Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2015.

(Shari'a)[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) 14:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 23:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not much help from MoS

WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS does not comment on parens, and there is nothing in WP:TITLE saying they are reserved for use as WP:NATDABs, that is in fact the practice. So here we have an empty but disambiguated title. MOS:LINK also seems peculiarly quiet on the matter of whether (Shari'a) should be written as (Shari'a), beyond WP:NOPIPE saying "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term", i.e. in this case that [[(Shari'a)]] should be preferred to [[Shari'a|(Shari'a)]]. But this redirect is not in fact used anywhere, so the point is moot (were it to be deleted, it would not be possible to use it). Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 3 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.

Jihad abou-georgi[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) 14:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is (perhaps oddly enough) a person's name, anyway, the person in non-notable and not related to the target topic. - TheChampionMan1234 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 00:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see it as a particularly odd name, really, we have plenty of English language names that are similarly martial. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 3 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.

Facts on horses[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) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can just imagine someone typing this in the search box, but if we retain this as a search term, we would logically have redirects called "Facts on [everything else]" as well. Er, no. – Wdchk (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 00:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles are facts about x, where x is the name of the article; unlikely search term, since the purpose of articles is to present facts -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also searched for articles starting "Facts about" but fortunately came back empty-handed. Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:58, 3 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.

Chipkali[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 10#Chipkali

Advertising (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. Conversation about the draft may continue elsewhere, but for now, there isn't consensus to bring it live as a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect doesn't target a disambiguation page, nor does one exist. (I had originally nominated this for speedy deletion, but it was declined.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Should be a dab page, or a redirect to one. (WP:DABNAME) – Wdchk (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an odd one – Advertising wasn't a dab page when this redirect was created, so perhaps the editor intended to make a dab page and it was put on the back burner? A search brings up several partial-title matches, some of which might be suitable as entries on a dab page, and the rest might fit into a See also section. – Paine  22:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 00:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found one other value that could conceivably appear, advertising.com -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (for now) as it doesn't target a disambiguation page. This should never have gotten declined as this is about as "uncontroversial maintenance" as you can get. As far as actually creating a disambiguation page, it can happen with or without the redirect. Everything else I see seems to be a WP:PTM, with perhaps an exception for advertising.com, but if another topic comes up, I think a disambiguation page would be useful. Perhaps we could create a WP:SETINDEX from those topics? -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert redirect to a dab page. It looks to me that the initial decline of a speedy was a good call, and that we should all be careful with our words – words that may be construed as a personal offense by some. There are already two prospective entries, and I've only glanced at the Special:PrefixIndex/Advertising list. I shall be happy to tackle this if it turns out to be the outcome. – Paine  15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth: I might agree to that. Would you want to create a draft? I think people would be more apt to go along with a dab if they actually see one. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I would. In these cases I sometimes begin on a page in my userspace. When I do that I'll link to it from here. As a member of the dab project I have learned that to do something like this right, it takes time. So please keep in mind that until it's ready for release into live mainspace, it will be a WIP. and should not be judged as if it's a finished product. – Paine  22:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to what I have so far: Advertising (disambiguation) – Paine  07:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than having a detailed discussion in this venue, feel free to discuss details about my sandbox version on the talk page of the sandbox. – Paine  13:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Paine, I appreciate it. I'm still not convinced that any of these other topics are known specifically as "advertising" though, which would make them WP:PTMs. However, I would support turning this into an Index of advertising because I can see the usefulness of this. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you, Tavix, since they are all partial title matches. The question might be, "Are they PTMs that are acceptable in accord with the editing guideline?" As I've explained in the Notes section at the bottom of the sandbox page, the ones I listed as direct entries are acceptable in accord with the PTM section of the guideline. Not to put too fine a point on it, it looks to me as if this is a dab page that's been needed for a good, long time. If I'd been aware of it before this nomination, I would have created it long ago. – Paine  23:46, 7 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.

