconstructive essays get userspaced (because their authors cite and promote them as if they're guidelines, and the retention of the shortcuts allows them to keep doing this despite the userspacing), this RfD should be open-and-shut. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this redirect; there's no reason to pollute WP: with this nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yah, delete. Is there a group of editors turning to creative synonyms for redirects now? I wish they'd temper themselves. Tony (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Nutrition Party
- Nutrition Party → Rod Silva (businessman) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Nutrition Party (United States) → Rod Silva (businessman) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete both per WP:REDLINK. Could equally target United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Nutrition Party and United States presidential election, 2016#Nutrition Party. The search engine handles searches for this term appropriately. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Nutrition Party" redirects to Silva, so in accordance with Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), etc. it should be kept that way until a Nutrition Party article can be created. MB298 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Without the subject of the redirect being notable enough for its own article, it's confusing and vague at best. At the present time, until more notability is established for any "Nutrition Party" subject, a disambiguation page would be unwarranted: Search results would be more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep U.S. political party with ballot access in at least one state, potentially a search term. As it currently does not have an standalone article, it seems appropriate to redirect to the party's founder and inaugural candidate. No compelling reason for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like this is a one-man operation, so redirecting to his article makes sense. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete?: Nom is correct that there are three potential targets, and that search allows people to find them. Given the obscurity of the topic, it's going to be a toss-up for a long time, maybe forever, which will be petter developed about the party as such. It may only have one candidate, but it's not really a one-person operation if they have enough supporters to get on a US state ballot already. If I were looking for this, I think I would pick one of the election articles, on the assumption that the individual bio is, well, an individual bio, not about the party per se.
Alternative: Create a section at the bio for the party, for now, in lieu of a full article on it pending increased notability, then target the redirect specifically at that section. In the short term that's probably the most useful outcome, but someone has to care enough to do it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC) - Keep until and unless an article on the political party itself is written. From what I can tell, this party exists solely as a vehicle for Silva. The explanation of the topic is much better at this article than at either of the time-locked lists about the 2016 election. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Grills bare
- Grills bare → Bear Grylls (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per WP:RTYPO. There are way too many typos here to be a plausible redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not really a typo but, to my surprise, I can't find any RS that this is used as a sarcastic moniker; perhaps I am just not searching right. But Grills Bear and Grylls Bear are red (Grylls, Bear has the same target), so this is just WP:RFD#D2 confusing, really, not at target. No links, stats below noise level (one day last month got four hits though). Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, just WP:NONSENSE. This is exactly the same as creating a redirect "Twine murk" for Mark Twain. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:16, 5 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)
Development of untitled Batman/Superman film
- Development of untitled Batman/Superman film → Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Development of Untitled Batman/Superman Filml → Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Development of Untitled Batman vs. Superman Film → Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No longer needed. Note: has history. SSTflyer 03:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. "No longer needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. No apparent potential for confusion and no good reason to break the history. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, it was never "needed" to begin with. As the film is no longer untitled, the redirect is incorrect, and there is potential for confusion, especially when/if they begin work on a sequel. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Deleting a page does not break its history; it can be retrieved if necessary. Otherwise, we'd never be able to delete anything. Si Trew (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: A phrase this specific was not probably a plausible search term, and now certainly isn't. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:15, 5 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)
April 3
She-goats
The target doesn't discuss female goats separately from males, while this redirect implies content specific to females. Also, females are more properly called nannies or does. Unless there is a female-specific target, deletion is probably the best option.
Also nominated: She goat and She goats. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the target discusses goats, and has specific coverage of female goats, since male goats do not produce milk, nor get pregnant, etc. And these are terms used for female goats, so viable search terms, whatever the "official" names are, these are also used -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all per 70... and because there is no apparent potential for confusion or ambiguity. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all: Quite aside from that Billy goat and Billy-goat also redirect to Goat, and that Wikipedia is not the linguistic enforcement arm of the Goat Breeders Association, the only relevant question is whether "she goat" or "she-goat" are reasonable search terms. With 200,000 relevant hits on Google, it's a safe bet. Ravenswing 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - meh, I guess. We have pages like cow and hen for this sort of usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is archaic, but it's real English. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep seems to be discussed in the target article --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Imelda (criminal)
- Imelda (criminal) → Imelda Marcos (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Imelda (entrepreneur) → Imelda Marcos
- Imelda (diplomat) → Imelda Marcos
- Imelda (socialite) → Imelda Marcos
- Imelda (singer) → Imelda Marcos
- Imelda (model) → Imelda Marcos
- Imelda (politician) → Imelda Marcos
This is a batch of newly created redirects to Imelda Marcos. They have no incoming links. This is apparently an attempt to predict that people will type in random non-existent (disambiguators), after multiple unanimously-opposed attempts to move Imelda Marcos over the disambiguation page Imelda. Alsee (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep (criminal) and (politician), as these are how Marcos is commonly seen and hence are potentially useful for auto-complete ("Imelda politician" works nicely), they also inform at least Google's search engine. Delete the others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- Comment these redirects were created by Imeldific (talk · contribs) who seems to be an Imelda Marcos fan (see wikt:Imeldific) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. If "Imelda" is ambiguous then Imelda (politician) is ambiguous – the DAB includes a British politican and an Irish politician. But she wasn't a politician in any formal sense, nor was she a singer nor a diplomat nor a model nor an entrepreneur, any more than say Diana (model) should target Diana, Princess of Wales. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- She worked as a beauty queen, model, and singer in the 1950s before she became First Lady and she became an entrepreneur and fashion designer after that.Imeldific (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all: These redirects presume that the only notable "Imelda" in any of the categories is Mrs. Marcos. That's a tall order for which no evidence has been proffered. A casual glance at the dab page for "Imelda" reveals other Imeldas who were singers, politicians, actresses, businesswomen and socialites. Ravenswing 12:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Imelda (criminal) per WP:G10; "criminal" implies that she was convicted of crimes but as far as I can tell from the article that is not the case. Still reviewing the others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget Imelda (entrepreneur) to Bill and Imelda Roche. I don't see Imelda Marcos' business activities in her article at all; inheriting wealth is not a business venture. Imelda Roche is the only person listed on Imelda who could reasonably be considered an entrepreneur. Retarget the others to the dab page, where multiple people of each of these descriptions are listed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all and speedy the criminal one. SimonTrew's rationale is correct. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all, obviously. All of these describe her better than all the other Imeldas. She is still running for Congress so Imelda (politician) still applies (Electoral history of Imelda Marcos). Her role as First Lady is more of a diplomat; Imelda (diplomat) By far, she is the most recognizable Imelda political leader. The lawsuits currently being held against her qualify her as Imelda (criminal). Her offshore bank accounts makes her Imelda (entrepreneur), her shoes for Imelda (model) and her legacy as Imelda (socialite). She has been a singer longer than Imelda May and is still more popular based on page views. She should be mononymously name as simply Imelda based on reliable sources but current consensus prevents that.Imeldific (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- If off-shore bank accounts make someone an entrepreneur, then I guess Vladimir Putin is one too. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per Si Trew. I don't think the modifiers are enough to justify that the redirects specify Imelda Marcos --Lenticel (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per Ravenswing —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Grammar Nazis
- Grammar Nazis → Linguistic prescription (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grammar Nazi → Linguistic prescription (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Grammar nazi → Linguistic prescription (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unneeded pejorative connection of grammar prescriptivists to Nazis. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also: Grammar Nazi, Grammar nazi. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016 April 4#WP:WORDGARBAGE for another redir created solely to attack another editor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep (all): That it's a pejorative and obnoxious term is true. That it's a very well known one and a highly probable search term is another. I'm all for it redirecting people to a fair and balanced article on the subject. Ravenswing 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and "unneeded" just means censor it. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld writes: "Common examples include: “feminazi,” “grammar Nazi,” “gym Nazi,” “stroller Nazi,” “breastfeeding Nazi,” and so forth. Many of these terms preceded the creation of the Internet, having first appeared on television and radio." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- But it's sole purpose on Wikipedia so far was for you to accuse me of being a grammar Nazi, here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that RAN has a long and notorious history of incivility, that's scarcely the case: there are over 1300 uses of the phrase on Wikipedia [30], and it wasn't brought here specifically to target you. Ravenswing 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote: "Move back to comma version, 'grammar Nazis' have been removing the commas one by one ever since the mass comma deletion effort was thwarted in 2015." My comments refer to the whole ", Jr." to " Jr." movement to implement an obscure grammatical trend with stealth and zeal. Feel free to take me to ANI !court. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that RAN has a long and notorious history of incivility, that's scarcely the case: there are over 1300 uses of the phrase on Wikipedia [30], and it wasn't brought here specifically to target you. Ravenswing 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- But it's sole purpose on Wikipedia so far was for you to accuse me of being a grammar Nazi, here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep extremely plausible search term. Linguistic prescription looks to be an extremely good target article. Alsee (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (as nom). Implausible, inappropriately plural, offensive, and only added as a personal attack (on me, here). Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- While you are free to continue to contribute to the deletion discussion, please don't comment using this format. Your opinion that the redirect should be deleted is obvious from your nomination. Comments in this format give the appearance of trying to "vote" twice and create confusion for whatever admin eventually has to close this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't edit my comments; I am providing reasons for deletion. I've now marked it "(as nom)" to clarify. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- While it's usual to do that simply by writing Comment instead of what may look like a multiple !vote, Dickylon didn't actually bold a !vote of any kind on the nomination anyway, and I think it's shaky to infer that nominating something without a !vote implies one for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I procedurally nominate things sometimes that I do not expect to be deleted, because they're a dispute about whether they should be retained, and it's more expedient to just use XfD than than let a circular argument continue. I also, like Lyon, frequently provide a more detailed rationale below XfDs (and RMs, etc.), to keep the main nomination short, though I also make it clear that I'm the nominator. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is still a double vote, if you want to comment, we have comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- We do not count "votes" but we clearly count "!votes", and you have double !voted. You violated a !law.
