Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 15

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

Languages of Crimea

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 Demographics of Crimea#Ethnicities & languages. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to delete this because, as many of you know, there is a territory dispute going on in Crimea, and we at Wikipedia do not want to take part in either side of the dispute. -

ChampionMan1234 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm inclined to say this is deliberately introduced as a politically loaded phrase and thus delete.
Scotland has the
Berwick FC
has changed what side of the border, what football league, it plays in several times. Witout a single ounce of lead being fired. The Scots almost invented democracy, after we lost it when the ancient Greeks died out.
I draw that as a parallel: this Union that Scotland and England have had for four hundred years and ten, could disappear on Thursday. But we are not fighting guns at each other, nor even making pointless redirects. (Champ will probably now find 700 biased Scottish redirects: and all the better if he does!) We have Scots Gallic Wikipedia, we have Irish Gaelic Wikipedia, and Lallans and all sorts of stuff like that. Who made the Erie Canal? Mostly Scots protestants. I have no trouble with the Scots. "Wha' da' meddle wi' me'?" Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of the Scottish independence referendum to this redirect, which has existed uncontroversially since 2007? Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't trying to use this as a soapbox. What I was trying to say is people on either side of the Scots vote have not been bombarding EN:WP with loaded redirects, but people in that battle patently have been. I didn't put it clearly. It was a bit of a ramble, and muddied the waters maybe, I was attempting to draw the parallel, but evidently failed. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I beginning to see a pattern here? Olivier (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that this was created as part of any bombardment, or that the creator saw this as a loaded term (
WP:AGF). In 2007 Crimea was unambiguously part of Ukraine just as Corsica is unambiguously part of France as of 2014 so a Languages of Corsica redirect to Languages of France created today would not be partisan or bad-faith creation even if the island's status becomes disputed 7 years hence. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 17 September 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.

Uragan (spaceplane)

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. Anything that needs to happen to Spaceplane can happen through the usual editorial process; this discussion has gone stale. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of Uragan in this article is in an external link, now that the section on it has been removed. An ip requested this be either mentioned in the article or the redirect deleted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#A very small tropical disturbance. I believe this is similar to reason #10 for deletion. —PC-XT+ 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ip's request has now been archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 38#A very small tropical disturbance —PC-XT+ 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either of those options. —PC-XT+ 05:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DAB would need changing, either way, because a red link would encourage article creation. We could retarget to the DAB, which will also have the rocket, but I assume the displayed deletion log would link here for explanation, as well, so the difference between the two options seems basically moot. The DAB may be more user-friendly, but this discussion provides more information than a DAB would, more of it relevant to the subject, if the people know to click the discussion link. —PC-XT+ 07:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a DAB at
    HOTOL, for example.) can scrape many out of the article, hatnote etc, but the article would seem primary. I don't do these things while they are under discussion, but I am quite happy to do the gnoming once we have a consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That may be acceptable, too. As I said, the Uragan DAB would need changing, either way, but a spaceplane DAB may be useful. I'm not sure which would be a better target for this redirect, or if the DABs should link to each other. The Uragan DAB would include the rockets, which may be more directly related to this redirect than other spaceplanes, though. Otherwise, we could make a list of spaceplanes that includes more information, perhaps including spaceplane concepts (or fairly notable rumors) that were never produced for one reason or another, if there are enough sources. —PC-XT+ 05:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you include the British Rail flying saucer on that list? ;) Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that would be a fun list —PC-XT+ 06:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's OK for you to laugh, you never had to travel with them. The nearest I got to the British Rail flying saucer was having a cuppa in the restaurant car of the Advanced Passenger Train as it tried to get around a curve. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it maybe I make an article on
mother-in-law jokes. I am not sure how encyclopaedic I could make it though. Si Trew (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
F'rexample:
"This is the age of the train" – ours was about 62.
The British Rail Sandwich, improved by Clement Freud, was a stock joke
In Open All Hours the stuttering shopkeeper Arkwright states "I would not do that for all the tea in ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch, all the tea in ch-ch-ch-ch, all the tea in British Rail.
Their 80s slogan "We're getting there" was frequently graffito'd "eventually".
.... and various others. But I would find it hard to RS these. Some are in books by
Daily Telegraph. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 20 September 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.

