Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 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, 2016.

Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

Spanish coins[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 retargeted to Currency of Spain, a new list I just created. The consensus here was to disambiguate, but this list contains all coins/currencies that would be in such a dab, so the consensus here has been satisfied. -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for input to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm reluctant to explicitly approve of CNRs, but I just can't see this disambiguated. Yes, the topics mentioned are Spanish coins, and yes, I suppose you could call any of them "Spanish coin". We could also call most products of Ford or Chevrolet "American car", but you wouldn't expect a list of them on a dab called "American cars". An article on Spanish coins and coinage without recentism would be desirable, so I could also support deletion. I could also support retargeting to Spanish euro coins, as we've done with other nationalities. But not disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Thryduulf and Lenticel. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2016 (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.

Auto accessories[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 retarget to Category:Automotive accessories, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply being a cross-namespace redirect is not a reason for deletion, and so I was set to recommend a keep here as Category:Automotive accessories contains a good explanation of what they are and what the category is. However, I then found Automotive accessories exists as a redirect to List of car parts, so I've added it above as they should both be pointing to the same place. I haven't found any likely targets other than the very generic list article or the specific category, but I could be missing some as I'm not very knowledgeable in this subject area. I think my preference is for the category, but it's very weak. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy with Gorthian's suggestion, as the two words don't seem (based on limited searching) to be used interchangeably in this context. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (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.

Advertising professional[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, to encourage content creation - Nabla (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The comments above have persuaded me that we don't have a single best-fit target. Deryck C. 16:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Most professions are notable, and this one certainly is. Even if there were no discouragement of CNRs whatsoever, I would expect "Advertising professionals" to be the way of seeking the category. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2016 (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.

IRC in Polymer Science and Technology[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to this redirect. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Links from other pages on the English Wikipedia (links from anywhere else are unrecorded) is only one of many ways a redirect can be useful. Firstly, this is a {{R from move}} which are routinely kept and secondly, the article starts "The Interdisciplinary Research Centre in Polymer Science and Technology is a consortium of..." and given that "Interdisciplinary Research Centre" appears to be a somewhat generic name for multiple such centres them being called IRCs is highly probable making the redirect a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the former name of the target, and there are still references to it all over the web ([1], [2], [3]), so it's a likely search term. — Gorthian (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2016 (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.

Into the Americas (2013 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no mention of a film entitled "Into the Americas" at the target article, and definitely not from years past. We should wait until a film of this nature is actually in production to create an article or redirect about the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The last one got a decent number of hits over the last year, but there's absolutely nothing to target it to. It's another film "in development" according to IMDB (with the date 2016), but Wikipedia can wait until/if it's notable. — Gorthian (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2016 (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.

Pichkari[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10#Pichkari

Tobagonian river[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 except Kentuckian rivers. Recreation of redirects to rivers of sufficiently similar names is left to discretion of individual users. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 Neelix redirects of the form (Inhabitant name) river -->List of rivers of (place name) Full list follows:

  1. Tobagonian river --> List of rivers of Trinidad and Tobago (edit | history | delete | links)
  2. Puerto Rican river --> List of rivers of Puerto Rico (edit | history | delete | links)
  3. Alabaman river --> List of rivers of Alabama (edit | history | delete | links)
  4. Arkansan river --> List of rivers of Arkansas (edit | history | delete | links)
  5. Californian river --> List of rivers of California (edit | history | delete | links)
  6. Coloradan river --> List of rivers of Colorado (edit | history | delete | links)
  7. Floridian river --> List of rivers of Florida (edit | history | delete | links)
  8. Georgian river --> List of rivers of Georgia (edit | history | delete | links)
  9. Hawaiian river --> List of rivers of Hawaii (edit | history | delete | links)
  10. Idahoan river --> List of rivers of Idaho (edit | history | delete | links)
  11. Hoosier river --> List of rivers of Indiana (edit | history | delete | links)
  12. Iowan river --> List of rivers of Iowa (edit | history | delete | links)
  13. Kentuckian rivers --> List of rivers of Kentucky (edit | history | delete | links)
  14. Kentuckian river --> List of rivers of Kentucky (edit | history | delete | links)
  15. Louisianan river --> List of rivers of Louisiana (edit | history | delete | links)
  16. Mainer river --> List of rivers of Maine (edit | history | delete | links)