- While you are free to continue to contribute to the deletion discussion, please don't comment using this format. Your opinion that the redirect should be deleted is obvious from your nomination. Comments in this format give the appearance of trying to "vote" twice and create confusion for whatever admin eventually has to close this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete—per Dicklyon. I don't mind if the pejorative term appears within an article on linguistic prescription as an explanation, but not in a title. Tony (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Pejorative redirects are explicitly allowed. See [[WP:RNEUTRAL}} above. So are redirect from pluralization including grammatically incorrect pluralization. (And, yes, I do note the irony of complaining about a grammatical error in a redirect about being fussy over grammatical errors.) No valid reason for deletion has been offered yet. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- That it was created specifically for a personal attack on me is not a valid reason to delete it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Grammar Nazis" is plural, it doesn't refer to any specific person, unless you are making a claim to be poster child for the movement. Would you prefer the term of art to be "grammar fascist"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- You keep claiming that, and you keep failing to provide any evidence for the assertion. Ravenswing 06:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence – In this edit Richard Arthur Norton refers to me (implicitly but obviously) using a link to Grammar Nazis. Then he see's it's a red link; the very next entry in his contribs listing is the creation of this redirect to back up his attack on me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- This nomination has been expanded since my original comment. To clarify, I believe we should keep 'all the variants. As noted below, two of these variants have been around long before the dispute with Dicklyon so the assertion that this is solely a personal attack is implausible. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- That it was created specifically for a personal attack on me is not a valid reason to delete it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all three for multiple reasons:
- WP:NOTDICT and is not Urban Dictionary in particular. We do not need a redirect for every turn of phrase that has some minor bit of currency (and notably decreasing in the case of this one).
- It's not normal for random insulting terms – flaming douchebag, blatant fraud, sneaky liar, etc., etc. – to have redirects here or articles, no matter how common they are. We do have articles for slurs of particular types (ethnic and sexual mostly) because they're actually notable, and some redirs from similar terms to those articles, but there are as many ways to insult people as you can imagine, then many more besides. This phrase is not notable and we have no article or section on it.
- More the point, the term is never mentioned at the article to which is redirects.
- The redir is just an excuse to trivialize the Holocaust, per Godwin's Law, in talk page discussions, and to inject gross PoV in mainspace. Not only should such a phrase not be linked in articles, nor ever appear except in a quotation we certain we need, WP should not act as an enabler of people being, well, flaming doucheabags. Cf. previous MfDs against WP:DICK and WP:DIVA; the rationale in them applies here, because the primary use of this redir is for editors to negatively label each other in talk and noticeboards and snarky edit summaries.
- The phrase does not actually align with the article it redirects to, anyway. Linguistic prescription is what a prescriptive grammarian engages in, the intent to impose fixed rules on a fluid, evolving language, especially in a "remedial" fashion that is not natural for the language (e.g., the easily disproven insistence that English sentences cannot properly end in prepositions or contain split infinitives when these have been features of the language all along and used by the greats of English literature; these "rules" were borrowed by snobbish Victorians from Latin which they believed to be the ideal language). The phrase "grammar Nazi" (and the variants "grammar fascist", "grammar fascism", which properly are redlinks), by contrast, refer to people who are rude or obsessive sticklers for conventionalized, formal grammar, spelling, and other style matters in contexts in which it they are unimportant or inappropriate, e.g. criticizing spelling in text messages, producing awkward revisions that Orwell would call "barbarous" out of a sense of obligation to formality levels not needed in the current writing task, even difficulty controlling the urge to sneak in edits to other Wikipedian's talk page posts to fix their typos.
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Urban Dictionary is for contemporary slang, if you read my post, the reference says it predates the Internet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- If your argument is A, and we have a reliable source saying A is not correct, how is that irrelevant? I understand why you find it irrelevant, it contradicts your narrow worldview, but why should any other editor find it irrelevant? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Urban Dictionary is for contemporary slang, if you read my post, the reference says it predates the Internet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all - the two which SMcCandlish added have been here since March and November 2007, there's hardly any reason to delete them now. These terms are clearly in common use, and we explicitly allow and encourage this sort of redirect, even if the term is a tongue-in-cheek allusion to war criminals and possibly used in a pejorative sense, because it takes readers to information they are looking for. Editors who use it to engage in personal attacks should be swiftly punished, in exactly the same way as one calling another bitch or cunt or asshole, but that is not a problem with the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CONTENTAGE and WP:LONGTIME in "Arguments to avoid". Also, I already addressed this: Epithets like bitch that are notable are ones about which we have articles (or at least sections), and we redirect variant spellings to them. This is not the case here; Ivanvector is comparing apples and oranges. An argument that cunt should not be deleted has nothing at all to do with whether we need redirects for random insult phrases. We do not have any content at all on "grammar Nazi" so there is no reason to have a redirect for it. The phrase appears nowhere in the target article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Dicklyon and SMcCandlish —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. (edit conflict) I've added RfD notes pointing here to Grammar nazi and Grammar Nazi, closer please note. I don't mind them being added formally to the nomination but it might be a bit late now. Si Trew (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've added the headers, just for consistency. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Oh, I can see why Dick and SMc want to delete this so badly. I'm surprised they're even bothering to ask... - theWOLFchild 08:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Either keep all or (if we accept SMcCandlish's argument that Linguistic prescription is not a good target) make them soft redirects to Wiktionary again. All of these are plausible search terms, and should lead somewhere; WP:RNEUTRAL applies. Sideways713 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all as plausible and even useful redirects. The term is often offensive—though I've seen plenty of people avowing themselves to be "Grammar Nazis"—but that's not a reason to delete it in itself. The original reason for creating the redirect also seems irrelevant to me, assuming it's otherwise workable—there's nothing about the redirect as it is that indicates it refers to a particular person. The "flaming douchebag" etc. examples given above aren't comparable since in this case the term has a clear referent. Also in response to SmC, I don't think the way in which something may be used in talk pages should have any relevance for article space. WP:RNEUTRAL applies. —Nizolan (talk) 16:06, 9 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. 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)
Scott Brophy
- Scott Brophy → St. John's Fog Devils (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Subject was a NN amateur youth hockey player deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated as a redirect to a long-defunct amateur hockey team by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs and spurious redirects, and was banned by the community from new article creation and the revdel process. Improbable search term, and beyond that an inaccurate one: what makes this a more valid redirect target than the Gatineau Olympiques or St. Mary's University, for which Brophy not only also played, but played in more games than for the Fog Devils? Ravenswing 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Brophy was inaugural captain, according to the article. And the creator has no bearing on the decision here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- Delete, multiple plausible targets, no perfect match. According to his Hockey DB profile, he played twice as many games for the the Gatinaeu Olympiues and four times as long for St. Mary's University. It's silly to say that someone looking for Mr. Brophy would find what they're looking for at the Fog Devils when that's only a fraction of his career. -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as is. Redirecting a non-notable child article to a more notable parent title is routine. Tavix's argument that a different parent title might be better is an argument to retarget, not to delete. I have no strong opinion about retargeting but I will note his role as the inaugural captain does add some weight to the current title choice. Rossami (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets, and even as "inaugural captain", an utterly nn subject. And with respect Rich, the creator's history of bad faith creations such as these very much does apply in my mind. Resolute 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There are many potential targets. Not at all a valid redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I thought we deleted all of Dolovis' redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Ivanvector: not even close. Resolute had User:Resolute/botreq made to find his "bad" redirects, but it looks like it hasn't been sorted through yet. -- Tavix (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The goal at the time was to dump the 100+ redirects that pointed to a draft or season article. I never did go through looking for similar cases such as this. Resolute 02:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The only reason I caught these two is that I was in a burst of insomnia and decided to go back through every AfD in which I'd been involved that still came up blue link, and these were part of a bundled AfD of NN-at-the-time junior players. (Let's just say I raised no objection to Jonathan Toews or Timo Pielmeier!) Ravenswing 03:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: not even close. Resolute had User:Resolute/botreq made to find his "bad" redirects, but it looks like it hasn't been sorted through yet. -- Tavix (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wes Welcher
