Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.51.46.11 (talk) at 05:02, 5 June 2015 (→‎White Sux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

May 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2015.

Miss Maybelle

Delete. No links. A song by that title was recorded by some artists, not just Burnside. I don't know if they have similar lyrics. trespassers william (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert John Gladstone(the lib/lab pact), 1st Viscount Gladstone

Bizarre redirect, implausible search term. Had only 2 links, both of which i have now bypassed.[1][2] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Lauren Conrad series

Delete. This is an outdated redirect that referred to a series that never actually happened. Tavix | Talk  20:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leika, Leyka, Leica

Even so, it seems to me that someone as idiotic as myself is far more likely to want Laika the first space dog than a small habitation in Greece, considering transliteration problems in general. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DAB it. Come to think of it though, there are some superb lenses under the Laika brand name aren't there? Has the Wikipedia search engine fallen asleep? Should I? I can't seem to find an article on them (but Google keeps getting in the way with this stupid new Wikipedia search thing even though I have set Wikipedia as my default, in theory.) Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's at Leica, which is a DAB. We need somehow to do this better. Not sure how yet. (C, for example, would be transliterated K in many languages other than English). I think this is a problem of transliteration and could be tied up better. I do realise this is the English Wikipedia, but English people may have Russian cameras. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need some hatnotes at the target, at least. Leica (disambiguation) goes to Leica, the DAB, which it should in the standard way. But there is no hatnote or "See also" at its current target. Stats (87 for the R, 141 for the article, take off the 87 via the R leaves 54 for direct access) suggest this is not the target people are looking for but arrive there automatically. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Kashmiri

"British Kashmiris" can be of Indian origin or Pakistani origin depending on from which side of Kashmir he belongs as term "Kashmir" is collectively used for both sides of Kashmir. But this page redirects to only "Kashmiris" from Pakistan administered region. There can be separate article on "British Kashmiris" which can include people from whole of Kashmir including both sides of India and Pakistan. For example Culture of Kashmir includes Kashmir of both sides. Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. We are woefully inadequate on this subject even in the broadest general terms (I write as an "British white" according to my census return, since I am not allowed to call myself English on the last 2010return but I think on the 2010 United Kingom Census the Kashmir(i)s could choose one or the other – I haven't checked that yet) and we haven't British Kashmir. so that makes this rather WP:RFD#D5 Nonsense. If we haven't that as a WP:NOUN, we shouldn't have this as an adjective (and anyway the general form would be British Kashmiri people and, if it made sense which I doubt it would, British Kashmiri language, like we have English people and English language, and so on, as a general pattern, though I know other good eds here disagree that pattern must be obeyed slavishly). Perhaps WP:BIAS (redirects do not have to be unbiased) and I am leaning towards saying, well be bold and create the article then, but I think as a search term this is blocking the seach, amongst the other reasons (take note, User:WilyD) that I give above. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept that a redirect from a general to a specific case probably calls for red-linking to encourage creation here (or, if the Indian and Pakistani groups are too different, disambigging). If "White British" feels undignified for you, imagine how we "White Other"s feel. (Especially when we speak a dialect of English where "ethnicity" refers to your cultural/linguistic/religious group, not racial group). ;) WilyD 17:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, you created this redirect so your "Keep" is already considered. See talk page of British Pakistanis where I showed reality of sources where no source connects "British Kashmiris" exclusively with Pakistan. Moreover, Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has more Population than Pakistan administered Azad Kashmir. British Kashmiri should be general term which will include entire Kashmir, not just Pakistan administered Kashmir. If you say people from Azad Kashmir are more then it is not the reason, tomorrow people from Indian Jammu and Kashmir can increase.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 06:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is unsourced. Read the sources again, there are 1 million people from Azad Kashmir living in the UK and they form the majority of the British Pakistani community. The number of migrants from Jammu and Kashmir in UK is insignificant and non-notable, whereas there is a huge and vast body of sources and books written on the British Pakistani Kashmiri community, and they have been living in the UK for three generations. If nearly all Kashmiris in the UK tend to be Azad Kashmir, obviously the coverage found on the subject will be skewed towards them. You are having difficult accepting this fact and obviously have not gone through the sources, while your attempt to make their reference to Kashmiris as controversial lacks any solid reasoning. Mar4d (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is unsourced. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Mar4d (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I think you are right. If we rename that article to "British Kashmiris" then we can also add about "Indian British Kashmiris" to that article. I support you. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That I posted on his talk page after he voted here, and my main intention was to show your biased "redirects" to Kautilya, as we 3 are often get together at one article many times and we judge each other's NPOV, So I was just showing NPOV of Mar4d to Kautilya3. Nothing else. He was already voted here, see timings--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, Kautilya3 voted here on 8.42, and I posted on his talk page at 9.27 . Be clear.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is something I am misunderstanding, Kautilya wasn't involved in the redirect issue. Regardless, I am not sure what your intention was. It is just a gentle note that posting on talk pages of uninvolved editors can be taken as canvassing. Not just in this specific case, but generally. Anyway, Kautilya3, since we're discussing Kashmir redirects - I see you had reservations over Human's nomination of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. I am assuming you must have noted the nomination of Indian occupied Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, this is not the issue here, I think we should talk relevant to this topic. Your one matter is already pending, you are not replying on talk page of British Pakistanis, we have to resolve that matter because after 2 days protection will over and I don't want another edit war, you have no points to tell there, first resolve that matter, admin RP is also now asking for source from you regarding Azad Kashmir is commonly known as Kashmir. But this is not issue here, you must reply on that talk page. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 11:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The community is widely referred as Kashmiri by the British media itself unfortunately Human2015 has made a habit of being a nuisance with regards to anything to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis. Excipient0 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rename Term "British Kashmiris" should includes Kashmiris from both sides. We can rename current Mirpuri Kashmiris article to "British Kashmiris" so we can add about Kashmiris of all regions living in Britain.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 04:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have nominated the RfD. Your !vote does not count. Mar4d (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Sux

