Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

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

Tucking in (parenting, food)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Tucking in (parenting, food)

Semantic Wikipedia[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. There's a split of opinion between outright deletion and retargeting to semantic wiki or DBPedia, but nobody wants to keep the redirect as it is. Default to delete. Deryck C. 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this was a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Semantic Wikipedia. I wouldn't recommend going back to that, but this concept isn't discussed at the Wikipedia article either. I suggest this be deleted or retargeted to DBpedia, which is essentially a Semantic Web version of Wikipedia (I'd still recommend it be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, though). --BDD (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a better solution. A red link may still be best to avoid giving the impression that "Semantic Wikipedia" is really a thing, but I'll allow that many readers may not distinguish between Wikipedia and wikis generally. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There isn't a "Semantic Wikipedia", so any retarget would give the wrong idea. I see the value in retargeting, but I just feel like it implies something "official" when there's not. (As an aside, I originally read it as "Semitic Wikipedia" and got confused for a brief moment.) -- Tavix (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My !vote is still weak, but it looks like TheChampionMan accidentally struck my "weak" in addition to his, and it was left there for a bit of time. Just leaving this note to clear up any confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Semantic wiki per Reach Out to the Truth. Confusing and conflating "wiki" and "Wikipedia" is very common among those who are not Wikipedians. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for now, any target is, at its best, confusing and/or ambiguous, especially to readers who want information on something specific that does not exist. - TheChampionMan1234 02:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There isn't a specific thing called the "Semantic Wikipedia", and the kinds of redirects that are being proposed I think would confuse people. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:43, 22 August 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.

Qantas.jp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Qantas.jp

List of Burst Digimon[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. 13:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such list at the target article; it would probably violate WP:NOTWIKIA. See also the batch of deleted redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12#List of Digimon. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 19 August 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.

Events of 1807–08[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) 14:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are misleading since they can give the reader the impression that the target article is the only event that happened in 1807 or 1808. Also, these redirects have no valid target unless 1807 and 1808 are merged, and given the structure of year-event articles, that makes no sense. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not the Ottoman Wikipedia, these aren't the only events from that time -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These redirects get *lots* of traffic, most likely from the various internal links that are all correct. We could change them to point to the correct target and come back in six months and see what the stats are like then, but they are unlikely to be zero (mirrors, archived versions, etc, etc). The Ottoman coups are the most notable events that spanned only these two years based on my research, so the best thing to do is to add a hatnote at the top of the current target linking to 1807 and 1808 articles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this seems far too vague for the current target. --Rubbish computer 12:27, 20 August 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.

Other Nations[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) 14:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding this specific term mentioned on the target article. Also, all search results I find for this are for organizations or book titles. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to vagueness. "Other" may exclude any nation under any criteria. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is not the Rugby League Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak retarget to Rest of the world which is a stub article that deals with multi-national sports teams in different sports and includes a link (in the see also section) to the current target. It needs significant work, but I think it's a better target than specifically related to rugby league. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this seems too vague to have a suitable target. --Rubbish computer 12:26, 20 August 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.

Fromagier[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Fromagier

Wikipedia:HOWTOs Index[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. 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12#Wikipedia:HOWTO. This redirect doesn't fit the new disambiguation page at Wikipedia:How-to, and its current target isn't exactly an index of how-tos, though it functions separately. Is this an acceptable CNR or should we delete it? I'm leaning the latter. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as seems plausible. --Rubbish computer 12:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you are looking for a listing of how-tos on Wikipedia then you will find it at the target location and it is the sort of page that people will have bookmarked for reference. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 20 August 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.

Red Fire[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) 13:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense for this to redirect to a video game Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really expected to find something about flame colours or similar, but red hot isn't really quite right and content about colour is scattered throughout the Flame and Fire articles, so I haven't found a good target. The only link is intended to lead to an article about a 2014 wildfire in Humboldt County, California that we don't appear to have content about (no idea about whether we should or not), but that is not enough to account for the traffic this redirects gets. There are a couple of Mario Kart-related hits on google but they are outnumbered by various small fire safety related companies, fashion boutiques and something to do with Pokemon. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 19 August 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.