- Wes Welcher → St. John's Fog Devils (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Subject was a NN amateur youth hockey player deleted at AfD nearly a decade ago for failing WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Recreated as a redirect to a long-defunct amateur hockey team by the infamous Dolovis, who was responsible for the creation of thousands of NN stubs and spurious redirects, and was banned by the community from new article creation and the revdel process. Improbable search term, and beyond that an inaccurate one: what makes this a more valid redirect target than the Moncton Wildcats or St. Thomas University, for which Welcher also played? Ravenswing 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Welcher is mentioned in the article, as a record holder. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Retarget to Wes Welker.Delete, multiple plausible targets, no perfect match. According to his Hockey DB profile, he also spent time with the Moncton Wildcats and St. Thomas University. It's silly to say that someone looking for Wes Welcher would find what they're looking for at the Fog Devils when that's only part of his career. -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep per above. The fact that there are multiple possible targets for a redirect is not a good argument to delete. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets. Resolute 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As mentioned by Resolute WP:XY is applicable here. Far to many potential targets. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - per the thread above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:XY is not a reason, it's a common outcome. WP:RFD#D1 (hinders search) is the underlying reason for that outcome, "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." Okay, the various targets may not be similarly named, but they have a subject in common. Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Files for deletion
- Files for deletion → Wikipedia:Files for discussion (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:XNR to non reader content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - The 'files' being talked about here... it's just all too vague. There are all kinds of contexts where you need to delete some files to get something else to get working. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete files for deletion. (I couldn't resist the wordplay, grin.) It's a particularly troublesome cross-namespace redirect. Alsee (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:XNR to pipework content, that is not encyclopedic content for the readership. Further, this isn't about the topic of files for deletion, this is a specific workflow for Wikipedia, and does not cover file deletion candidacy and various political and legal problems with that. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Trash (computing). SSTflyer 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not a plausible search term for that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an inappropriate CNR. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deletion revision
- Deletion revision → Wikipedia:Revision deletion (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:XNR to non-reader content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Strange reversal of wording, and cross namespace redirects are troublesome. Alsee (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete std XNR. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- Delete WP:XNR to pipework that is non-encyclopedic content not for the readership. This is not about the generic topic of deletion revision, revisionism, hiding facts by revisionist history, etc. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. WP namespace excludes it from
{{db-r2}}
unfortunately. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express → Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The target of this redirect is about a different subject than the redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express was moved to Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express which was an irrational move as these two trains are altogether different. I just reverted the move, so Andhra Pradesh AC SF Express ends up being redirected to Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express. — LeoFrank Talk 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, I'll try speedily as
{{db-r3}}
, also WP:G7 author (User:LeoFrank) requests deletion. Si Trew (talk) 17:52, 5 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.
Barnsley F.C. Current Season
- Barnsley F.C. Current Season → 2015–16 Barnsley F.C. season (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Deletion preferable as this obscure redirect would have to be updated every year (and only seconds ago it was updated for the first time in eight years). There is no need for any "Current X" then redirecting to the incumbent, whether it is "Current President of the United States", "Current CEO of Hewlett Packard", "Current French number one single", any '''tAD''' (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sure if WP:RELTIME applies, but no need for the maintenance burden which nobody actually carries. This is not useful as a link in articles, and anyone searching for the club's results can simply search for Barnsley F.C. It patently is not an editor's shortcut. (We do have Current President of the United States.) Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete to avoid unnecessary maintenance. Linking to the current season is standard practice within football club infoboxes, in any case. C679 12:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Just not a useful redirect term, since anyone typing the phrase out will have already typed "Barnsley F.C." Ravenswing 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it with fire. I do not want thousands of redirects of this type lurking around, needing to be updated every year. Kill it now, kill them all. Alsee (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - maintenance isn't a problem, that could be trivially automated. The problem is that "Current season" is undefined during the "off-season" (in the UK, between early May and mid-August). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Alsee —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - confusing and not required. GiantSnowman 07:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
STD Wizard
- STD Wizard → Sexually transmitted infection (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete this was previously sent to RFD (closed as no-consensus, because discussion at talk was ongoing), with a rationale of Non-notable software should not redirect to a general article somewhat related to the software. This never should have been a redirect; this should have been csd'd. I endorse the rationale (basically, non-notable software was redirected to the STI/D article), and what's more, the article doesn't mention the software. Not particularly useful, and we're better off deleting this page than making it look as if we have an article that discusses this software somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - We have a non-notable, gimmick-based service that's not mentioned in the present article, nor do I think it will ever be. I'm in agreement. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per every reason given above. Alsee (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Mid Wessex
- Mid Wessex → Wiltshire (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Is this redirect accurate? Or completely made-up and wrong? Two others nominated for the same reason:
- Outer Wessex (targets Somerset)
- Nether Wessex (targets Somerset)
Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Adding Mid-Wessex and South Wessex Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I've anchored these other two redirects, otherwise the section links in the nominations on their pages wouldn't work. Add South Wessex → Wiltshire, and Mid-Wessex → Wiltshire too? Same creator, same time. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete. WP:RFD#D1, hinders search, per WP:XY. ButI imagine these were scraped from the table at Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties, so perhaps retarget there; the table links to each of the real counties which they stand for. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)- Delete. "Outer Wessex" and "Nether Wessex" seem to be "a novel or very obscure synonym" from fiction. No one searching for Somerset would use these search terms. Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties doesn't even include "Nether Wessex" nor does the source given. If they were to be kept they should retarget to the table as suggested by Si Trew.— Rod talk 08:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I'd missed that Nether Wessex was not in the table. Delete that one per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. 10:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)- It's not a question of someone searching for Somerset or Wiltshire, but one of her searching for Mid Wessex, etc. Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Thomas Hardy's Wessex#Wessex regions and actual English counties per Si Trew.
- Note: A quick Google search shows that Nether Wessex is a synonym for Outer Wessex. I added an (unsourced) note of that in the article. That solves the WP:RFD#D2 issue. Nether Wessex should also be retargeted. Alsee (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget all without prejudice to reversing if the term is later covered in the "real world" articles. It's an interesting case where one synonym is targeted away from another. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
- Comment. If we retarget they should be catted as
{{R to list entry}}
. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2
Peter Atencio
- 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 converted to article by User:Captain Assassin! (thanks!) (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Peter Atencio → Keanu (film) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Per wp:redlink, is mentioned many times on the wiki and could easily have an article... Beerest 2 Talk page 23:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search, whether or not this director is notable. Si Trew (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep because it is not a redirect anymore. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:57, 3 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.
