Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2015.

Deadnaming[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. The consensus below was that redirects are cheap, so we should keep this redirect of a phrase towards the article about its original context. Deryck C. 13:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be in use anywhere within the encyclopedia (by looking through the search function) accept within this article in quotes (""). It should be avoided as it is a neologism anyhow, per MOS:NEO. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and even if this to be viewed as a neologism, that doesn't make it an undesirable redirect given deadnaming is unquestionably a form of transphobia and is referenced in the target article. Resolute 23:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, it's a neologism, but what else would you call it? It's mentioned at the target article, and it's covered in the context of vocabulary related to transphobia. See also use–mention distinction. Using the term a great deal would probably not be MOS compliant, but mentioning it at the target article here is just fine. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful redirect for discussing the neologism. Also a useful link in discussions. Skyerise (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And since when was Wikipedia a dictionary? WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While modern usage (as current redirect) is well substantiated per above, but I also found a few mentions of "dead-naming" in medieval folklore contexts [1][2][3][4]. I can only see one or two lines around the search, so I am uncertain how notable this usage is, and just laying them out here for everyone to check. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The last source seems to be about Hawaiian mythology, so we could be looking at three different uses here. But I can't tell what "dead-naming" means in these contexts from the excerpts I'm seeing on Google books. Can you? Personal name says that "In some Polynesian cultures, the name of a deceased chief becomes taboo", which may be related to the last link. There could be a connection to the Jewish superstition also mentioned at that article. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. deadname goes to the same target. Dead name and Dead naming are red. If nothing else, WP:TITLE says titles should be nouns, and if deadname serves the purpose, this is redundant but harmless as {{R from alternate spelling}}. "Deadnaming" possibly as an agent noun or gerund, or verbal noun, but to me that is pushing it. The clue is in the duscussion: a WP:NEOLOGISM: a nonce word. Si Trew (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice, I have marked deadname as {{R to section}} (Deadnaming already was). Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned at target. NEOLOGISM is transparently inapplicable here since we're not talking about an article, and if anyone bothered to read NEO before invoking it, they'd see this is because actual neologisms lack sources, and thus we don't have enough material to write an article. a) there are sources, so it's unambiguously not a neologism, and b) this isn't an article, so the volume of content is irrelevant. I wish people would take the time to read and understand things before invoking them. WilyD 08:14, 22 June 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.

Uc davis blue[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 deleted by Just Chilling. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target isn't appropriate as "Navy blue" doesn't discuss UC Davis at all. The blue that UC Davis uses is called "Aggie blue," not "UC Davis Blue," so I'm not sure that this is even a (notable) color or a likely search term. I'd like to see this either deleted because it has the potential to cause confusion (WP:RFD#D2) or possibly retargeted to UC Davis Aggies#Colors, mascot, and spirit as an {{R from incorrect name}}. I will note that we don't have Aggie Blue, Aggie blue, Aggie Gold, Aggie gold, UC Davis Gold, or UC Davis gold. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. If the colour is indeed notable, then an article can be written about it. I feel that it's probably not notable, but commenters in the AfD seem to think that university colours often are, so it's up to consensus. Whether it is or not, it is not mentioned at navy blue making it an apples-to-oranges redirect, and it should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: I don't think a WP:REDLINK deletion would be appropriate because the topic was found to be non-notable in that AfD. Your second point is a good thought though, I didn't think about WP:RFD#D5. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair; delete just per D#5 then. REDLINK isn't an argument that we should create the article, and if consensus says we shouldn't, then so be it. I think it's a borderline case anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would still be an apples-to-oranges redirect. Consensus from the Afd is that "UC Davis Blue" is not navy blue, and it's not discussed at the target. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 25 June 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.

Bobochacha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 27#Bobochacha

Olcay Kılavuz[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 12:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though apparently a leader of this organization, he's not mentioned at the target article. Delete unless we can include him there; I'm only getting Turkish results in Google, so I don't feel comfortable proceeding myself. BDD (talk) 18:37, 18 June 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.

Orioles–Blue Jays–Cardinals[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) 13:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirected to a section called "Battle of the Birds," but that isn't actually a rivalry. The Toronto Blue Jays and Baltimore Orioles have a rivalry because they play in the same division (it's overshadowed by a bigger rivalry, but still). The St. Louis Cardinals, however, are in a different league than the Orioles and Blue Jays and only play them once every three years or so (since 1997). The Cardinals and Orioles (then known as the "Browns") used to both be based in St. Louis before the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1953/4, but even then, the only "rivalry" took place in the 1944 World Series. I can't think of anything significant happening between the Cardinals and the Blue Jays (besides THIS and maybe the Colby Rasmus mega-deal?) The Battle of the Birds is actually a Scottish fairytale, but if there ever was one in Major League Baseball, my money would be on the San Diego Chicken. Tavix| Talk  16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this apparent rivalry is not mentioned at the target. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like the remnants of an effort to invent a "rivalry" on the trivial basis of the teams having bird-related nicknames. Resolute 23:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could live with a Blue Jays-Orioles rivalry (since such a thing actually does exist). Cardinals are a non-factor here. Canuck89 (talk to me) 09:12, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
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.

French civil unrest[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 newly created article List of riots and civil unrest in France. I have previously relisted this discussion on June 27 but it was pointed out to me that it is unnecessary. Deryck C. 20:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not the most notable instance of French civil unrest (cf. WP:RECENTISM). --BDD (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. I would want "French riots" retargeted to such a list too. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70.51, Knocked up a draft, at Draft:List of French civil unrests. Needs a lot of filling in. Haven't even got to their blatant incivility at the Battle of Trafalgar, for example. Could have knocked a man's eye out. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) (Still on the Shipping forecast, though...) Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of riots is a good start, but (rightly) doesn't mention most of the French ones specifically, that's kinda WP:UNDUE and rightly so, so a list specifying them I think is a good idea. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: I named it that way because the category I was working off used that language. I threw in riots at the last minute and then removed "incidences of" because it seemed redundant to me. I'm fine with removing the riot part, but I feel like the category should be renamed if we do that. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 22 June 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.

Charles de Gaulle (grandson)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 27#Charles de Gaulle (grandson)

Genericore[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) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this for deletion as it is completely unencyclopedic. --MASHAUNIX 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK - possible that an article could be created. Genericore is a term used negatively to describe metal music that sounds like all other metal music, thoroughly uninteresting and uncreative. Targeting this to a specific label could be WP:G10. Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D3 as it could be considered offensive or abusive. -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but for a different reason, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. (These reasons are additive.) I was looking around, just in case, for a nuclear core that may be generic or had the semiconductor germanium as a stabiliser, and a Gallium Arsenide makes a good transistor, what used to be called a core (disambiguation) before the invention of transistors (they were mostly ferrous or ferric). I think it is confusing, and too far away to be useful. I found nothing. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 21 June 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.

relative dualizing sheaf[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) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong redirect; the target does not discuss the concept. Taku (talk) 11:47, 18 June 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 Pakistani heads of state or government[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 27#List of Pakistani heads of state or government

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_18&oldid=1142587173"