Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 2

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnCD (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 10 December 2016 (→‎Criteria of True Prophet: close: retarget). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

December 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2016.

Béton

There is nothing particularly French about concrete ("Béton", "France" and "French" appear a total of 0 times each in the target). Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Google

Unsure what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship 2015

This is misleading; there was not a World Chess Championship in 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of World Chess Championships which clearly shows that there was no event that year. There appears to be no standard pattern to when the events are held so any given year after the first seems like a reasonable search term. If the article was organised into headed sections rather than one long table I would recommend targeting the "World Chess Championships (2006–present)" section but I don't know if anchors work in table cells? Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a retarget there. A redlink would clearly show that there was no event that year. We shouldn't make our readers read a list to figure that out. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking in to that! I've added the other two as well. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct solution here is to create redirects to the relevant sections of the list for those years and retarget the existing ones per my first comment. Deleting these redirects will not help our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to see a redlink, which tells our readers that there wasn't a championship that year, then confuse or disappoint them with a bluelink. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redlink doesn't say that though. It simply says "we do not have an article about this topic", that might be because the topic doesn't exist, wasn't notable, or simply that the article hasn't been written yet. A redirect to the list of championships however does clearly show which years did and which years did not have championships. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't have an article on this subject because this subject does not exist. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comandante generale

From what I can gather this a translation error. I presume the title is in Italian if so it is not commander in chief of a nation which is the subject of the page to which it points but the commander in chief of a particular corps as per this article. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_generale. The Italian page for commander in chief is titled https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_in_capo Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbprint cookie

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the new mention of the topic sufficient, or is there further ambiguity that needs to be resolved?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfountain

I only came across this thanks to my spacebar not working - I'm not entirely what the point of this redirect is as we already have Water fountains so it's pretty much a useless redirect?, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 17:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Water fountains also redirects to fountains that should probably be retargeted too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of keeping this redirect is that people use it and it's harmless. Given the age of the redirect and the continued usage it is very likely that there are links from elsewhere than the English Wikipedia (and thus outside our ability to know about, let alone change) including in printed works that cannot be updated. Breaking links brings us no benefit and makes it harder for people to find the content they are looking for, so we do not delete redirects without there being a good reason to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is very slightly off topic, but I'm going to move Water Fountain (song) to Water Fountain. It's a redirect to Nikki Nack but not to a section, and not catted in any way. I'll happily do a bit of tidy up there but wanted to mention it here in case it's at all relevant... Si Trew (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am bemused that an edit I made 11 years ago is subject to so much debate, and that technology that didn't exist at the time just moved in the physical world in response to an email sent to an account opened a decade after the edit because someone was discussing it in an online forum. I find the crosslinked edit histories of redirects among waterfountain, water fountain, fountain, bubbler, and drinking fountain to be quite hilarious. As the originator of the page in question, I believe the original intent was to point to content of the nature presently found at drinking fountain. —WAvegetarian (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso sculpture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is vague and ambiguous, considering that it is not an alternative name for its target subject, and since Pablo Picasso created several sculptures. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term could refer to sculptures by Picasso in general, a specific sculpture by him (while the target is possibly the most famous it is one of many) or a statue of Picasso (there are at least two - Malaga, Spain and Osijek, Croatia). Suitable targets would therefore be (1) an article or section about Picasso's sculpture but there is no specific article and the main article is not organised by type of art; (2) a list or set index of notable sculptures by Picasso (we have Category:Sculptures by Pablo Picasso, and nine lists of his works organised by decade but none organised by type - even the infobox lists "Paintings and sculpture" together) but no list or set index); or (3) A list or set index of statues of Picasso but there is none and the statues are not mentioned in the article about either settlement; or (4) a disambig between these. I would not object to retargetting this to the category, but as it's such an ambiguous term that's going to be wrong for as many people as it will be right so deletion is my first choice, at least until we have some better results to give people. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no List of Picasso sculptures to redirect. 23:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dumbslate

Not mentioned in the target article. Also, not finding definite proof that the subject of this redirect and the target are one in the same. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article where they call it a slate, smart slate and dumb slate. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capone's castle

Even though it seems that Al Capone frequently was at the subject of the redirect's target, I'm not finding proof that the redirect was an established alternative name for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled religious predictions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request deletion as Christianity is not the same as religious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