Pashtun (version 2)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 10#Pashtun (version 2)
User:Trekie9001/Duplekita
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Trekie9001/Duplekita → Draft:Duplekita (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
User:Godsy has found a new way to disrupt Wikipedia by creating redirects from other user spaces to previously deleted articles they are getting restored into draft space. These are totally unnecessary and disruptive cross name space redirects. Delete. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - This redirect will allow the user to find the content they were working on should they return. This content was in the article namespace and deleted because of the nominator's inappropriate move (the content was deleted so it was not suitable for the mainspace). My actions were not disruptive; as to whether this nomination or your actions were is up to others to decide.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No good reason to delete, and as Godsy points out, several reasons not to. Creating these redirects is not "disruptive" but "useful" to the likely-inexperienced editor who made the draft and wouldn't know how to find it if it was gone. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Why was it moved from the user's namespace in the first place? If a user puts something into "their" user space, why would they want it moved by someone else into main or Draft:? Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Si Trew: They probably wouldn't want it moved. The nominator has been doing large amounts of these types of moves since the beginning of the year, you can see them and the reasons given here. The reason gieven behind this move specifically in the move summary was "stale draft that appears notable, covered by cbc in Canada", which can be conveniently viewed here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, move it back then without creating a redirect. While nothing on Wikipedia is "personal" or "private", there's little point in allowing – encouraging – people to edit drafts in "their" user space if they are then going to be hoist into the more-public draft space. It's useful to have this informal triage of user (first or early draft) -> draft (second or late draft) -> main. Regardless of ownership, I would be less than gruntled if someone moved "my" draft from "my" user space. The question is: how did Legacypac find this draft in the user's space? Presumably through a search or a link. In which case, anyone else can find it in the same way, and there was no need to move it. Si Trew (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- And it would be pointless to argue "some users won't know how to search in user space, this makes them more visible". The whole point is to keep them out of sight of the unwary or uninterested until they are ready. If that's never, then so be it. If it requires an expert search, all the better. Si Trew (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, move it back then without creating a redirect. While nothing on Wikipedia is "personal" or "private", there's little point in allowing – encouraging – people to edit drafts in "their" user space if they are then going to be hoist into the more-public draft space. It's useful to have this informal triage of user (first or early draft) -> draft (second or late draft) -> main. Regardless of ownership, I would be less than gruntled if someone moved "my" draft from "my" user space. The question is: how did Legacypac find this draft in the user's space? Presumably through a search or a link. In which case, anyone else can find it in the same way, and there was no need to move it. Si Trew (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Si Trew: They probably wouldn't want it moved. The nominator has been doing large amounts of these types of moves since the beginning of the year, you can see them and the reasons given here. The reason gieven behind this move specifically in the move summary was "stale draft that appears notable, covered by cbc in Canada", which can be conveniently viewed here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move it back to user space without leaving a redirect. I don't think it's anyone's business to move drafts (or anything else) out of another user's user space. While nothing is owned on Wikipedia, there is a certain convention that pages under a user's name are under their primary control. @Legacypac: have I got this wrong, because it seems absurd to move the article, and then claim that the redirect left behind is disruptive (why is the recreation more disruptive than moving the page, leaving a redirect?) I don't understand the "previously deleted articles" bit. The articles were not, as far as I can see, deleted – they were moved; the redirects were deleted. Have I missed something? Si Trew (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Article was moved because I thought it was notable. User:Bearcat obviously has a better grasp of [WP:NMUSIC]] amd how CBC works. Therefore I supported the deletion. The redirect under discussion here was not created by the move to main, it was created by Godsy in another user's space, which flies in the face of their position against touching userspace. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Si Trew: I presume Legacypac found it through Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. This is a rather complex issue: Legacypac moved User:Trekie9001/Duplekita to Duplekita, and it was nominated for deletion there Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita and subsequently deleted. If content moved from the userspace to the mainspace is nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. Legacypac actually !voted "Delete per nom, thanks for the good analysis" in the discussion (this among other things leads me to further question their move of the page). MfD would have been the proper forum for a deletion discussion as Legacypac's move was inappropriate. AfD has higher standards than MfD, as they govern different namespaces, and what content can exist in each namespace varies per policies and guidelines. Hence, I requested the administrator that deleted the content restore it User talk:Ymblanter#Duplekita and they chose to restore it to the draft namespace. So, simply moving it back to the userspace becomes rather complicated. But if that is what community consensus decides here, I don't see a problem with it. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Godsy: I've essentially given my stance about "hard to find" above in what was not quite an
{{ec}}
. I don't really see why, if the administrator restored it into a different place from that suggested, we can't just move it back to where it was or very near it (i.e. into the user's space, at least). It seems rather like breaking and entering someone's house to borrow a refrigerator but leaving a note where they might find it: better to return the fridge or at least, leave it outside the door.- But if the consensus is no longer to encourage users to create drafts in "their" user space, we should say so more clearly. Si Trew (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The remedy would seem to be not to put
{{userspace draft}}
on a page in user space, then the bot won't know about it. I never did anyway. Never even knew it existed. Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Users don't WP:OWN userspace. Every contribution is released for others to edit freely which includes moving it. I believe this page predates Draft space which is the preferred location for drafts now and moves from user to draft space are common. This user is long gone as well. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I know users don't own userspace (or anything else), but I think there iis a reasonable expectation that if someone is expected to take responsibility for their edits then they shouldn't have that hoist away from. If the user is "long gone", delete the user annd anything under the user's name. I just don't agree áát all with moving these things without discussion. Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the redirect. Redirects from article-space to userspace are prohibited because they create confusion among readers who may not notice that they're no longer in the article-space. Redirects going the other way create no such confusion and are very commonly used for a number of reasons. The accusation that this pagemove was "disruptive" is a failure to assume good faith and is both inappropriate and irrelevant to this discussion. The argument over whether the pagemove should be undone is an interesting one that I need to think on more. No opinion on that yet. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a bookmark to let the draft's creator know where their draft went. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I was going to say what Steel1943 said. In fact, I would tag it {{R from move}}, as it effectively is one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 4 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.
Easy scale
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Easy scale → Earth Similarity Index (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I cannot fathom why this redirect exists. ESI is not "Easy" jps (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You could pronounce it that way, though. It's a bolded term in the target article's lead sentence. - Eureka Lott 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, but I cannot find a source that calls it that which is not related to Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is far from my area of expertise, but here are a couple of sources I just found on the first page of a Google search. FWIW, the term has been in that lead sentence since January 2013. - Eureka Lott 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Are those reliable sources? jps (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you looked at the sites, I think you'd answer your own question. - Eureka Lott 14:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is "no". They are self-publshed. Not subject to academic peer review. jps (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Are those reliable sources? jps (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is far from my area of expertise, but here are a couple of sources I just found on the first page of a Google search. FWIW, the term has been in that lead sentence since January 2013. - Eureka Lott 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, but I cannot find a source that calls it that which is not related to Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No, that's not how WP:RS works. They're not academic journals, but that doesn't make them self-published sources. That's a false dichotomy. - Eureka Lott 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Keep A real alternative name for this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There was a documentary from NOVA that I cited here multiple times for different pages (I just cant remember the name of the documentary) that referred to the ESI as the "Easy Scale". "Easy Scale" is an alternative name for ESI and it says it on the first line of the Earth Similarity Index. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - While the term is frustratingly vague, that "easy scale" relates to the aforementioned planetary habitability measurement is something that I do see out there used by reliable, regular newsy sources and not just, say, various personal blogs. Here's an example from the Voice of America, which I think would be fairly considered right up there alongside BBC News and the Washington Post. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until an actual reason for deletion is given. Redirects are deliberately not held to the same standards of sourcing as article content. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - while my search results heavily favour guitar instruction websites ("learn this easy scale!" etc) none of the various scales mentioned is definitively known as "easy". The current target does seem to be the only thing that is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 4 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.
