Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 5: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Panamagate: disambiguation page +1
→Lyin' Ted: Comment
Line 224: Line 224:
*'''Weak keep''' as per BDD, Ivanvector. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|Hello!]]</sup> 23:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' as per BDD, Ivanvector. [[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GAB]]<sup>[[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|Hello!]]</sup> 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. [[User:CoffeeWithMarkets|CoffeeWithMarkets]] ([[User talk:CoffeeWithMarkets|talk]]) 06:59, 6 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. [[User:CoffeeWithMarkets|CoffeeWithMarkets]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:MelanieLamont|MelanieLamont]] ([[User talk:MelanieLamont|talk]]) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


====<span id="Parent, Ontario">Parent, Ontario</span>====
====<span id="Parent, Ontario">Parent, Ontario</span>====

Revision as of 13:14, 6 April 2016

April 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2016.

Panamagate

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: [1][2][3]. 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. Mz7 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red grey

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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:

Thanks. I've added a link (above) to the previous discussion, for reddish-grey and others. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armed conflict

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep, they are indeed synonymous. GABHello! 23:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment

The subject of the redirect is not mentioned at target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Force XXI

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)[reply]

Major wars

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)[reply]

List of ongoing political conflicts

Could be seen as misleading since Political conflict and Political conflict do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Well, there are some internal links we should clean up to point to the new title: [4] but there are also external web pages which would have broken links if we delete this redirect: [5] 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)[reply]
yes, keep and tag with that and {{R from incorrect name}}. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actual wars

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Redirects containing the phrase "world conflicts"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Redirects containing "conflict" without a non-time descriptive adjective

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Current communist rulers

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)[reply]

List of Refernce Tables

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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)[reply]

Current computer and video game events

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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)[reply]

ANE Resources

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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)[reply]

Basic topics

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

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)[reply]

Current Canadian Navy ships

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of ships Canadian Navy ships

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)[reply]

Current War in Afghanistan

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)[reply]

Current leaders of San Jose, California

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)[reply]

IPhone 5SE

Should this be retargeted to iPhone SE? sst✈ 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to iPhone SE. It's a plausible mistake to make per above. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 cloud be an erroneous name for multiple subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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":
  1. "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.
  2. "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)[reply]
"Sniveling coward" was used as a description, not a proper name. Plenty of people have been called sniveling cowards. If, for some reason, many people named Ted were called "Lyin' Ted" in certain circumstances, this might be similarly problematic. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parent, Ontario

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern China (disambiguation)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chimmer

I can't figure out why this would redirect to room. Any ideas why? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5&oldid=713902362"