Kia[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) 14:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-targeting: The redirect is not entirely identified on the target article Kia Motors. I propose the new target article KIA (disambiguation). Sawol (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. I've WP:BOLDly added {{redirect|Kia}} as a hatnote at the target. Kia (disambiguation) → the DAB at KIA, so that satisfies the nom, I would think. (I've also tagged that R as {{R to disambiguation page}}.) Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. Rubbish computer 11:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target to dab page. WP:COMMONNAME is not the issue here. If that were the only consideration, we would move the "Kia Motors" article to "Kia", but the move discussion for that was closed with no consensus. We need to consider whether "Kia Motors" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kia". When a reader types "kia" in the search box and hits enter, is it "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" that they are looking for "Kia Motors"? Alternatively, does "Kia Motors" have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with" the term "Kia"? Looking at all the possibilities on the dab page, it is not obvious to me that "Kia Motors" is the primary topic. – Wdchk (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite common to have a WP:DIFFCAPS, so I don't think retargetting it to the DAB at KIA helps anything: people looking for the car company are one click further to getting there; people who are not are one click closer (via the hatnote). It surely is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly the car is the primary topic. Adding "Motors" to that simply is natural disambiguation to indicate the topic is the company and not a particular model of car. There is no mononymous person named Kia, and most of the rest of the dab is acronyms, which are properly uppercase KIA. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last two !votes at the move discussion (which was only started on 20 July, and closed on 28 July) User:Sawol opposed, saying "This company is definitely not the primary topic for the word "kia". See "Kia (disambiguation).", and User:Wdchk also opposed "per Sawol". But that's confusing "Kia" with "KIA". WP:DIFFCAPS is fine here.
I think it's a case really that the move discussion did not get consensus because not enough people knew of it, hence it spilling here. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm suggesting a procedural close and the move discussion be re-opened at Talk:Kia Motors, copying the comments made here. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing "Kia" with "KIA": Yes, Si, I think you have put your finger on the point I am making. We, the people who take part in these discussions, desire to bring order to the world and we treat these as two different things. For many Wikipedia readers, however, the distinction is lost because they search in lower-case: "kia". Having said that, I would not go so far as to argue that we should treat this case differently than any other three-letter word or acronym. And if the consensus is that "Kia Motors" should be the primary topic for "Kia", well, that's why we have the discussion. – Wdchk (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Si Trew makes a good point. However, the move discussion didn't have that much participation, nor was this specifically the focus. Instead of re-opening the discussion there (whether this is canvassing or not), I suggest that simply notifying everyone who participated there, would suffice. That aside I think Kia should be Retargeted to Kia Motors.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the discussion might as well stay here now. I was doing my best not to imply accidentally that anyone was canvassing or in any way acting in bad faith: sorry if I failed to do so.
I agree with you about talk page discussions... there are all the guidelines for discussing things on the talk page, but who actually does so? Only those who are aware of the problem (i. e., essentially, watching the page) in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you didn't really mention or allude to canvasing specifically, I didn't mean to make it seem that you did: I wasn't suggesting bad faith by mentioning it, more or less bringing up whether it could pertain to this or could potentially fall under that umbrella. If the discussion had been about specifically redirecting the term, then maybe I'd lean that way. It wasn't, it was about an article move. The discussion there basically turned into a redirect discussion. That aside that particular page isn't really the preferable forum for a discussion on the redirect as it didn't direct there, it directed to the disambiguation. The best place for that is here. I'm going to be bold and notify the users that commented there with the intent to improve the quality of this discussion by broadening participation.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket posted a notification to everyone who participated in the move discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, etc. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME, most certainly. There's a precedent that major vehicle manufacturers are always primary topics. The best example is that Ford is a redirect to Ford Motor Company, despite competing with President Ford, Mayor Ford, and ford the river crossing (also Ford, the inventor of the assembly line and namesake of Ford Motor Company). If none of those articles can make a claim to primary topic for "Ford", none of the topics listed at KIA begin to even approach the distant horizons of the range of primary-ness for "Kia". As for the move discussion, you should talk to the closer if you think it should be reopened. It was not advertised in the article as it's supposed to be. But I think you'll find the result to be the same. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 5 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.

