Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2015.

Template:Diocese oF Agra, Churh of North India[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. Nomination unopposed and endorsed by creator. Deryck C. 16:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect - no need for this cross-namespace redirect. Only used on a user sandbox page, which is incorrectly categorized in article categories. GoingBatty (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (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.

Template:Biot[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. Just Chilling (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect - no need for this cross-namespace redirect. Only used on a user sandbox page, which is incorrectly categorized in article categories. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete clearly a harmful redirect. Anyone transcluding this will not end up with a proper translcusion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CNR and unhelpful. Si Trew (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (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 featured articles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#List of featured articles

List of Devil Survivor 2: The Animation chapters[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: nomination unopposed, default to delete. Deryck C. 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basic link cleanup. As shown in the page view history, barely anyone searches for this exact article. Most of the current views can probably be attributed to curiosity after it shows up in results when searching for Devil Survivor 2. At the same time, the manga section of Devil Survivor 2: The Animation will never be large (or notable enough to be moved to this page. KirtZJ (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (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.

Wallis and Fortuna[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 and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. Deryck C. 16:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2: it may cause confusion. The name of the place is "Wallis and Futuna" and "Wallis and Fortuna" is simply an error, and not a common one. The only page that linked to it (before I fixed the link) was List of butterflies of Wallis and Futuna, which mistakenly used Fortuna throughout the whole article. This is the problem with having an error like this redirect to the article: editors wont realise they have remembered the name wrong because the link will still work. Liam987 talk 15:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, plausible error because of the similar pronunciation and the fact that "fortuna" sounds more familiar than "futuna". I see various Google Books and Google News hits for "Wallis and Fortuna". It can be marked as {{r from incorrect name}} so hopefully it can be checked for incoming links. Siuenti (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I get 450,000 ghits searching for "Wallis and Fortuna." That shows me that it's a common error to make so we should keep it to aid navigation. PS: It should be tagged as an {{R from misspelling}}. Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Tavix:, I've tagged it thus. I tend to do that as part of the discussion, and say so without prejudice, because if others decide to delete it, then it wasted me 20 seconds to tag it, and I can afford 20 seconds (except in a Taxi): but if we decide to keep it, once it's closed it tends to get forgotten. But your opinion may be different from mine. Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd just add it myself, but since Siuenti suggested a different one, there wasn't consensus for it (yet). 14:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By Tavix' and Siuenti's statements, which I take on trust, it is a common error and therefore this is useful. Especially if it has been misspelled in a printed work which would probably be considered WP:RS. People make miksatkes: it's part of being human. Si Trew (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I used this redirect myself a few weeks ago. I'd say {{R from misspelling}} is the better tag as it's not a different name for the subject only a different (incorrect) spelling of the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm that's a close call @Thryduulf:: We have {{R from other name}} as well. I just thought better tagged as something rather than nothing, but you're the expert on these matters and I'll happily follow you. Si Trew (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (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.

Thomas James Power[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 - WP:RFD#D2. Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect because the redirect name is incorrect and may cause confusion. Big_iron (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wrong and Useful are different things. I'll mark it as {{R from incorrect name}} if it has not been done already, without prejudice to this discussion, as always. Si Trew (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The article was created quite recently (January 2014) and moved from the incorrect name on 17 April 2015, leaving this redirect. I guess the author, @YUL89YYZ:, just got the middle name wrong when writing it: and the edit history says it was moved). It was created by @Ruy costa:, and all in good faith, it is simply a mikstake. Well, we all make miksatkes: Show me a man who never made a mistake and I shall show you a liar. It's possible, since the redirect was only created three days ago, that it goes WP:RFD#D2 recently created redirects, not sure about that. Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. In contrast to Wallis and Fortuna, this one only gives me ~2000 ghits and it looks like most of them refer to other people (e.g. Facebook profiles, an obit of someone who died in 2012, etc.). There is a little correlation, but it looks to be (almost) entirely because of the faulty redirect. Tavix |  Talk  14:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)]] confusion, because the only[reply]
  • Delete. That makes sense. As I said, D2, Recently created redirect that has few hits: and also WPRFD#D5 (if I accept Tavix' argument, which I do) for it getting hits is that it was created and shows up on search engines &c. Si Trew (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a recently-created redirect that is an implausible misnomer (James and Joseph being completely different names) it's a reasonable case for a WP:CSD#R3 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (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.