Stuart Black[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 Stuart Black (athlete) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently an employee of Codemasters but not notable enough to be mentioned in article, request deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 19 August 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.

Paperboy[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 Paperboy (disambiguation) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect from "Paperboy" to Newspaper delivery is a bit narrow; especially since the article on Newspaper delivery only hints to Paperboy (video game) as an alternative. Instead, I think it would be better when a search for Paperboy would lead to the Paperboy (disambiguation) page, which also lists a bunch of movies, books and artists associated with the term, so I'd like to bring that issue up for discussion. Rh73 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Comment I didn't mean to imply that there is controversy and the need for lengthy discussion, in case I am supposed to interpret the notion of WP:SNOW as a wink that creating a discussion wasn't necessary in the first place. I'm fairly new and didn't know what's the standard/preferred way to improve this redirect myself, and assumed this might be the next best way to have more experienced editors have a look at it (since redirects don't have talk pages on their own). Rh73 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's not very clear. I mean to say I agree the dab page should be moved over the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow through a broken window is very chilling. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the barking dab chase the paperboy ... I mean, move the dab to the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move dab page over redirect per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 20 August 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.

Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom (disambiguation)[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) 13:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom (disambiguation) – Arbitrary break[edit]

Delete. Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom redirects to Ireland–United Kingdom relations, where there is a hatnote specifying the only other usage of that term: "For archipelago, see British Isles". Because the redirect includes unambiguous names for the states, it can only refer to either Ireland–United Kingdom relations or British Isles. The other entries listed at Great Britain and Ireland are not helpful. There are 42 other redirects that should be deleted for the same reason (they all unambiguously refer to the states). I have listed these here: User:Rob984/dis. Rob984 (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I undid that since encapsulating the nominations in "collapse" tags breaks the functionality of the section redirects in the redirects' RFD templates, as well as the edit notices that will be posted after this discussion is closed. (This issue is why I created the "Arbitrary break" section header; I agree, the amount of nominations causes readability issues, but the fix shouldn't break section redirects' functionality.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; thanks for adding them all. Rob984 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is fallacious to assume that "(disambiguation)" will be "typed in". It is quite possible for such an extension to be generated automatically, either by an external source or a template. Secondly the WP:pipe trick may well mean that someone types "…various meanings of "[[Republic of Ireland and Great Britain (disambiguation)|]]"… to give …various meanings of "Republic of Ireland and Great Britain"… All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Additional note it is standard procedure for every non-disambiguated disambiguation page to have a disambiguated redirect. This way deliberate targeting of the non-disambiguated disambiguation page can simply be moved to the disambiguated redirect to avoid having to repeatedly check for unresolved disambiguation in articles. The same principle applies here, although there is a convoluted alternative available. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The "various meanings" of "Republic of Ireland and Great Britain" are only Ireland–United Kingdom relations and British Isles, as this includes the name of a state so cannot refer to the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. The primary topic for "Republic of Ireland and Great Britain" is Ireland–United Kingdom relations, while British Isles is the only other use, covered by a disambiguation note at the primary topic. Any redirect to a disambiguation page—Great Britain and Ireland (disambiguation) or otherwise—is pointless as the only other use is already provided at the primary topic.
"it is standard procedure for every non-disambiguated disambiguation page to have a disambiguated redirect"
Correct, but the non-disambiguated disambiguation page is not related to these disambiguated redirects. Disambiguation is covered adequately at the primary topic. What is the point in redirecting to a disambiguation page—especially one with irrlevent entries—when disambiguation is already adequately dealt with at the primary topic?
Rob984 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, whose rationale seems very uncomplicated to me. These are malplaced (disambiguation) qualifiers because those same titles without the qualifier redirect to the relations article. The hatnote there implies only one other target, so there's no need for a disambiugation using these specific terms. (As an aside, the disambiguation is fine because the specific pairing of "Great Britain and Ireland" can mean more than those two things, and thus doesn't redirect to the relations article). -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 24 August 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_August_19&oldid=1037880271"