Al-qaida in iraq

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. There are decent arguments for why these perhaps should not have been created, but not for why they should be deleted. See
WP:RM for renaming articles. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Old redirect, not used, wrong caps. ~Technophant (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nom, old is not a deleiton reason, not used is not a deletion reason, alternate formats are why redirects exist, and the target was formerly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE nominations merged. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 70.51.46.146. These redirects are classic examples of ones that should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not seem to be
    Caliph is not spelt Qalif
    ).
Patently we have to stick to
R from alternate capitalization}} is possible, but tricky when it is a transliteration to start with and Arabic alphabet does not have caps s such but front middle and end forms for letterforms. None is marked as such. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • More info. In mid 2014
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? The "old" argument, at least for some (I haven't checked them all) does not hold water because the creation was back in 2007, agreed, but the redirects have been redirected/retargeted (typical message "fix double redirects" where I am not sure they all were) in mid 2014 and something fishy is going on. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
With this change the second nominated was changed from
Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn to [[Al qaida in Iraq, in 2007. That was not controversial, it seems; and presumably rearely read, since the next we hear is that User:EmausBot on 10 Nov 2003 "fixing double redirect", then User:Xqbot doing the same. I state explicitly: I am not fingering the bots or their owners, in case there is any doubt. But it does seem fishy to change these things after (as upwards) they were stable and I imagine low traffic for about 7 years. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Reverse redirect. between
voiced fricatives that we don't really have in English. ("Q" being one such transliteration). When I was growing up in Cairo we tended to transliterate as "Kh", or "Gh" as you see in words like Khan or Ghee. The phonetics community has changed all the bloody terms but I would call them voiced fricatives. "Q" (Kh) is perhaps a back labial sounded plosive, which sounds like something you get when you put in a search term into Google, but it is not a glottal stop, which as a Cockney I do all the 'ime. (i.e. T is swollen in the back of the throat rather than pronounced as a front dental plosive). I only do it in English, I don't do it when I speak other languages. I'm entitled to my accent. I am a bit worried about the phonetics articles that all these redlinks are not there; that was what I was taught half a life ago but the terminology has changed. Not sure that helps our readers. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 16 September 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.

Gurjia

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) 13:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for this term returns many things, most notably a town in Nigeria, but it does not appear to mean Georgia in any language -

ChampionMan1234 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting. This apparently used to be a word used for Georgia, though I am unsure if it was actual English. Other names are either more prevalent or preferred. I'm unsure if a DAB page, or a hatnote on an article about the Nigerian town, would be appropriate, though. —PC-XT+ 21:30, 11 October 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.

Learn Japanese

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. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChampionMan1234 03:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best way to take this is to find parallels, I think. Learn French, Learn Hungarian, Learn Russian, Learn English, Learn Ancient Greek, Learn Latin, Learn Spanish, Learn Italian. All are common languages, but all are redlinks – and I don't imagine by accident. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is especially applicable to redirects. Siuenti (talk) 20:37, 20 September 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.

Ukrainian Coup

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. Though it's close in terms of numbers, those arguing to delete have the stronger arguments; that this is an uncommon term mostly used by fringe, POV-pushing sources. If I had any doubts that the potential reader using this as a search term wouldn't be able to find the page otherwise, I wouldn't be carrying this out. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing but an attack page. It is not used by reliable sources to refer to these events, other than by some

WP:FRINGE sources that we don't cater to. This redirect is implausible. RGloucester — ☎ 02:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The descriptions in the PROD request tag and the nomination above are incorrect. This is a commonly used term to refer to the events in Ukraine in early 2014. There are over 1 million hits on google for Ukrainian coup - many of them in reliable sources. There have also been numerous discussions on the Ukrainian Revolution page with regards to the name of that article with substantial support (but alas no consensus) for a change. A re-direct from Ukrainian coup to

2014 Ukrainian revolution seems like an obvious solution to this issue. Certainly this isn't an attack page due to the masses of sources that refer to this event by this name. I'll also point out that this re-direct has been in existence for 5 months (created 14 April 14). Also i'm not sure that Prod is the way forward for this - maybe it should go through the whole AFD process.----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a bunch of nonsense. The only "sources" that refer to this as "Ukrainian Coup" (which is not a proper noun, anyway) are unreliable
WP:RS/N numerous times. Regardless, even if "coup" is used in reference to these events, it is not used in the proper noun form "Ukrainian Coup", which is nonexistent. This redirect only exists as an attack page and for PoV pushing. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]