FAQ redirects targeting Effects of legalized cannabis

WP:NOTFAQ. Unclear if questions are answered as well, considering that the questions are more complicated that a "yes/no" or numeric answer. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects (per my extensive explanation on RfD a few days ago) and the subject of this article is exactly about the answer to this question - that the question does not have a simple yes/no or numeric answer is irrelevant as that is not what those using these search terms are looking for. They want to know what happens when marijuana is legalised (i.e. what the effects of legalisation are), and by reading the target article they will learn the answer to that question. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "extensive explanation" about NOTFAQ is at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_24#When is Christmas?. We don't seem to have consensus on whether NOTFAQ, or any other WP:NOT, is relevant to redirects. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to show that the search engine trips up when a reader searches for common synonyms of a topic, but it actually does do an OK job of contextual searching slightly better than half of the time, it's hit-and-miss and seems mostly to depend on the existence of other helpful redirects (like wacky tobacky). I still think that if a redirect exists and points to a target that satisfies the query then we should keep it, particularly since we can't exactly predict how the search engine will respond. However in this case I'm changing my !vote to delete all because the search results for various synonyms of cannabis shows that this is not a single-target situation, and search results are likely to suit the reader better (notably, substituting the search string with "ganja" brings up Indian-specific results, and things like that). Neural nets are neat. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore vs. Donald Trump

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative title of the target subject. Thus, the redirect is misleading, especially for those who may be looking up this tee trying to find a court case of some sort, considering that they are formatted like this. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Criteria of True Prophet

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 Prophet. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request deletion as the title is general, but it redirects to a specific interpretation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update I agree with the comments of those below and would prefer a retarget. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trump sucks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete by User:PhilKnight as WP:G10 attack page. (non-admin closure) by 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Due to that, this is a borderline WP:BLP violation. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Remove rockettab mac

WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there is sort of an answer to the implied question (either how or why to remove rocketttab on a Mac computer) at the target, someone searching for this term is probably best served by a site other than Wikipedia (as it seems more likely they are looking for instructions than an encyclopaedic discussion) and so we should not get in the way of sites who can and do offer what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears that the very brief instructions at the target (to uninstall the application) accomplish what is asked by the redirect title. We don't and wouldn't have comprehensive uninstall instructions, but might as well give the reader something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO the redirect title is also badly formed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump COI

Not sure about this redirect, considering that COI is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Trump is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept, nobody will expect to go to COI if they type Trump COI. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: I overlooked the fact that Trump is a disambiguation page as well. Not sure if that changes anything. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting then. It means that the phrase consists of two words which alone go to disambiguation pages. Perhaps keep the link and a note on the top of the page clarifying the situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Santa Claus

Mamacita, ¿dónde está Santa Claus? (Mommy, Where's Santa Claus?)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(not Eubot) Delete, I think. We don't generally put translations into titles. If the song title has the ellipsis as part of its full name, that's a different matter, I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

?Dode Esta Santa Claus?

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Misspelling + wrong question mark = WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. There are plenty of other trouble-free redirects to get people to this target trouble. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mamacita ?Donde Esta Santa Claus?

(Eubot). The full title does have the "Mamacita" in it, and we have a redirect at Mamacita ¿Dónde Está Santa Claus?, but with the full title, lack of diacritics, and inversion of the inverted question mark, put it all together you have a rather unlikely search term bordering on WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hoerl

(Eubot) Weak delete. The target is Austrian so this is is kinda a valid transliteration of "Hörl", but I can't find any evidence of real-world use in English. I found this site giving details about this person as "Hoerl" (ladies-skijumping.com), but it's in Polish, although the stats may have been grabbed from an English page. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary ooecyte

bundling -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Target does not have diacritics as rcatted, and oöcyte is not German. Created via secondary oöcyte, according to the WP:ES. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "oöcyte" is not valid. I just said it's not German. In any case, I only nominated "secondary ooecyte", for which I could not find any uses in the wild. The other nominations were bundled with mine by Tavix without making it clear that Tavix, not I, was the nominator for them. I think they should be unbundled so that I can comment on them separately. Si Trew (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To put the implausibility of these spellings in perspective, Молдовеняскэ language has received more hits this year than these three redirects combined. Sideways713 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flin Flon--Northwest

