Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 22, 2014.

Stay away from the summoner[edit]

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) 14:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a quote from one of the characters in Final Fantasy X, but the character who said it doesn't even seem to be a notable character listed on Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2; some random old lady character says it. The phrase seems to be a subject of some sort of Internet meme, but I don't believe it's notable enough of a quote to not fail WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete seems to be an injoke within the fanbase especially since the main character did end up with the summoner.--Lenticel (talk) 03:24, 23 December 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.

Puck (videogames)[edit]

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) 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguator used in this redirect is too ambiguous to be useful or helpful. I mean, if I were looking up this redirect, my first thought would be arriving to an article about hockey pucks used in video games, and popular search engines partially agree with that thought with most other results relating to Pac-Man or Pong. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom or Retarget to Pac-man since that game was first called Puck Man --Lenticel (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget to PacMan since hockey videogames all have pucks. Delete highly ambiguous -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - when something is highly ambiguous like this, the best solution is almost always to disambiguate to help readers find what they are looking for rather than hinder them by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really do not see how disambiguation for this term would be helpful. None of the above examples have a item, character, or other concept that goes solely by the name "Puck", with the exception of the current target. Also, the cleaner disambiguation option would be to retarget this term to Puck, a disambiguation page. In addition, all of the terms mentioned this far are either partial title matches (Pac-Man was known originally as "Puck Man", not just as "Puck") or a made-up name for the concept (for example, Pong was actually advertised as a tennis game, which uses balls, not a hockey game, which uses pucks). Lastly for now, the disambiguator in the redirect is so non-standard that the likelihood of someone searching it with a specific article in mind, or even at all, is very unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you wouldn't want to create a separate dab; see WP:INCDAB. And looking over the current dab at Puck, there don't seem to be any viable options. --BDD (talk) 02:50, 24 December 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.

Rights Alliance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 2#Rights Alliance

1993 LPGA Corning Classic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 2#1993 LPGA Corning Classic

Wanderlust (software)[edit]

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) 14:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense to have this redirect. Wanderlust is just an Emacs package, not a part of Emacs itself. It'd be like redirecting Microsoft Word to Microsoft Windows just because Word happens to run on Windows.

It'd be better if it was just deleted, rather than leaving users wondering where in the Emacs article they will find information about Wanderlust. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 17:46, 22 December 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.

List of ...for Dummies books[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 27#List of ...for Dummies books

Jacquees[edit]

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 Jacques. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right but there's this R&B artist that I've been following for a couple years and he has recently signed to a major record label and I want to create a wikipedia page for him in the future. When you search his name (Jacquees) on wikipedia it goes to Jacqueline (given name). The article doesn't even mention the name Jacquees so I feel like the redirect should be deleted. When you type his name in the search box it seems as if he has a wikipedia page but it just goes to Jacqueline (given name). However when you go to containing Jacquees you'll see articles where his name has actually been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neishadanielle (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Jacques as an {{R from misspelling}}, or delete since it seems that the primary, and possibly only, usage of the word "Jacquees" refers to a possibly-notable American rapper from Atlanta (as noted above). Steel1943 (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Jacques or perhaps the DAB page at Jackie as an {{R from misspelling}}. @Neishadanielle:, you don't need this deleted to create the article – just overwrite the content with the article text.
I think deleting to "create a wikipedia page for him in the future" would be a bit WP:CRYSTAL (would it? Since CRYSTAL is about potential future events outside of Wikipedia itself). Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it makes as much sense for it to redirect to Jacqueline as to Jacques, and it is not preventing having a page created in its place if nom wants to create one. Ivanvector (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943, with retargeting to Jacques as a second choice. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 15 December 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, BDD (talk) 15:35, 22 December 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.

声母[edit]