Potentially it could be changed to Ukrainian coup if it is normal form on Wikipedia not to capitalize article titles - I am unaware of the nuances of this area of Wikipedia policy. ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate what about the Orange Revolution ? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) h[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper. It was created on 14 April 2004, so hardly has a history to it. Call a war what you want, but this is not what most people call it. I can elaborate if necessary. Dmitri with (I assume) his knowledge of Russian language may have something to add. Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a commonly used term backed up by over 4 million English language hits on google. As per the discussion on the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution page there is a strong argument to include the term Ukrainian coup in that page so having a re-direct to the page makes sense --71.110.128.41 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I do a general Google on "Ukrainian coup" I get 29,100 hits, not the 4 million you asserted. (Nor the "over 1 million hits" Greatestrowerever asserted.) Browsing those 29,100 hits hits I see a substantial proportion of false hits using the words in a way that contradicts the application here. The remainder look rather unreliable. Fringe, obscure, and/or translations of foreign sources. Alsee (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE My Google News search on "Ukrainian Coup" came up with 12 hits. There did exist some insignificant foreign-source-suplied-in-English usage... the only "Native" English sources included at least one Blog, one source that had photoshopped Obama next to Hitler, and another was a UN-Communist source outraged that action might be taken against the terrorist group ISIS. I can hardly imagine more obscure, insignificant, and fringe sourcing for this term. "Ukrainian Coup" is not remotely accepted as an English term for any current or recent event. Alsee (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a redirect from Ukrainian Coup is fine because the term is currently in use in English language sources [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdity incarnate. Are you being dense? Your search proves absolutely nothing, because it is not narrowed down at all, and includes any pages that include the phrase "Ukrainian coup" (much of it not referring to Euromaidan). Secondly, no reliable sources use "Ukrainian Coup" to refer to Euromaidan, which one will see if one look at your search. Some blogs and Russian state media do, but they are not "reliable sources". Is this anti-Semitic tripe of a blog your definition of a reliable source? If so, I have nothing else to say. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are many sources which qualify as RS, for example that one. Actually, the "coup" could be even a standalone article (rather than redirect) - as a notable conspiracy theory promoted by state-driven propaganda (source above). There is nothing wrong with having articles about notable conspiracy theories. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdity. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as I don't find this redirect particularly useful, but too close to
    WP:OR and non-notability. Some may find it useful, though, or want to try to make it into an article, so I make my !vote weak. —PC-XT+ 08:09, 21 September 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.

Еmperor of Bulgaria

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) 19:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this begins with a Cyrillic character. -

ChampionMan1234 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

To emphasise, or perhaps the opposite, a screen reader for those with visual impairmants would not pick tis up.. (Don't worry I just wear glasses). It wrongfoots to the extreme, it should go. I know a bit of various languages for people who have lost one of their senses (I for example have lost the sense of smell, so what?) and this kind of thing is completely wrongfooting. WP is designed, if it is written correctly, to make it accessible to as many people as possible. This kind of redirect defeats that. Delete with extreme prejudice. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    ChampionMan1234 23:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
ChampionMan1234 05:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Depending on the language, the letter is named either Ye (or Ie), (pronounced similar to the word yeah, [at least, with this accent,] or yes without pronouncing the s,) or E, pronounced without the initial consonant Y sound. So it could be transliterated Yemperor of Bulgaria, Iemperor of Bulgaria or Emperor of Bulgaria, the last one apparently being least common, ironically. —PC-XT+ 07:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha PC-XT, it sounds more to me like the name for a Soviet
puppet government! Perhaps it should stay after all then! Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Ahaha, true! Though, even as a joke redirect, I'd still say delete. —PC-XT+ 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify mine. When I said screen reader I was probably thinking more of an
    Dotted_and_dotless_I, for example: but we do not serve our readers by playing tricks. I am all for a joke but don't tend to do it in mainspace. (You all have to suffer them instead.) Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 16 September 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.

徐穹

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) 19:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid name in any language, neither [2] or [3] finds anything relevant -

ChampionMan1234 00:43, 15 September 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.

Spanje

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) 19:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Dutch. -

ChampionMan1234 00:35, 15 September 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.

Tokei

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. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to mean "clock" in Japanese, but I don't see how it could be linked to Tokyo. -

ChampionMan1234 00:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The etymology doesn't say that, Lenticel, it says during that period it was called "
WP:TWODABS anyway but I can't change the whole world to revolve around me right now); the other Tokyt is a redlink. (Wouldn't surprise me if it is not when someone else reads this back.) Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 15 September 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.

Johall Bal

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) 13:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be a valid alternative name, see "Johall+Bal"&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&start=10 -

ChampionMan1234 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Why, Si? Just because they look alike? --BDD (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is rather a stretch for a typo. I suppose it was more that "Johan", "Johann" etc are cognate for "John" and are not far away – but in combination this is too far as a likely typo. Striking mine. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 17 October 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.

Uniquely Penang

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) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some random advertising slogan which isn't mentioned in the target, plus an unlikely search term. -

ChampionMan1234 00:23, 15 September 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_September_15&oldid=1142587312"