When is Christmas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 28#When is Christmas

Tonie Chisholm[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. Deryck C. 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts to recreate this article and make more of this link than it is. Original article "Tonie Chisholm": deleted at AfD and speedily deleted 3 times. The Banner talk 12:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No reason for it not to exist. Protect it if it keeps on being created as an article, but there's no reason not to have the page for a non-notable person redirect to a page partially about them. Liam987 talk 15:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the several recreations already, it is more likely to be a distraction: first a redirect, later an article. Buts that has no effect on the colour of the link. The Banner talk 18:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mentioned at target but not notable enough for an article. Edit-protect to stop article recreation if appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't delete redirects because we don't want articles, we delete redirects when we do want them (WP:REDLINK). As others have noted, the correct response to inappropriate conversion of a redirect to an article is protection, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2015 (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.

Color-ish redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#Color-ish redirects

What is a man?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 28#What is a man?

Dolf van Niekerk[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 procedural close as the article has now been created. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  13:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a South African writer. Currently it redirects to a stub article about a group of writers of which he was a part. There is an article about him in the Afrikaans Wikipedia. It's better to make it a red link. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the exact same situation as Bartho Smit - either keep the redirect, or turn it into a stub if he is notable. @Tavix: you might be able to work your magic here as well? GiantSnowman 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman. Liam987 talk 15:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article for the same reasons as Bartho Smit. I noticed that this was a redirect when I created {{Sestigers}} and added it to my list of articles to create. I guess I'll get to it sooner rather than later now. Tavix |  Talk  19:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it is overwritten by the article then it will be a procedural close here, there is no need to list it here. @Amire80: can you give me the link to Afrikaans WP, I don't know it, but speak some Dutch so I can probably make a first stab at it. We don't have it at nl:Dolf van Niekerk (Dutch Wikipedia). Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SimonTrew: Here's Afrikaans: af:Dolf van Niekerk.
    All: Indeed, creating an article would be perfect if anybody is bale to do it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close please, I have translated it and it is now an article (I narked {{translated page}} on its talk page). I am not saying it is perfect, only that it is better. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is well done! I forgot about the ability to translate when I created Bartho Smit, so it's just a stub with a couple of English sources... Tavix |  Talk  13:56, 20 April 2015 (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.

Steve Russo[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. Deryck C. 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created in Oct 2008 when a Steve Russo was mentioned as CEO of Mstar (Internet service provider). He is no longer mentioned there. That Steve Russo may be Steve Russo, president of Indianapolis-based Russo Communications, who is mentioned in Novi Town Center and History of the Indian Americans in Metro Detroit. Another mention is in Indiana Public Retirement System which may be a different person. There are mentions elsewhere of others by that name, e.g. an Orange County Mayor at Sonny_Callahan#Steve_Russo_scandal, and an author of Christian books cited at Halloween. – Fayenatic London 07:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: we could convert it to a DAB then maybe, with the entries you listed? I'm happy to create the draft. Si Trew (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Si Trew: I don't think any are sufficiently notable for that, not even the corrupt mayor. A search would find the heading for him anyway; and I don't think a redirect to a single article would be desirable, as there is no primary topic. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fair play,delete it then: that's what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2015 (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.

