Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 2, 2014.

Vance Kirkland[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 move Vance Hall Kirkland to replace this redirect, leaving a redirect from VHK. Per WP:IAR I am happy to treat this as a move request. The articles are suitably cross-linked. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has own article, should not be redirected to his museum EBY (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article created by User:EBY3221 (as part of an RFC) in September and this looks like the vestige of various moves. So:
  • Retarget, then swap with Vance Hall Kirkland per WP:COMMONNAME (look at the references, plenty of titles including "Vance Kirkland" but none with "Vance Hall Kirkland"). (I suppose a swap is technically a move request, but User:Thryduulf recently suggested this for The Final 1 ↔ The Final 1 (season 1), so I guess it is within our remit?)
    • Is it technically within our remit? Maybe, maybe not - where is our remit formally defined? It should be noted on the talk page of affected articles that a potential move is being discussed (I can't remember whether I did that for The Final 1 or not, I'll check) out of courtesy. However, it seems unnecessarily beurocratic to separately discuss uncontroversial moves. More complex or controversial ones are worth doing through RM though (e.g. any standardisation of the textile article names). Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the all that; in fact I was going to add "seems unnecessary to create a move request" or similar to the CSDs, but decided against it as more likely to create b bureacracy than prevent it.
I've taken to quoting more from policy/guidelines to pre-empt or reply to "no reason has been suggested for deletion" when they have been, but not in a legalistic way. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised Speedy Delete for cross-namespace redirects at User:Vance Kirkland (WP:G6) → Draft:Vance Kirkland (WP:G8) → Vance Hall Kirkland, created by User:EBY3221. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - crap, what a mess. I created the article (it certainly rated it) as written and wish now I'd dived deeper into this redirect. If I can help fix it, please let me know how. EBY (talk) 00:22, 3 November 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.

Republic of Venezuela[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. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant here. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Venezuela (disambiguation).

We have articles on First Republic of Venezuela, Second Republic of Venezuela and Third Republic of Venezuela; anyone typing or linking through "Republic of Venezuela" instead of just "Venezuela" is probably looking for something more specific. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is Even with the Republic of, the vast majority of our readers are looking for the country in general, not a particular period in its history. Not to mention, that the history of Venezuela summarizes all of these republics, allowing a reader to get more detail about a particular one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you know that "the vast majority of our readers" are searching for Venezuela. It gets about 5 hits/day, but we don't know how someone arrives there or, when they trampoline through, where they expect to land. (I thought I remember seeing a tool (Google?) that had an article stats heuristic that estimated how long someone stayed at a URL when directed from another URL but I must have been dreaming: that would only work if the forwarding site said where it had come from, which Wikipedia links don't do.) Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (uninitiated) Keep to Venezuela because from what I see very quickly, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Republic of Venezuela seems to be just developmental stages of the current government of Venezuela, and can be linked to at the History section. Alternatively the term can probably deserve a disambiguation page itself, between the three historic republics and the current (Bolivian) republic. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 08:00, 3 November 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.

Textiles of Bangladesh[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 Bangladesh textile industry. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not sure about this one. The current redirect seems like it could apply equally to either the current article or Bangladesh textile industry. The present day textile industry is the most (or one of the most) significant industries in the country, so it seems like a plausible target for the phrase. A disambiguation page would perhaps make sense, or maybe a hatnote on one of the articles. However, given that the present industry article gets around 40 times the views as the arts one, I'm not sure the current target is the best option. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I linked the "industry" target above. Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 2 November 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.

RoHS Compliant[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect that is not referred to as Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive. 98.180.150.143 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep viable search term. The target details what is RoHS, and would therefore provide information on what makes something compliant. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 67.70. RoHS also redirects there. I note that section RoHS#Compliance was about one particular Swedish study, so with this edit I've moved/renamed it to the subsection RoHS#Sweden. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate. The same redirect is also listed at RFD for 1 November. I suspect some edit conflict, since there was also an empty section with <span id="RoHS Compliant"/> on one or other days; I removed it. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I've added the RFD tag at the R, and an RFDNote for (dormant?) User:Jfraser.Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now closed out the other discussion. All comments there were also here (but not visa versa). Let's let this be the main one going forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 3 November 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.

Shottingham[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) 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent nickname for this city because of its high level of gun crime, but although there are urban dictionary references to the name, reliable sources are not jumping out. The redirect links to a section of Nottingham discussing crime, but no mention is made there of Shottingham. This is Paul (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It could perhaps go WP:RFD#DELETE #3, "The redirect is offensive or abusive"; but it's more jocular. As Paul says, RS seems thin, but this one seems reasonably RS:
  • Macdonald, Laurie (27 November 2013). "Shottingham? I think Notts". Inside One magazine. Milford Scott. Retrieved 2 November 2014. Nottingham seems to have been given a bad reputation by the rest of the country, with nickname 'Shottingham' being the favourite
But it's not necessary for a redirect to be RS. Incidentally, I've added {{R to section}} to the R and an {{anchor}} and courtesy comment at the target (per WP:SPECIFICLINK). Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly there are lots of places that earn a bad reputation and are nicknamed accordingly. I seem to recall Moss Side being dubbed Baby Beirut at one time for example because of its high crime rate. We do at least have a source for it now though, so I guess if we include the information somewhere in the Nottingham article it should be ok. This is Paul (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there's a certain amount of local pride (inverted snobbery?) in them, actually, when they are used somewhat wryly: e.g. Sadly Broke (mentioned at Bradley Stoke), The Smoke for London (a DAB), "Liverpudlian" according to its target at Liverpool comes from "from a long-standing jocular alteration of 'Liverpool' to 'Liverpuddle'" (my redlink). Countless others, I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little Beirut is at least mentioned in the article, although without explanation. This from The Guardian mentions the Baby Beirut nickname, and also reminds me that Manchester was dubbed Gunchester for a while. Incidentally, Gunchester redirects to Gun crime in south Manchester. I think I'm going to add the Shottingham reference to the crime section, so at least this will be a relevant redirect then. This is Paul (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I studied in Manchester, and can't remember hearing it called "Gunchester". I'll try to find RS. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • mea culpa, you already have. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, Gunchester was a name mostly used by the media, I think. Same with Baby Beirut. This is Paul (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Al Akhbar (Egypt) has a bit on this term, in its English version; but I am not sure that is RS as their english translations are kinda word-for-word. I used to read that when I lived in Cairo (when my arabic likewise was word-for-word). Presumably RS if we dig and find it. Google keeps asking me to sign up to newspapers. Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since I added some relevant material to the article that places this into context then I'm happy for this to stay. This is Paul (talk) 15:51, 12 November 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_November_2&oldid=1039434567"