(Eubot). Unlikely with the two hyphens. Bizarrely catted as {{R from title with diacritics}} instead of {{R from other punctuation}}, but gone are the days when we use two hyphens as a substitute for an em dash. Essex-Kent with one hyphen has the same target, but not Essex–Kent with an en dash. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per Dash, When an em dash is unavailable in a particular character encoding environment—as in the ASCII character set—it has usually been approximated as a double (--) or triple (---) hyphen-minus. It's conceivable that someone would use substitute an em dash with two hyphens. Since em dashes are hard to type, I don't see why we would deny those people from using this method to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The articles shouldn't really be using an em dash here though, that's not what an em dash is for. They should really be moved over Flin Flon-Northwest, St-Maurice-Lafleche, Lambton-Kent and Essex-Kent and the em dashes replaced by hyphens in the content. Note: I nominated these redirects separately. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. What they should or should not use is not relevant, they currently do use emdashes and so these are useful redirects. They will likely continue to be useful even if the target is moved. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkativeness

(Neelix). "Talkativity" or "talkativeness" is not the same thing as "verbosity", though the meanings overlap. The target article is already tagged as maybe needing a move to Wiktionary. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense; Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm undecided whether these are useful or not at present, but they are nothing remotely approaching nonsense as the target is clearly related to the term and while not a perfect match there is significant overlap. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that it's not nonsense, I was probably under the influence of things like Garrulousnesses, a Neelix creation that was fixed by a bot as a double-redirect.
I guess that Prolixity was an article, subsequently deleted, and recreated (on 13 February 2011 by User:CMBJ) as a redirect; since these redirects' creation predates that (to 29 April 2008) but the double-redirect fixes were on 15 February 2011 bby RussBot. There's no history of what it was doing in the meantime, I guess an admin could look past the deletion. (Surely the redirects weren't created as redlinks?) I'm taking a bunch of the more obviously nonsense ones such as Verbiages to WP:X1. Sorry for being so Prolixious in my explanation. Si Trew (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looking at some others, Grandiloquence was merged into verbosity with this edit of 13 February 2011 by User:CMBJ; some of the double redirects might stem from that merge. But not all: some never pointed to grandiloquence in the first place. Grandiloquence was turned from a redirect into an article on 13 July this year by User:Wally Wiglet; I've changed grandiloquent to point to it. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia was never meant to be a dictionary, though at times that is certainly what it seems to have become. We don't need another pointless redirect for a common word. KDS4444 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taciturnly

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by Neelix, retargeted by User:Thryduulf on 18 July this year. This is on User:Anomie/Neelix_list/6#T. It's a {{R from adverb}}, and I've changed it to that from the more-general {{R from modification}}, but none of the entries on the target (a DAB page) are for "taciturnly", and we're WP:NOTDIC. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sī

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Neelix creation, User:Plantdrew has rcatted (properly) but there is no particular affinity to Tongan: the plant is widespread across the Pacific, as far as I can tell from the article. (IW is to to:Sī). WP:RFD#D8 as WP:RFOREIGN. Sī Trew (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure why this one was singled out though. There are a bunch of foreign language redirects to this plant (several from Neelix, several from other authors) which should perhaps also be deleted (the Maori ones should be kept; there's a big push in New Zealand to adopt Maori plant and animal names into English usage). Plantdrew (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just coincidentally singled it out because I was going through the Neelix R's and got distracted or was following through, so never got round to listing others. I'd rather not add others now this is has been here five days, but probably should do once it closes. Si Trew (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But failing that (and we can't expect Chinese experts to be dropping in any time soon) deletion seems appropriate. It can always be recreated at a later date if the Chinese surname article gets written. KDS4444 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Meat Grinder (dance)

Not mentioned at target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PTM, unsure if better to retarget to Republic as an abbreviation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could also refer to Republication. Perhaps a disambiguation is the best idea? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about republication, too, which is itself an {{R to section}} Edition (book)#Republication (and I've tagged it as such). It's used a lot in references, although seemingly not those generated by {{cite}}: its documentation section Template:Cite/doc#Republications, or edited quotations in a periodical article describes the use of publication-date which does not generate the text "repub" or "repub." but "published", as you can see:
  • {{cite|last=Trew|first=S|title=Wikipedia|date=2 December 1845|publication-date=17 January 2017}}
produces:
  • Trew, S (2 December 1845), Wikipedia (published 17 January 2017)
We don't have republished or republish. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_2&oldid=754052694"