Somewhat insulting redirect that serves zero purpose. No links to it. Practically no pageviews (12 times in 90 days for this redirect, while the article it redirs to got 65088 views in the same time) and people who use this term to search for the Chicago White Sox definitely are familiar enough with baseball to find it either by its full name or one of the more appropriate redirects. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: I've got a QWERTY. There's an I between the O and U. ;) Same for the AZERTY. Also not neighbours on the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahah, that must prove that I touch type, or something (I've a QWERTZ)... it didn't occur to me actually to look at my keyboard. You're right of course. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment White socks is mentioned in Black fly in the lead as alternative common name for the black fly. Not mentioned beyond that, though. Quick google search shows me it is indeed sometimes used as a name for those flies, but whether it's more commonly used for the fly than the baseball team...would need to do some checking. Thanks for doing the templating on the other redirects! I've now added Chicago white socks as a {{R from other capitalization}}/{{R from other spelling}} to Chicago White Sox. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised that just as I posted it. I don't know why my in-page search didn't find it the first time. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"White socks" should be a disambiguation page. white-socks is a different topic, as is Lockport White Socks -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is White Sox (disambiguation), which is hatnoted from Chicago White Sox (I've now hatnoted White Socks there now, too). I've added "Lockport White Sox" there to the dab, and marked Lockport White Sox as {{R from former name}}. I've also added white-socks in a new "See also" section.
To confirm, are you proposing a retarget for White socks ( → Chicago White Sox)? I don't think we need separate DABs for "socks" and "sox" – although Red socks (→ Red Socks) and Red Sox (disambiguation) are separate DABs – but for example, Philadelphia White Stockings is listed there even though they are not "sox": and actually I'd prefer to merge the two "Red" DABs but am awaiting the outcome of this one for "White" before proposing that, so we don't have essentially parallel discussions. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, I think "white socks" should target a disambiguation page or be a disambiguation page (and the same with "white-socks") -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is now done. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the various Red Stockings seem to be unavailable from the dab pages for red sox/socks -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini returend to Iran

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 Deleted, via WP:CSD. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the misspelling in this redirect is just too implausible. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wujood-e-Laraib

Does it make sense to redirect a drama serial to a television network? Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my view it does! because that series, was on aired om Indus TV b/w 2004-2005. Any how i can't make an article on the serial right now, because i am busy with my graduation. And that's why i seldom visit wiki, now a days. Faizan Talk 15:41 May 30, 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10. It could be made into an article (as implied by User:Faizan, above), and it's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Sue Cooney

Subject of redirect is not discussed in target article. Subject of redirect is potentially a biography of a living person. However, based on notability requirements the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. While there is a short blurb from local sources and copy of one of those sources re-posted at the Huffington Post none of those sources could be seen as giving the subject significant coverage. Therefore, given that no actual article can be created out of the redirect, I propose that this redirect be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is notable enough to have her own stand-alone article and , quite obviously , I know many here will disagree. But she should at least be mentioned in the article. Honestly, I think Wikipedia is slowly becoming just another regular encyclopedia out there, when many, If not most, of us old-timers here were attracted to the fact that at Wikipedia we could go beyond that and not just educate about the super-notable (what was already out there) but on the "barely under super-notable" as well, thus making us more unique and "cool" than other encyclopedias. Antonio Master Bee Martin (haw haw) 05:19, 30 May, 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I original set up the redirect as the article was only sourced by the person's work website as a poor mans deletion. As the article doesn't met WP:GNG. Spshu (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_30&oldid=665573819"