Standard Mainland Mandarin
- Standard Mainland Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Standard Mandarin Chinese (language) → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Standard Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These have never targeted Mandarin Chinese, but perhaps are somewhat WP:XY, since we have that as well as Standard Chinese. See yesterday's log for a bunch of others that were bot-retargetd on 31 March from Mandarin Chinese to Standard Chinese. Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Standard Mandarin Chinese (language). Keep the other two targeted to Standard Chinese. — AjaxSmack 13:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per AjaxSmack -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Standard Mandarin Chinese (language) but I feel inclined to also keep the rest given that the WP:XY problem doesn't seem that large... I think pretty much everyone searching this is specifically interested in the modern, standard Mandarin. If there's ambiguity, we can modify the targeted page a bit. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all. I could see an argument to retarget to Mandarin Chinese, especially since that page is more directly hat-noted (the hat-note on Standard Chinese passes first through a disambiguation stub), but the use of "Standard" in the titles above suggests that the reader is more likely to be looking for the current language. No good reason to delete the title with the "(language)" suffix. Many of our articles about languages follow that naming convention as a disambiguation aid and a reader new to the project might plausibly expect this title to follow the same convention. Rossami (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep "Standard Mainland Mandarin" and "Standard Mandarin" as both clearly refer to the standard spoken language, which is what "Standard Chinese" discusses. As a fluent Chinese user with some training in Chinese linguistics, I don't see any concern with ambiguity. In English-language discourse, "Mandarin" almost never refers to the written language, preferring "standard [written] Chinese" in those contexts. Neutral on "Standard Mandarin Chinese (language)" as the superfluous disambiguation makes it utterly useless but the redirect isn't wrong or harmful. Deryck C. 17:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
April 1
Mandarin chinese
- 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mandarin chinese → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to Mandarin Chinese as {{R from incorrect capitalization}}
. No-brainer, listed for completeness really (was redirected yesterday by XqBot). Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I think I have got all of the English-language ones of interest listed before midnight UTC, so listed together on one day! However, there are a lot of Chinese writing and transliterated Chinese redirects that might need to be checked, too. The few I have checked have all been stable at targeting Standard Chinese. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:59, 3 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.
Wikipedia:Mandarin (language)
- 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.
- Wikipedia:Mandarin (language) → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This was a {{R from move}}
to Mandarin Chinese from 30 March 2013 until yesterday. However, it's a WP:CNR. Delete. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 1 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.
Germany—Serbia relations
- Germany—Serbia relations → Germany–Serbia relations (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A redirect with the wrong dash just invites errors in linking articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively if it's just being kept around for the pre-merge edit history, then move it back to the name that nobody would be tempted to use. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
per WP:CHEAP andsince it is a {{R with history}} that is not on an unlikely name. Besides the fact that erroneous linking is not a strong, or even valid, rationale for deleting a redirect since it does not prove the redirect to be a misleading search term ... Seriously, it's just a dash, like the dash the article name currently has, and with the existence of the redirects German-Serbian relations, Germany - Serbia relations, Germany Serbia relations, Germany – Serbia relations, Germany-Serbia relations, German–Serbian relations, Serbia - Germany relations, Serbia Germany relations, Serbia – Germany relations, Serbia-Germany relations and Serbia–Germany relations, that means we already have most other variations covered in case someone types the title in whatever fashion. Also, "...the name that no one would be tempted to use" is actually rationale why a redirect at the edit history's former name, Germany–Serbia relations/version 2, should not exist and should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Addition: I would be okay with deletion only under the following condition: The edit history of the redirect has to be moved to a title that redirects to its current target that is not useless. In other words, I oppose moving the edit history back to Germany–Serbia relations/version 2. (My "{{R with history}}" concern is significantly stronger than my "WP:CHEAP" concern.) I moved the edit history to this title because as I cited above, basically all other variations of the redirect's target's title were already created. The only other options I can think of off the top of my head would involve lower-casing the second country or upper-casing the word "relations". I looked around for a disambiguator that could apply to the redirect's target (and then move the edit history to that {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} title,) but I could not find one that has any precedence for use to redirect to related articles. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I basically agree with the nom's arguments: misspelled and miscapitalized redirects are regularly misleading, and with the new, improved search algorithm finally being available, they're often more irritating than a real help. So while the hyphenated ASCII version "Germany-Serbia relations", the valid alternative title "German-Serbian relations", and the same three combinations in the reverse order have a place, the rest should go. IMHO we should even revise our WP:CHEAP policy and consider mass deleting incorrect redirects. --PanchoS (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- History merge. Move the edit history from 2009 and prior from Germany—Serbia relations to Germany–Serbia relations. Since Germany–Serbia relations was created in 2010, there wouldn't be anachronistic problems and the history of the article can be properly attributed at the present title. I fairly strongly dislike moving history to random redirects as it makes it next to impossible to track down where the history is. Conducting a history merge would solve this. As far as whether or not the redirect should be deleted after the history merge is completed, I am neutral. While I doubt someone would search in this manner, it's harmless and unambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A redirect for something as picky as which dash was used is a nearly ideal use of a redirect. The argument that it's "misleading" because of the new search engine is invalid - 1) redirects do far more than merely support the search engine and 2) not everyone navigates the wiki using the search engine. I could see the argument to history-merge but there is no real point since the current redirect is not ambiguous. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The "point" of a history merge has nothing to do with whether or not the redirect is ambiguous—it's to move the attribution to the correct place. In my rationale, I'm not arguing to delete the current redirect, but I do feel a history merge is needed nevertheless. -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mandarin
- 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.
- Wikipedia:Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Retargeted from Mandarin Chinese yesterday, but WP:CNR. Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 1 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.
Chinese Mandarin Chinese
- 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.
- Chinese Mandarin Chinese → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retargeted yesterday, but a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense – at least, redundant – really. We don't have French French or English British English; butEnglish English -> English language in England and German German -> German Standard German (how very German). Delete. Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment "French French" is a real concept, either as French people from France, or French language spoken in France, since there are ethnic French from outside of France, and French dialects that are not from France, so they do make sense, indeed Wiktionary considers to as a proper way to define words only found in French in France. English English and German German both would suffer the same ambiguity as French French in distinguishing ethnic from linguistic. All three should be disambiguation pages.
"Chinese Mandarin Chinese" supposes that "Mandarin Chinese" dialects exist outside of China. Which may be the case if you consider Singaporean local dialect of Mandarin as something that exists, and Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese does indeed exist.
-- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep WP:CHEAP per Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese, dialect of Mandarin language that is from China, and not Taiwan, or Singapore. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what it's trying to do, but actually the target does not mention "Chinese Mandarin" at all, and neither does Mandarin Chinese, so it is at least WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Nothing actually links through it. 70.51, even if you don't want to delete it, are you sure you don't want to retarget it back d to to where it was? Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be much confusion, as it is the typical national Mandarin found in the PRC ("China"), instead of regional ones. A hatnote can link back to Mandarin Chinese. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what it's trying to do, but actually the target does not mention "Chinese Mandarin" at all, and neither does Mandarin Chinese, so it is at least WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Nothing actually links through it. 70.51, even if you don't want to delete it, are you sure you don't want to retarget it back d to to where it was? Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Off-topic, but I think you have a case for German, since German people, unusually, is an R to the article at Germans whereas German is a DAB, none of which quite says "people from present-day Germany", the closest we have being "citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany under German nationality law". It would be absurd to target "English English" to anything other than the language, though, because uses of "English" in e.g. American English and Australian English always mean the language and never the people, unlike e.g. "Irish" in American Irish or Australian Irish which mean the people. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep WP:CHEAP per Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese, dialect of Mandarin language that is from China, and not Taiwan, or Singapore. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I didn't think to look at Chinese Chinese, which is red, as is Chinese Chinese language. I don't know what that tells us, if anything. What's the difference between Chinese Mandarin Chinese and Standard Mandarin Chinese (→ Standard Chinese)? Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since you've pointed out other forms that do exist, the non-existence of these doesn't seem to say much. Chinese Chinese would suffer the same ambiguity as I pointed out above for English English and French French. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- As those redirects have just been RfD nominated, we'll have to see the results first to determine that. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which redirects? RfD nominated where? They're not on today's log. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Standard Mandarin Chinese" is nominated on this day page, by yourself. Others are also nominated with it across this day and the next day (April 2) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which redirects? RfD nominated where? They're not on today's log. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep sounds redundant, but it could theoretically be used to distinguish between the Standard language of the mainland and that of Taiwan or Singapore or just in reference to China in the abstract sense..--Prisencolin (talk)
- Keep per Pirsencolin. Rossami (talk) 06:50, 4 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.