Previous Sheffield Tigers Seasons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Previous Sheffield Tigers Seasons

Mashin' Duck Records[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) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure this should redirect to Eminem. The only mention of this is in an infobox saying that this was one the record labels that he used (looks like in the mid 90s?). The name is also used at Soul Intent, Bass Brothers, Soul Intent (group), and Bassmint Productions. Since there is no content about the label at any of these places, I don't these redirects are helpful, if anything they're inhibiting searches. As such, I think it should be WP:REDLINKED so that someone searching for it can pick which article they want since all of those names will come up in the search engine. Also, this was deleted before, but as an article. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashin' Duck Records. -- Tavix (talk) 06:46, 2 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.

Keene West[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) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. I couldn't find any sources misspell his name in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 06:06, 2 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.

The Toxic Avenger (2015 film)[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) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Toxic Avenger" is a 1984 film. There is a section discussing a rumored remake, but as you can tell, it wasn't released in 2014 and won't be released in 2015. Delete per (a faulty) WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Tavix (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and because generates unnecessary confusion. Rubbish computer 11:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as harmless. These are both {{R to section}} and without prejudice to this discussion I have WP:BOLDly marked them as such, and made that explicit in the nomination. 2014 is skirted over in the section, which covers plans (rumours?) about the remake from 2013 until July 2015. I'll say explicitly that The Toxic Avenger (2013 film) is red. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguator implies that a film was released in 2014 or 2015, which isn't the case here. It looks like you feel into the trap of why it's confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It doesn't look like it was ever announced for 2014 or 2015, but maybe I'm missing something. Reach Out to the Truth 15:15, 5 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.

Next Bloc Quebecois leadership election[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) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't a good idea to have a redirect of the format "next (event)" as it will require maintenance, or in this case, remain outdated -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom and general consensus on "Next..." redirects. Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 11:24, 2 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.

Trillionaire[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 dabify. Thanks to Si Trew for the legwork. I've touched up the draft before moving it. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at target. This is a bit different from those at #Quadrillionaire, not only in its target but that there is a page at Trillionaire (song) to which the target hatnotes. There's no need, the song can be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I could make a technical speedy deletion request per WP:G6 "Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves", I hesitate to do so while we have all these others here. Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 2 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.

Parallels Desktop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Parallels Desktop

Quadrillionaire[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) 13:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange redirect it should be deleted along with quintillionaire, sextillionaire, septillionaire, octillionaire, nonillionaire and decillionaire which all redirect to millionaire. Marsbar8 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Who has a quadrillion dollars? Implausible search terms. Rubbish computer 11:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some Zimbabwean quadrillionares c. 2008. Check out Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: You are right but I cannot see this being a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, except for maybe a few hyperinflation examples, there aren't any "quadrillionares." Since none of these examples are mentioned in the article, it's confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added the others to the nom (and tagged them at their pages). Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got an edit conflict because I was doing the same thing... I'm also adding Quazillionaire and Gazillionaire for the same reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. We must have been coming in different directions as I added the tags at the redirect pages before adding the entries here, which I imagine you would have seen as you went through them, so I doubt you wasted too much work. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I saw the tags, but I just assumed that Marsbar8 added them. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most are at noise level, but Quadrillion slightly more, and Gazillionaire got 12 hits on 11 July for no reason I can discern from internal evidence (history etc.) Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 2 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.

Religious reformer[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 Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible target, and cannot identify at this time a likely one. Religious reformers are not exclusively Protestant, or even Christian. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But contradicting what I've just said, Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements (the first section) lists also Islamic Reformation, Catholic Reformation and Radical Reformation as non-protestant religious reformations – as well as several branches of the protestant reformation movement – so it's possible we could send it there.
So Weak delete as confusing, but I can see Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements as a possible retarget. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Reformation (disambiguation)#Movements per Si Trew – ambiguous phrase synonymous with Religious reformation. Since we lack such a general article on the subject, the suggested target will take most readers where they want to go. – Paine  12:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I change mine to weak retarget too, then. Si Trew (talk) 18:24, 2 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_2&oldid=1090659016"