Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 23, 2015.

Poo pooed[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 all. Everybody want them changed, with a slight majority favouring deletion over retargeting to pooh-pooh. Deryck C. 19:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frankly, it's silly, immature, and childish to have these redirects to a dab. I don't see how they are helpful or useful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Pooh-pooh. I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia did not have an article for the informal fallacy known as "pooh-pooh", so I went ahead and created the article. I think most of the search terms listed above refer to the act of committing this informal fallacy (with the possible exception of "poopoos"), so I would redirect them to the article for "pooh-pooh". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment: As the article for pooh-pooh explains, "poo-poo" is an alternate spelling of "pooh-pooh" used by some sources. Per WP:RPURPOSE, reasons for maintaining redirects include "[c]losely related words" and "[a]lternative spellings". Therefore, it would seem only natural that a person searching for "pooh-pooh" (the fallacy) may type one of the phrases listed above. Whomever closes this discussion should also take note that the delete voters have not cited policy in their opinions. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per User:Notecardforfree. Thanks for making the stub. We're WP:NOTDIC and this is mostly used as a verb, but it can be used as a noun to describe the act or result of pooh-poohing. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baaaaaah! Sorry Delete per General Melchett. Or the Major will Poo-poo the poo-poo or something like that Captain Darling...--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Pooh-pooh per above. Nice catch. --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - more unlikely or unnecessary modifications. Actively harmful because as the discussion above shows, there are multiple possible targets, and these all obfuscativeinglyness the search engine. However I'm pleased that we got pooh-pooh out of this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Ivanvector. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with the new article, I still favor deletion Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, obviously. BMK (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, why is this obvious? Do you think these are "[c]losely related words" per WP:RPURPOSE? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:00, 24 November 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.

Blackishgray[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 8#Blackishgray

The World, the Flesh and the Devil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 8#The World, the Flesh and the Devil

Women's Mogul Skiing[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. 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't mentioned at the target article. From a bit of research, it looks like this is an event at the Winter Olympics, and I suspect other notable events as well. (Contrary to the target article's claim, apparently not the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships.) If there's only one notable competition in women's mogul skiing, it may be appropriate to retarget there. Otherwise, delete until we can describe the topic, such as is done at Women's association football or Women's basketball. I note that we don't have Women's skiing or Women's alpine skiing. BDD (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no specific mention of a women's event (or female event, etc.) at the target.
  • Conversely, we don't have Men's skiing or Men's alpine skiing either. I guess that the rules, techniques, history etc. of those sports do not differ enough to merit separate articles, in a way they do for those BDD mentions and e.g. Women's boxing (but not men's boxing, Men's association football).
  • Men's basketball is a redirect to Basketball, which I guess is not perfect as the target is not speficially (but mostly) about men's basketball; a section and a {{main}}to Women's basketballis specifically called out in the article, so to have it otherwise would be worse.
  • Women's tennis is a one-paragraph stub of three short sentences (supported by ten references!), none of which says what women's tennis actually is or how it differs from men's (e.g. in the number of sets played).
So there are, quite rightly, differences in approach here for different sports: for the skiing ones, the qualifier for "women's" seems unnecessary. Stats <1/day; no links beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(In fact, they won't be able to read about women's mogul skiing there, and that's part of the problem. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
If there is no article in this namespace to begin with, then removing the redirect doesn't affect anything one way or the other except that KEEPING the redirect will mislead those who DO type "Women's mogul skiiing" into believing that when they get to Mogul skiing, that there will be something about women there. Which, if there isn't, is perhaps a shame, but doesn't mean we should maintain a misleading redirect, no? KDS4444Talk 11:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. We don't disagree here. The point is that if there were substantial content about women's mogul skiing there, this redirect wouldn't be a problem. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 1 December 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.

Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital[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) 16:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section that doesn't exist any longer anyway, and with an incorrect name to boot (lists? List should have been sufficient). Fram (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the notable death section, no reason to remove it. See for instance, NewYork–Presbyterian_Hospital --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RAN has been told on a number of occasions that we don't do lists of deaths by hospital. (When consensus went against him in Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital#Notable deaths he created the fork Stuyvesant Polyclinic in order to reinstate the death list.) I have reverted his restoral to the Polyclinic article, and have removed the Notable Deaths section (also by him) from the NY-P article. The redirect cited here should be deleted, and RAN told in no uncertain terms not to recreate these sections or create new ones. BMK (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing and per the discussion BMK mentions, a list should have some pretense at being complete, and I would assume more than five people died there, whether they were in themselves notable or not.
Notability is not inherited: because a notable person dies somewhere, does not make that place notable, nor is an WP:OR list of such people notable. But despite being called "list articles" and "set index articles", really these kinds of pages are not articles. An analogy was made to "notable residents" which I think is valid, though, in that sections don't have to meet the standard of notability as if they were separate articles. (For that matter, we'd be hard pressed to have a "See also" section were that the case.) Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RAN just recreated this as a list article, despite the fact that the RfC on Lists of notable death in hospitals is running 17:2 against them [1], and despite that 8 Arbitrators have expressed the opinion that turning a redirect into an article is a violation of RAN;s topic ban on creating articles anywhere on Wikipedia. [2] I've reverted. BMK (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have converted it back into a list, since the information was considered not appropriate to list deaths within an article on a hospital. I have preserved the RFD tag, but the issue should be handled as a list for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't warrant a separate article either. Where people died (in what hospital) is not a defining factor. List people for things they are known for, not for sad trivialities. Fram (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no point in such a list— no one is ever going to enter it as a search term, and the topic itself isn't notable or interesting any more than "list of people who got indigestion after eating at Hamburger Mary's on the corner of Santa Monica Blvd. and Kings St. between June of 1983 and October of 2010" which I am suggesting NOT be made into a list though no doubt it might include two or even three notable people. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This seems to be one of those times. KDS4444Talk 14:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the result of the RFC (BMK has linked it), where consensus was overwhelmingly against individually listing people who have died at hospitals. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consensus against the idea of such a list is pretty clear and it is an unlikely search term. This redirect was created in order to provide attribution for an edit made to another article, which is completely unnecessary in this case. Hut 8.5 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hut 8.5's comment's first sentence. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 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.

New College Compact[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. 19:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an education plan of Clinton's, but it's not mentioned at her article, nor at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 or Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Education. BDD (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK - if we don't have content about it then it's a misleading redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the redirect. I believe at the time there was a mention of the New College Compact in the article, though it's been a while so I can't say for sure. Either way, I don't feel strongly about whether the redirect is deleted or not. — Hunter Kahn 18:57, 23 November 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.

Enn Uil[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. 19:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this redirect gets ever used, doesn't seem to be a used pseudonym nor a likely typo Fram (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending explanation - Rich Farmbrough created it, I believe he probably had a good reason, though I can't reason what. Looks like maybe a phonetic redirect, but not any phonetic alphabet I'm familiar with, and the way I would pronounce these two names is not very similar. If not for who created it, I would tag it WP:G1 patent nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an alternative name listed at VIAF. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Neat. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORRED may come into play here. Library authority control has some important differences from Wikipedia practice, and foreign transliterations of names are frequently recorded. See, for example, the record for William Shakespeare. Many of these forms would not be accepted as redirects, such as Vilyam Shekspir or Tsikinya-chaka. In this case, the only authority record I see linked to her VIAF is the ISNI one, which includes forms in other scripts, such as Arabic and Japanese. Perhaps it can be demonstrated that she was known this way in English, but I'm skeptical. It looks like a romanization of a foreign form. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not harmful though. A naming authority outside of Wikipedia gives this as a proper alternate, we didn't just make it up here, and I doubt this could refer to anything else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. It's a Russian transliteration. Since she has no affinity with the Russian language, I see no reason to go against our norms here. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a back-transcription of Энн Уил, which is also a standard Russian transcription for many similar-sounding names (e.g. Anne Will, also a journalist, with a similar lack of association with the Russian language as Anne Weale). Furthermore, anyone who speaks Russian would search for Энн Уил rather than transcribing it, while anyone who speaks English would never come across that except in contexts where either woman's real original name is already mentioned. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 210 is correct that it's a standard transliteration of Энн Уил, however there is a good chance that someone would not enter Энн Уил, but Enn Uil, because they would expect to need the Latinization. Anne Weale is translated into Russian, for example "Медовый месяц в пустыне". And lastly, it's a redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Again, I know personally that the librarians who create authority records are using very different standards than our own. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 2 December 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.

WPT:GGTF[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, G7. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect from the main space to Wikipedia space. Recently created, WPT is not a standard namespace abbreviation (I couldn't find other WPT redirects, but the search is not too good for this kind of things). Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Presuming it is a pseudo-namespace, then WP:RFD#D6 cross-namespace redirect applies; if not, then I suppose, technically, not (D6 only applies to mainspace redirects), but I hope we still use common sense. Perhaps it's just a slip: WT:GGTF redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • D6 applies if it is not a pseudo namespace, and it doesn't seem to be listed as one. Fram (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WPT is not a pseudonamespace, it's probably intended as either WikiPediaTalk or WikiProjectTalk, but neither is valid. The Wikipedia talk: pseudonamespace is WT:, and there aren't special namespaces (or pseudonamespaces) for Wikiprojects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 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.

Snowclose[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 withdrawn to avoid a snow close. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D6: "cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." -- Tavix (talk) 08:11, 23 November 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 nicknames for Farmers[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. These redirects imply a list of nicknames, but there isn't one to be found at that article. -- Tavix (talk) 07:29, 23 November 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_November_23&oldid=1138580688"