County of Csesznek and Milvány[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.
Procedural closure: The redirect is already deleted by Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as WP:CSD#G7. Deryck C. 16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: the county never existed and no reliable source mentions it. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Not because it is wrong (@Borsoka:'s argument) but because I can't see this being helpful to most English speakers with the accent on Milvány, so they will never search that way. I can type that as I am on a Hungarian keyboard layout, that has a dedicated key for it, but I think you can get it on an English one with AltGr+A: but it seems a veryy unlikely search term. That being said, it does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also misleading because Csesznek is now in Hungary and Milvány → Hida, Sălaj in Romania (I presume after the Treaty of Trianon) so they could never possibly be a county. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am right, the article says it was in Doboka County but that was abolished in 1876, that article is very much a stub, so no point redirecting it there, I presume the counties were reorganised somehow. Under the Treaty of Trianon it was handed from the Kingdom of Hungary to Romania. I can't find it on the 1886 map here, for which I updated to make a four colour map some years ago(actually it's five if you are picky and say Lake Balaton is a fifth colour, but you can colour it lilac if you wanted). Anyway it's not on there. Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew:, sorry, I do not understand the above remarks. What county was located where and when? Why do we speak of the Treaty of Trianon and Doboka County??? This county (the "County of Csesznek and Milvány") never existed - I may be stupid, but I thought that this fact is the proper argumentation for deleting it. Borsoka (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: indeed, I think we're agreed that it is wrong. It is whether it is useful to an English-speaking audience'. I don't think it is, bot others might chime in with external references etc saying it is. There is a difference between wrong and useful: I would have thought the whole point of an encylopaedia is for someone who is intelligent but ignorant to look up and search something they didn't know, and learn something. When I don't know something I look in a reference book, what do you do? Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew:, sorry, I still do not understand your approach. How could a redirect page about a never existing county be useful to anybody? Could I create a redirect page Budapest, Tolbuhin-körúti Vásárcsarnok (Viking god and Orthodox church), because I think it can be useful? Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: because people hear something and then search for it. As James Thurber said in Fables for Our Time, don't get it right, just get it written. Erroneous terms are fine, it is whether it is useful. I said so right at the top of this. But sometimes things are wrong but useful. I did my homework, I supplied a map of the counties of Hungary, explained why, looked up the articles, what more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have created this redirect page erroneously. Since the original article has been deleted there is no point in retaining the redirect page. I second deletion.--Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Csesznekgirl: you can take this as WP:CSD#G7, author requests deletion. I am not sure if you will succeed with that when this discussion is open, but I think we have consensus to delete it. Worth a try anyway. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite busy in real life now, and not sure how to proceed with that, but if someone takes it there I will sign the request. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took it there. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2015 (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.

Armored Wankball[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, WP:CSD#G10 and WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I couldn't find any notable uses of this phrase, this should be deleted per WP:RNEUTRAL. Tavix |  Talk  03:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vandalism/tasteless joke.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel. I imagine this was created by a UK person who dislikes American Football being called simply "Football" as opposed to soccer which is generally called "Football" in the UK. So, WP:POV and WP:WORLDWIDE come into play. Si Trew (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2015 (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.

When was the Berlin Wall built[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 28#When was the Berlin Wall built

Flood chords[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. (Although as an engineer who plays the guitar, I wish "flood chords" was a genuine technical term.) Deryck C. 16:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing because there isn't anything at this disambiguation by the name of "Flood chords" and because you won't find the chords for any of the "Flood" songs due to fact that Wikipedia is not a chord website. Tavix |  Talk  02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing wrong with sheet music, are you going WP:PROMO then? I don't know much about music but the first thing that popped into my mind is it was some kind of minor chord, but we don't have flood chord if that is some musical term, but doesn't seem to be. It was sung, it seems, by Take That, so that's a possible retarget, I've not checked yet if it's mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...except that Wikipedia cannot host but the barest of musical information on songs per WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia is not a site that teaches people how to play songs. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're qute right with all that. I just tend to cast around and throw out suggestions because once in a blue moon I hit the nail right on the thumb and it snowballs to what I suggested. Not in this case, though, I think. Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing to think about when it comes to redirects is that Wikipedia does have a search feature that displays relevant results. Would a redirect get in the way of that? I find that using Wikipedia's search feature more as one would use Google could be more beneficial at times than having a redirect. Redirects can therefore be harmful if, especially in the case of new users, it's not clear that one can simply research that phrase using Wikipedia's search feature without being taken directly to a page that someone decided it should point to. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, although refs 55 and 56 are the Flood Nomination for something or other. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it really is a musical term, which I'm pretty sure it isn't, then having it redirect to flood is unhelpful. Liam987 talk 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have the chords for any of the songs listed on that dab page, so a user searching for that will not be helped. My first thought was not musical though, but fluvial - assuming it was something to do with flood relief channels (artificial), or perhaps channels that flow only during flood in a braided river. Searching seems to suggest though that this is not a term in widespread use and so wouldn't make a good redirect here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and everyone else. Not a musical term, at least not that I'm familiar with, possibly power chord or open chord but then it's very colloquial and I couldn't say which, so delete anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2015 (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/2015_April_19&oldid=1136448207"