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)
Standard Mandarin language
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Standard Mandarin language → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Standard mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Standard Mandarin Chinese language → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Standard Mandarin Chinese → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Modern Standard Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Standard Mandarin (linguistics) → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These have all been at this target since 18 Jan 2011 (a similar bot-move to sort out double redirects by XqBot) and were not changed by the move of Mandarin Chinese to Mandarin Chinese (group) yesterday. (For details of that see #Mandarin (linguistics), below). I'm listing these mainly just to say so, and involve other editors who may be otherwise unaware of this discussion – although perhaps some should be retargeted, or deleted as WP:XY: I've no opinion (yet). Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all of them targeted to Standard Chinese (though Standard Mandarin (linguistics) could go). Anything with the word standard in the title refers to Standard Mandarin=Standard Chinese, not the Mandarin group of dialects. — AjaxSmack 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delist "popularize mandarin" as it should be discussed in the discussion above this one, instead of this one. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep others per AjaxSmack -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all. I could see an argument to retarget but the use of "Standard" in the titles makes the current target more plausible in my mind. (I concur with 70...'s argument that "popularize mandarin" should be moved to the discussion above. Even though it wasn't previously discussed, it's a capitalization variant and the issues are more similar to that title than to the other ones here.) Rossami (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I have moved "Popoularize mandarin" to the discussion directly above this one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all that are still in the nomination. All of these redirect titles refer unambiguously to the standard spoken variety of Chinese and Mandarin, which is what the target discusses. Deryck C. 16:57, 4 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.
Chinese, Mandarin
- 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.
- Chinese, Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Chinese, Mandarin language → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Mandarin Chinese language → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Chinese Mandarin → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Like many others listed today (see #Mandarin (linguistics)), these all targeted Mandarin Chinese until yesterday, and were retargeted by a bot for the same reason as those (i.e. page moved, new redirect retargeted, bot fixed double redirect, page moved back over it). Retarget back; but I hesitate to do so boldly. Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget "Chinese, Mandarin" and "Chinese, Mandarin language" and "Mandarin Chinese language" to Mandarin Chinese -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate "Chinese Mandarin" to the apparachniks of Communist China, the functionaries of Imperial China, and the language -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Revert to Mandarin Chinese since that page is decently hat-noted but the argument to retarget to the disambiguation page isn't bad either. Rossami (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Revert to Mandarin Chinese as a closer topic match. Deryck C. 16:55, 4 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.
Mandarin vs Other
- 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.
- Mandarin vs Other → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Well, this was a redirect to Mandarin Chinese from 2008 until yesterday, but perhaps it's WP:XY by its own definition. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Weak retarget to Varieties of Chinese, but the "vs" is a bit, well, adversarial.- Delete. Not used in article space, stats below noise level. History shows it was merged way back in September 2004, but nothing seems to be using it nowadays. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, unlikely search query. Since "[[[mandarin]]" is currently is a dab page, "mandarin vs other" could mean "Mandarin Oranges vs other oranges" or something--Prisencolin (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Using the "vs Other" wording is frankly confusing, and I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Redirects this old were not handled the same way by the edit-history engine. Links may no longer be in the article-space but they may be in history and may exist externally. The likelihood of confusion with oranges seems remote to me. Rossami (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The argument that "links may be in history and may exist externally" basically says, we can never delete or move anything, nor substantially move or delete any content within an article. You can make the same argument for changing a section name, for example, which is why we have WP:RSECT and MOS:LINK2SECT, although they don't seem to be widely followed.
If external links wish to have a link to a particular version of an article, they should use a permalink; we are not responsible for the maintenance of external websites, but one way of checking whether links are in practice followed from external websites is to check the stats.
I do think – and have said so before – that would be useful to bring up a historical version of an article that had its links and transclusions piped to versions that were extant at that time (recursively), a sort of WikiWikiWayback. While this would still not cope with deleted pages (would it?) it would make tracing the history of some article cluster a lot easier. I suppose one could write a tool to do this. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)- That's a strawman. The "links in history" does not mean we can never delete, only that we ought not to delete without good reason - a reason that outweighs the harm created by linkrot. While you can wish that external links would use a permalink, they do not. Regardless, that wouldn't solve the problem I was trying to describe. Even a permalink still refers to an actual title. If you delete that title, the external link breaks. And, by the way, the stats engines are known to do a poor job of finding external traffic. Too many ways of reading our content do not trigger the stats trackers. Rossami (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The argument that "links may be in history and may exist externally" basically says, we can never delete or move anything, nor substantially move or delete any content within an article. You can make the same argument for changing a section name, for example, which is why we have WP:RSECT and MOS:LINK2SECT, although they don't seem to be widely followed.
- Delete. Other than what? A bird enthusiast could want a comparison between the Mandarin duck and other ducks, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Other what? Oranges? Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete "other" is a bit vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 8 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.
Nike Elite
- 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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nike Elite → Nike, Inc. (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Nike Tempo shorts → Nike, Inc. (links · history · stats)[ Closure: (@subpage) ]Nike Tempo → Nike, Inc. (links · history · stats)[ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete all per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:REDLINK, still not at target. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Hmm, for some reason I discounted that. Will do. Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. These links redirect to Nike, Inc. because there is currently no separate article about Nike sportswear in popular culture. When I find good enough sources I plan to add a paragraph or two describing Nike Elite, Nike Tempo etc, and their relevance to today's popular clique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 April 2016
- Well you would, you created them, but I haven't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would make more sense to create the content first and the redirects afterwards. Si Trew (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- See updated redirect from Nike Tempo to Nike, Inc.#Street fashions. This now contains a description of what these shorts actually are, and their relevance to modern fashion. More sources will be added when they can be found.
Peace and love - Ossie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) - I've withdrawn Nike Tempo and Nike Tempo shorts as they are mentioned at the new section, and marked those as
{{R to section}}
. Nike Elite is still not mentioned at the target, though. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - Keep all. Redirects from a non-notable child topic to a more notable parent are routine and often encouraged since it discourages the creation of inappropriate content. It is usually helpful but not strictly necessary that the child topic be specifically mentioned in the parent article. There is no real potential for confusion here and no better target suggests itself. Rossami (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- They are also routinely deleted on the grounds that it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing or at least disappointing to type an exact phrase and find no information on it; a reader may reasonably (but wrongly) assume there must be some difference between "Nike Elite" and plain "Nike Inc." in their auto-populated list. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: Now that Nike Elite is mentioned, would you want to withdraw the entire nomination? -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 4 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)
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.
Several encyclopedic subjects, most dealing with software, have "Version 2"s. The redirect's title in relation to its target is that it seems that its second season was called a "version" instead. This redirect is too ambiguous to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search per WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete lacks consideration that there is a world out there beyond Mega64 -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- There's a World version W5. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This could refer to any number of things. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - unclear connection between redirect and target. C679 10:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Version 2.0 as a closely related concept. (C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!) -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Closely related to what concept? It's the name of an album. Si Trew (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say that the "2.0" in that title is so distinct that it is very unlikely that anyone would look it up without the ".0". Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maybe, but I wanted to offer an alternative to deletion, especially since search results for "version 2" are clogged with unrelated redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that the search function now does autocorrect ... that must have been implemented within the last month or two. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean, it does autocorrect? I searched, for example, for grante and got results for things with "Grante" highlighted, even though it asked at the top of the search "Did you mean grande (linked as another search)? It would be too far, if you ask me, automatically to assume that a typo was a typo for a particular thing (in the absence of an exact title match e.g. an
{{R from misspelling}}
) – for example to assume I meant grande and not granite. Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean, it does autocorrect? I searched, for example, for grante and got results for things with "Grante" highlighted, even though it asked at the top of the search "Did you mean grande (linked as another search)? It would be too far, if you ask me, automatically to assume that a typo was a typo for a particular thing (in the absence of an exact title match e.g. an
- Yeah, I noticed that the search function now does autocorrect ... that must have been implemented within the last month or two. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I wanted to offer an alternative to deletion, especially since search results for "version 2" are clogged with unrelated redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as it could be Version 2 of any book, song, theory, religion, work of art, haircut, recipe, ... —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 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.
