Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

June 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 15, 2014.

Brendan james hope in transition

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, speedy deleted per
NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I doubt anyone would search for that. Müdigkeit (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible typo.--Launchballer 20:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not sure if I could call it a typo and apply a speedy deletion- that is why it is here.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You probably could, because it was a recently created redirect; don't bother applying a speedy tag yet because I've tagged Hope in transition for AfD, and this should go with it.--Launchballer 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the typo. Could you please hint me? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (keeping in mind that the article's deletion would result in this being speedied). I see nothing implausible about this redirect, so as long as the target exists, so should this redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: perfectly valid redirect. I would not oppose redirecting it to Brendan James if the target gets deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:30, 17 June 2014 (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.

WP:FORRED

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. This is a valid short-cut with
WP:MFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Deletion: This redirect falls under confusion and self-promotion/spam. This is no policy limiting "redirects from foreign languages" but this redirect patterns itself as though this proposed policy were already settled law. It is bupkis, but it is being cited over 60 times in current discussions on this page, with no mention of the non-policy nature of the page at any of the initial links (and not always appearing even in the rebuttals). This proposal should not have a WP:~ style redirect, misleading editors into posting or positing it as though it were policy.  — LlywelynII 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue here is that the essay is based on the eighth entry as reasons for deleting at the top of the page 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. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created. I may be wrong but I don't think that was recently added so the idea that we don't want foreign language redirects created is not bupkis made to look like a policy. For that reason I doubt that a MFD will be successful. Finally, if this really was an essay masquerading as policy with no actual support I am sure that one of the administrators that have closed RFD's of this nature would have realized this by now, disregarded comments that used WP:FORRED as a rational, and kept the redirect due to the deletion views being discounted.--76.65.43.92 (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirect is perfectly appropriate for the target page. As others have advised, if you have a problem with the target page then MfD is the correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to MfD; your qualm is with the policy, not the redirect.--Launchballer 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading Llywelyn's discussions elsewhere (
    WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 which actually is policy. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Which I also firmly disagree with as the essay is an accessible version of the policy.--Launchballer 08:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We would need to remove several long standing and commonly used redirects to essays if we decided to do this. What would have to go would include
WP:BOOMERANG etc.--76.65.43.92 (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2014 (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.

Laïki Bank

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
Laiki Bank) and I am taking no position as to which is the better target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The action I would like to occur: Deletion. The rationale for that action:

Wikipedia:R#DELETE 2 case. 94.64.152.162 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2014 (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.

Crazy Stupid Ishq

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 closure: the page is no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 14:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Launchballer 18:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CSC somehow excuses lists from this duty. I didn't check the size of the list though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:42, 15 June 2014 (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.

Great Green Ocean

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Number 57 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day-this is not an English-usage term, it is not listed in the Persian Gulf article as an alternate name, nor is it in the article on the Gulf naming dispute. Holds no currency in English, just someone's wishful thinking Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: seemingly this is English translation of the (old?) Bahrainean name for the gulf, as seen in Ibn Khallikan's biographical dictionary (1842). It appears at least somehow useful and harmless, exists since 2011 and enjoys some page views. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending some need to dab the namespace. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's made up. — LlywelynII 16:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There are three GBook hits for this linkage, but there are also 1200-odd other GBook hits. Web hits are as lopsided. My impression is that this is mostly a poetic turn of phrase; we shouldn't be implying that it always means the Gulf. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that poetic meaning does not warrant redirect. Still, I don't see how this fact discards the obscure historic reference to the gulf. After all, aren't redirects supposed to help readers reach the article from alternative, less common terms? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it seems very unlikely that people who would look for this phrase would specifically be looking for that meaning. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? I doubt people will be looking up poetic metaphor on Wikipedia, and no other use was demonstrated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular reason to believe that if people are searching for this phrase, they want this meaning. Mangoe (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a reason: this is the only encyclopedic meaning we (participants of this discussion) could gather so far. We can safely assume that readers of online encyclopedia are searching for encyclopedic meaning. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:12, 27 June 2014 (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.

Lista de códigos telefónicos

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. This one should've been caught in the discussion for Lista de codigos telefonicos. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is not the only country that speaks Spanish

ChampionMan1234 03:47, 15 June 2014 (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.

Kommúnismi

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. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Icelandic.

ChampionMan1234 00:37, 15 June 2014 (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.

Коммунизм

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. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Russian, and the concept of communism did not originate in Russia.

ChampionMan1234 00:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It is - on the other hand, Russia, heading the Soviet Union, was by far the most powerful and influential communist country that ever existed. For that reason, I'd say that it is particularly Russian. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, being from Russia I know what you mean, but it was "Socialism" in USSR, not "Communism". Also note: China was building communism for longer period of time and is still doing so. Regardless, the abstract concepts just can't have language-specific ties. Mongol Empire was (at least arguably) the largest and most influential in the world, but that did not lead to Гүрэн redirect pointing to Empire. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:59, 21 June 2014 (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.

Atlanta Baseball Association

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. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChampionMan1234 00:26, 15 June 2014 (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.

T̥aoism

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. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term.

ChampionMan1234 00:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

What dialect is your knowledge from, and what dialect is this transcription supposed to represent? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: implausible search term, not really a word in any language, and not phonetic transcription. per
    WP:FORRED: I see no connection between the concept of Taoism and whatever language. I would not oppose redirect to Taoism from original name in Chinese, but it does not appear to be the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC) (updated 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC))[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to Daoism–Taoism romanization issue which explains what this is. Siuenti (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not, because this redirect's name combines IPA of variant of pronunciation of "道", the first letter in 道教, and all but first letters of "taoism". This is not a real phonetical transcription, neither foreign language variant, rather a synthesis of several loosely concepts, making it absolutely implausible, useless search term that even bots are not interested in (as stats reveal). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:43, 15 June 2014 (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.

LGBT rights in Inner Mongolia

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. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty misleading, these provinces are not mentioned in the target.

ChampionMan1234 00:18, 15 June 2014 (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.

Fermanted beverage

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. The clear consensus reflects redirect policy. Redirects from misspellings are generally kept as they provide useful search aids. In addition, this is a long-standing redirect, nearly 8 years old and deleting could be harmful due to breaking long-standing external links. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect

Fermanted beverage (note "Fermanted") is a typo. Please remove it. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_15&oldid=1146685132"