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think that topics relating to elements of languages are a reasonable exception to the rule against other-language redirects. Many English-speaking people studying Chinese, especially beginners, know what a syllable onset is called in Chinese but don't know the English term for it. Neelix (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, Neelix, this isn't helpful. This is a generic concept seen in every language on Earth. Nearly everyone knows what a syllable is, there is no reason you need to understand a syllable onset specifically for any language. Also, we have wiktionary, which is where you go for translations. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend the exception because of my personal experience; having learned English as a first language and French as a second language, there are several linguistic terms that I have only learned in French, such as Accent aigu. It just seems to me to be a detriment to the project to delete a redirect that users are likely to find useful. Neelix (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why can't you look it up on Wiktionary? Accent aigu is a somewhat different case since English doesn't use it, and it's actually a character used in the language, and not merely a linguistic concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can look it up on Wiktionary. It just makes it easier for our users if they don't have to. Redirects are cheap. Neelix (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reasons have been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly reasons have been presented. If you simply don't agree with them, say that. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're aware of a reason for deletion, please don't just hint coyly at it. State it directly. No one has stated a reason for deletion, and I can't figure any out. WilyD 12:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept of syllables has no specific connection with Chinese. See WP:FORRED. I took a quick look at Chinese language for an appropriate place that this could potentially retarget to, but that didn't seem practical. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORRED is an essay, not a guideline, and I have already presented reasons above for why we should disregard it in this case. Keep in mind that this is not a redirect to Syllable, but to Syllable#Onset. Neelix (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too hung up on its formal status. There are essays that express a broad consensus that develops as a result of many related discussions over time, and they're often used with the force of something stronger. WP:OUTCOMES is one, and FORRED is another. And while I appreciate you clarifying which section this points to, Chinese isn't mentioned at all in that section, so this is very likely to confuse readers who use it. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If these essays expressed broad consensus, then their supporters would have been successful in having them recognized by the community as guidelines. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but have you ever tried promoting something to a guideline? I have. People will just call WP:CREEP and say it's accepted anyway, why bother? --BDD (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we are to lend WP:FORRED more credence than it is officially given, which I am not convinced we should, we should give even more credence to WP:CHEAP, which in my experience gets cited even more than WP:FORRED. Neelix (talk) 16:33, 31 October 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, BDD (talk) 15:34, 22 December 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.

Title (Straightener album)[edit]

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) 14:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that no one is going to enter "Title (Straightener album)" in the search engine. If anything, this album should be linked at Title (disambiguation). Also, this redirect for a 2005 album, was created in November 2014 making it pretty clear that the only purpose of this redirect is so that Title (Meghan Trainor album) can't be moved to the appropriate name. If this was moved, there would be added a hatnote. MaranoFan (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine target to Straightener#Albums. Given that there are two (or more?) albums named "Title", Title (Straightener album) and Title (Meghan Trainor album) are both correct titles and therefore likely search terms (if anyone knows or suspects that there is more than one album with the title "title" then they will plausibly look for this title), and both should be listed at Title (disambiguation). I have no idea why the existence of this redirect has any impact on the title of any other article - if the Meghan Trainor album is the primary topic for albums called "Title" it would be at Title (album) and others linked by a hatnote (either direct or via the dab). It's creator, In ictu oculi, is a long time Wikipedian so unless you have evidence to the contrary (not immediately obvious) we should assume good faith about its creation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what's the problem? We've a category holder in 2005 albums for ja:TITLE (アルバム) which was #23 on the Japan album chart, and there's a forthcoming album of the same name due in 2015 Title (Meghan Trainor album). Why wouldn't someone search [Title Straightener album] for Title Straightener album, what else would someone search??? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and In ictu oculi. Also, I have gone ahead and tagged the redirect with {{R from album}} and {{R to section}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very plausible that someone might be interested in looking up the album, and no good reason to delete. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:43, 26 December 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.

The David H. Koch Fund For Science[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#The David H. Koch Fund For Science

Rochester NY slang[edit]

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) 14:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of the redirect, as there is nothing in the target article about slang. GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was an unreferenced glossary of slang from Rochester, New York that was marked for merging with the article about the town in October 2006. It was converted to this redirect 5 days later, but I don't have time at the moment to find if any material was merged. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a very small merge performed. That content doesn't exist anymore; there are mentions of the Amerks and the Fast Ferry, but those predate the merge. WP:MAD generally means we shouldn't delete pages that have been merged, but when all of the content gets removed, it's a bit more ambiguous. There is precedent for deletion in such cases, where the merges are very old and the content is very unlikely to ever be added back. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete then. What was merged has long gone, and in any case it was unreferenced and stylistically average at best so it will be just as easy to reintroduce this content from new (with sources) in the event that anyone desires it (which doesn't seem particularly likely). Sourced glossaries of local slang are the sort of thing that could be covered somewhere, but not in the main article about a place and quite possibly it would be better at Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit history can be moved to a talk page subpage WP:MAD, which would free up the mainspace location for deletion -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, and because it's potentially misleading. Tavix |  Talk  07:46, 23 December 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.

Kirchner un speech[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Kirchner_un_speech

One writer[edit]

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) 14:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A monograph has one subject; the number of its writers is unconstrained. This should redirect to an article about works written by single authors, if such an article exists, or else it should be deleted, as lacking any clearly appropriate target. Gorobay (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although this is a plausible search term for something, despite extensive searching I've failed to find a suitable target. We have Collaborative writing, which is the antonym of this term, but nothing for the term itself. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 22 December 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_December_22&oldid=1138579489"