Mandarin language
- 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 Mandarin Chinese. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mandarin language → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Mandarin Language → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Mandarin (language) → Standard Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
See #Mandarin (linguistics) below. Si Trew (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Mandarin Chinese, which is an overview of the Mandarin languages in China. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget the links to Mandarin Chinese.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Mandarin Chinese -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move Mandarin Chinese to Mandarin language. The title should point out that the page is on languages, just like Hausa language or Japanese language. "Chinese" can refer to a nationality, people, culture, ethnic group or language. Lysimachi (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Lysimachi:, this isn't the place to request article moves, there's a move discussion going on here that you may want to be aware of.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Prisencolin: it's perfectly reasonable for someone to suggest remedial action to a redirect by moving something over it, or by moving it without leaving a redirect. Since this particular move request involves neither the source nor the existing target, though, it is moot. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I get that, but it would be more effective if a real move request were made on the talk page--Prisencolin (talk) 05:37, 5 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.
Multiple redirects to EBSCO Information Services
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was procedural close as WP:TRAINWRECK. No prejudice against more targeted nominations for individuals or batches from those named below. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Multiple redirects to EBSCO Information Services → EBSCO Information Services (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
almost all the redirects are either general phrases or the names/name variants of specific services the company provides. Most were created by User:Elonka in a short time frame.
- America: History & Life, America: History and Life, Art Index (which even was an unrelated article before), Art Abstracts, Art Full Text, Clinical Reference Systems, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Education Abstracts, Health Source, Historical Abstracts, History Reference Center, NetLibrary, Primary Search, Professional Development Collection, USP DI are general phrases/terms, and the company is surely not a synonym for them (even if their management thinks otherwise). Thus they are probably subject to {{db-spam}}/{{db-error}}.
- The majority of service references are not even mentioned in the article, thus their encyclopedic value is questionable at best.
- The 3 entries with "Complete" are borderline case: they do look like official service names but are generic enough to be considered general phrases. — Vano 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- See User_talk:Elonka#April_2016 and User_talk:Headbomb#Speedy_deletions_of_redirects_to_EBSCO_Information_Services for prior discussion. — Vano 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. They are databases that are run or owned by EBSCO, but they are still well-known under their own names; see this, for instance, for a clear example that doesn't even mention EBSCO though it leads there. They are not "general phrases"; they are proper names.
In addition, you tagged Elonka's talk page and warned them for "disruptive editing", which is a ridiculous charge--and for redirects made in 2008? I'll ping Randykitty as well, in case one admin telling you you're wrong isn't enough. And Headbomb, who has forgotten more about Wikipedia during their 138,162 edits than I will ever learn. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter when the edits were made, the result is all the same. Before Headbomb reverted my nominations, I coudn't imagine that someone would possibly consider them non-obvious, even less so controversial. Now that I know they turned out to be such, let's close this side topic. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it does matter. Warning someone, in this case an admin who has been here since 2005, with a template, for a valid redirect they made six years ago? If you want to close it, apologize to her, if only out of common courtesy. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know (or care) if she's an admin; even if she is, that doesn't mean she never, ever, made mistakes; and I only posted with a template (followed by a due manual explanation) because Twinkle doesn't allow to do otherwise so I assumed it's the normal way (after all, Twinkle is widely used by the admin corps, so it's to be expected it's being kept current with the community's policies. Admins can't be bothered to go all the way through the normal UI for routine tasks, now can they?). Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Will you please stop digging? Do I have to say in all-caps THAT YOU PLACED A DUMB-ASS WARNING FOR DISRUPTIVE EDITING ON THE TALK PAGE OF AN EDITOR OVER GOOD-FAITH REDIRECTS MADE EIGHT YEARS AGO? That wasn't Twinkle: it was you. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know (or care) if she's an admin; even if she is, that doesn't mean she never, ever, made mistakes; and I only posted with a template (followed by a due manual explanation) because Twinkle doesn't allow to do otherwise so I assumed it's the normal way (after all, Twinkle is widely used by the admin corps, so it's to be expected it's being kept current with the community's policies. Admins can't be bothered to go all the way through the normal UI for routine tasks, now can they?). Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it does matter. Warning someone, in this case an admin who has been here since 2005, with a template, for a valid redirect they made six years ago? If you want to close it, apologize to her, if only out of common courtesy. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter when the edits were made, the result is all the same. Before Headbomb reverted my nominations, I coudn't imagine that someone would possibly consider them non-obvious, even less so controversial. Now that I know they turned out to be such, let's close this side topic. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all per Dmries essentially. These are academic databases and services, not 'generic phrases', many notable on their own, and all likely search terms. And they are certainly not spam, nor created by mistake. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The fact they are "likely search terms" is irrelevant. WP is not a free SEO service for third parties, it only includes entities that are notable enough. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please do read WP:N: "Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap)." Notability does not apply to redirects in the way it applies to articles. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The fact they are "likely search terms" is irrelevant. WP is not a free SEO service for third parties, it only includes entities that are notable enough. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all Per the above. Nothing promotional here. Many of these databases are mentioned in the "abstracting and indexing services" sections of our articles on academic journals. All of these databases are well known in their respective fields and most are notable in their own right and should eventually get their own articles. Until that time, a redirect to EBSCO is warranted without any doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's SNOW in the air! --Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it can stay in the air. None of America: History & Life, America: History and Life, Art Abstracts, Art Full Text, Clinical Reference Systems, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Education Abstracts, Health Source, Historical Abstracts, and on and on to Whitston Publishing, is at the target, and normally that is regarded as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, so in principle I would say delete.
However, I don't believe it's reasonable to create an open-ended nomination listing a dynamically-generated "What Links Here" result. It makes no sense for all kinds of reasons, but if nothing else, deleting or retargeting the redirects will invalidate that result. Without them being tagged for RfD, how is anyone supposed to be aware that they are being discussed?
The redirects for discussion should be listed properly so that they can be discussed properly. Procedural close as an ill-formed nomination. I'm quite happy to nominate each of them separately. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - Comment one solution might be to make a List of EBSCO publications and add the titles there. But we don't have similar lists for other publishers (that I could find). Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment No need to create yet another useless list. I've included the databases listed above in the article on EBSCO Information Services. If any others are missing, they can be listed there, too. --Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Close this discussion as too large to manage as a single bulk discussion. You could break out the titles that explicitly reference EBSCO in the title as a single entity (where I would argue to keep because redirects from a non-notable child title to a more notable parent are not only allowed but often encouraged) but many of the others have plausible retargets that deserve individualized discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:27, 4 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.
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)
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)
Conjugal dictatorship
- 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 converted to article by User:Imfeldic (thanks!). (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Conjugal dictatorship → Imelda Marcos (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Conjugal Dictatorship → Imelda Marcos (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete WP:REDLINK -- this redirects to Mrs. Marcos, but the dictator of the Philippines at the time was her husband Ferdinand Marcos, so the term refers to them as a couple and not her alone, either this should be deleted as REDLINK or retargetted to her husband's terms in office. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY, and at neither target. Si Trew (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Keep - New article. Imeldific (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Imeldific (talk · contribs) the creator of these redirects, converted conjugal dictatorship into an article -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep since the old redirect has now been turned into a New Article with citations that is improving a notable topic. BushelCandle (talk) 05:14, 2 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.
20??
- 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.
- 20?? → 21st century (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Doesn't make any sense. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, since 2100 is part of the 21st century. SSTflyer 06:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I think this term is known as a form of this video game related meme. The redirect isn't proper and isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- As I created that and I'm pretty sure I've never heard of that meme, pretty sure it's not related :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, though the first thing I thought of was Twenty Questions, that's just m crossword head on. Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Meh. No particular opinion on keeping this or not; I created it ten years ago but I've no particular recollection as to why. 20xx, 20??, 20-- are all fairly generic placeholders for "a year starting with 20", which I agree doesn't perfectly map to "21st century" but is fairly close to it for most practical purposes. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible, both for "a year starting with 20" and for anything else.—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 8 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.
The next millennium
- 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 next millennium → 3rd millennium (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
As we are currently in the 3rd millennium, so the "next millennium" would be the 4th millennium. That aside: same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this. Varies with other calenders (e.g. Hebrew calendar and North Korean calendar). It will go out of date eventually. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. A millennium doesn't have even to stat or end with a year ending 000; it's any thousand-year period. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY and my arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_31#This_year. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: avoid relative time; which calendar's millennium? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 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.
This millennium
- 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.
- This millennium → 3rd millennium (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current millennium → 3rd millennium (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this. Varies with other calenders (e.g. Hebrew calendar and North Korean calendar). "This" doesn't always mean "current". It will go out of date eventually. Age (1 million years), epoch (10 million years), era (100 million years), and eon (500 million years) don't seem to have any redirects of this type (bar current era which goes to common era).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- delete per WP:RFD#D2 as WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY and my arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_31#This_year. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: avoid relative time; which calendar's millennium? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 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.
This century
- 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.
- This century → 21st century (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Current century → 21st century (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this. Varies with other calenders (e.g. Hebrew calendar and North Korean calendar). "This" doesn't always mean "current". It will go out of date; though I don't have a crystal ball, I have faith this encyclopedia will still be around in 85 or so years. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget current century to Age of Electricity per WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:XY and my arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_31#This_year. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: avoid relative time; which century? In the Western calendar this is the 21st century and the 2000s; In the Jewish calendar this is the 58th century and the 5700s. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 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.
Spinning records
- 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.
- Spinning records → Disc jockey (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this be retargeted to Spinnin' Records as {{R from misspelling}} instead? SSTflyer 03:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment records also spin on record players, as they are played; and it can refer to etching record masters out in a studio -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Could also refer to the history of thread spinning, or world records in plate-spinning, etc. But I'd guess this was primary - what about spinning discs, spinning disks? Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 1 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.
Mandarin (linguistics)
- 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.
- Mandarin (linguistics) → Mandarin Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Nominate for deletion, it's not exactly clear what this would point to (other than a disambiguation page). Prisencolin (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the target article serves as an overview article, so acceptable instead of a dab page. Ofcourse, if you have a dab page, we could retarget there. It should not be deleted. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I fixed the target in the nom. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Mandarin (language) and Mandarin Language > Standard Chinese. I'm tempted to list those, there might well be a good reason why they go to a different target, but it is, er, nonobvious. Mandarin language too. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
DAB these, the ones below, and the ones I mentioned. Si Trew (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Ah, the recent history of the redirects I mentioned shows they've been retargeted yesterday. This is because of a move of Mandarin Chinese to Mandarin Chinese (group) by the nominator, leaving Mandarin Chinese as an
{{R from move}}
for a duration of around 12 3⁄4 hours (diff here) until it was moved back after a WP:RM by administrator User:Anthony Appleyard. During this time, I presume, it was retargeted to Standard Chinese (that doesn't show in the history, because the history will have been overwritten when the article was moved back). In that twelve hours, a bot "fixed" the double redirects, so that when Mandarin Chinese (group) was moved back they were left targeting Standard Chinese.
Note that Talk:Mandarin (linguistics) has the RFD tag and not the R itself, which is fully protected and still functioning as a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC) - The comment in this page's edit history refers to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Language.2Fdialect_NPOV, but that section no longer exists: I guess its content is now in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Languages or dialects. Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Odd. The Talk:Mandarin_Chinese#Requested move 31 March 2016 started at 18:39 on 31 March by User:Prisencolin, but the actual move was done by Prisencolin at 07:39 that morning and moved back at 20:25. Am I missing something here, that it was moved before the move request discussion was started (let alone any consensus reached)? In the meantime, there's about 50 things that are targeting Mandarin Chinese (group), mainly because it was in
{{Languages of China}}
, I suspect. I've restored that template to how it was before Prisencolin's edits of 31 March, but the pages will all have to be purged before the links disappear. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - Delete Mandarin (linguistics), Mandarin (language) and Mandarin Chinese (group). These are unlikely search terms and there is no page history worth preserving. The first was needed for a while to prevent people from moving the article back to that location, but I doubt that will happen any more. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's the mess you created when you moved all the Chinese languages articles around a few years ago. At any rate WP:CHEAP they function properly, it is a language topic, a linguistics topic, and a group of dialects, so the redirects work properly -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't the thread where it's being nominated but Keep Mandarin Chinese (group), as someone might type that into the search bar to specifically distinguish the family from the standard form(s).--Prisencolin (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- It's not nominated anywhere. I put it up for CSD but then removed it; lots of things were pointing at it, since on 31 March you modified the
{{Chinese language}}
navbox (reverted here on 2 April by someone else) and{{Languages of China}}
, diff here, that I reverted. So any spike in page hits at the start of April is unrepresentative. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not nominated anywhere. I put it up for CSD but then removed it; lots of things were pointing at it, since on 31 March you modified the
-
- Keep (including the ones that Kwami tried to shoehorn in immediately above). It's a plausible alternative to the article title and creates little potential for confusion. I might expect the "linguistics" title to be a more technical discussion of grammar or history but until such an article is created, the current parent title is sufficient. Rossami (talk) 07:42, 4 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.
Northern Chinese
- 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 North China (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Northern Chinese → Mandarin Chinese (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete or re-target. Prisencolin (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Prisencolin: can you fill out these RFDs properly? Both your nominations are missing the target information. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular target in mind, so I just left it blank. I'm not sure there's some other way of doing this?--Prisencolin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what target you have in mind, it only matters what target it had before you touched it, per the instructions -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular target in mind, so I just left it blank. I'm not sure there's some other way of doing this?--Prisencolin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate the linguistics people seem to think all terms only mean the linguistics meanings, without any other meaning (as can be seen elsewhere, where there are cultural and ethnic meanings). This could refer to the language, culture, people or adjectivally to the region -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate given the multiple meanings CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
DAB with those in the listing above too. Considering that e.g. mandarin language goes to a different target, there seems no clear primary topic of Mandarin Chinese or Standard Chinese for a layperson. Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Comment target was changed yesterday, with other redirects to Mandarin Chinese/Standard Chinese, see #Mandarin (linguistics), immediately above. Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep "Northern Chinese" is a reasonably common synonym for Mandarin. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- That is not the only meaning. This mess is created by considering only linguistics, instead of considering all uses -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Disambiguatethe language and the people, at least. The "standard" way we manage that for e.g. the Elbonians is to have Elbonian language and Elbonian people as topics, and Elbonian as a DAB between them (and other things if necessary). (In many other languages this wouldn't be necessary because a grammatical marker would indicate which.)
- We have Northern Chinese people -> Northern and southern China, but neither Northern Chinese language nor Northern Chinese languages – that's no problem because we could either create them as redirects and DAB via that, if we wanted the sttruggle to continue, or just include this target directly in the DAB. For consistency, if these targets discuss only language aspects they would be better to follow convention and have "language" or "languages" in their titles, but my consensometer indicates that that is unlikely to happen. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Disambiguate with links to North China for the region, Northern and southern China for the people and Mandarin Chinese for the languages. — AjaxSmack 13:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've put those entries on a draft below the redirect, although I prefer the redirect Northern Chinese people over Northern and southern China. Si Trew (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - The reasons given above are compelling. The language is not the same thing as the people, and neither are the same as the area per se (like the geographic nature of the various places within). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well we don't have a Geography of North China or Geography of Northern China, but we do have North China, a geopolitical article, which {{-r|North Chinese}] redirects to. That article has See Also to North China Plain, Northeast China, Northern and southern China (and something else)... no doubt there are other candidates to add at the DAB. There are some other "Northern Chinese" titles but they are WP:PTMs. North China (disambiguation) currently ledes with "Northern China or North China may refer to"... Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to North China (disambiguation) and tidy that up as necessary. Northern China (disambiguation) currently targets North China and with this being open I hesitate to retarget it boldly; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_April_5#Northern China (disambiguation), which I've cross-reffed to here. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 5 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.
|