Tazerdadog (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mainer river and Hoosier river, because these two demonyms are awkward when used to identify non-people objects. Keep others, they are useful and make sense. SSTflyer 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but Kentuckian rivers. Reminds me of Uruguayan frog et al. These are all phrased like proper nouns, and if a user is searching for a single river, they need to end up in the right place (which may be search results, if the river doesn't exist). "Kentuckian rivers" is fine because the target article is a list of Kentuckian rivers. I would not oppose retargeting others to rivers of a similar name: Alabama River, Arkansas River, Colorado River, Florida River, Iowa River, Kentucky River, and Maine River (Maine). They should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, though. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Kentuckian rivers, and delete the rest. We generally don't have "PLACENAME topic" as a redirect to "List of topic in PLACE", because it makes like "PLACENAME topic" is a specific class of items, rather than a subset of the topic located in that place; if it weren't a case of {{R from caps}}, Kentucky river wouldn't be a good redirect, because the rivers of Kentucky aren't particularly different from (and in some cases, they're identical to) the rivers of other states. However, because our article titles aren't generally pluralised, "PLACENAME topics" is exceptional, and the reader will expect it to discuss examples of the topic that are related to the place. Therefore, delete all the "____ river" titles. All that being said Relevant adjective forms make sense, so "Kentuckian rivers", with its plural title, is entirely reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Tazerdadog: You only tagged the first redirect (Tobagonian river). I just tagged the rest of them. Pppery (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't think it was necessary because they were all neelix redirects, but I will make sure to do that in the future. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2016 (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.

User:Laurencepavitt24[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 deleted, G11. It was technically a redirect since it had #REDIRECT[[Wikipedia]] at the top. However, underneath of it was promotional material for his YouTube channel, so I took care of it via G11. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has other content on the page, but I don't see why this is a redirect. The user seems to be a WP:SPA anyway. Don't know if it is applicable for WP:CSD G11, so that is why I sent it here. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (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.

Green-and-red[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. You can call it G6 and/or WP:SNOW. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neelix garbage. Green and red says Christmas to me, not a rare species of frog. Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - green and red = colorblindness to me. Also, I thought we had dealt with all of the neelix frogs? Tazerdadog (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2016 (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.

Draft:Universal space (topology)[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 deleted by Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect from the draft namespace. The speedy deletion request was declined by Nyttend. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; ordinarily, deleting redirects from moves produces linkrot with no benefit. Yes, cleaning up after pagemove vandalism means that we have to delete the bad titles, and there are other similar situations, but Draft:X ==> X doesn't warrant deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason to delete this. At the least, it aids the author in locating their article if they weren't aware of the move. However, a community discussion to either affirm or reject the de facto standard of keeping redirects from the draft space may be due.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a redirect I incorrectly created while closing an RM due to forgetting to use suppressredirect. It is orphaned and of no use to non-editors. SSTflyer 09:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G7, author requests deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per SSTflyer's explanation and Tavix's rationale.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. I misunderstood how this redirect was created. I thought someone had created it in draftspace, SSTFlyer had moved it elsewhere, and then the original title got nominated improperly here. Of course there won't be a problem with linkrot in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2016 (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.

🔫[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#🔫

Gaza Holocaust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10#Gaza Holocaust

Augustan couplet[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 for now, but a redirect can be recreated if sourced content is added to any related article about this concept. Article creation at this title is also welcome. Deryck C. 15:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Neelix redirect. The target article is a very short stub that doesn't mention the phrase "Augustan couplet" at all. This is not my area of expertise and I can't find any non-Wikipedia sources that make me sure if they are the same thing or not. There is also something called an "Augustan heroic couplet" but I don't know if that's the same thing or not (we have a heroic couplet article, but that doesn't mention them). Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd say it's somewhat dubious whether "Closed couplet" should be spun off from "Herioc couplet" at all. However (playing the devil's advocate) the article "Closed couplet" does make a distinction: "Closed couplet" only stipulates (a) 2 lines that (b) contain a complete sense. Thus even if they are not (c) rhymed and (d) in iambic pentameter (as in Heroic couplets) they would still qualify. Based on this distinction, it seems clear to me that "Augustan couplet" should redirect to "Heroic couplet" instead, as rhyme and iambic pentameter would be key components.
BTW: As far as I know, both "Augustan couplet" and "Augustan heroic couplet" are not in themselves distinct technical terms (that is, they don't denote special forms that lack another more common name), but are rather just terms of historical convenience (e.g. "you know, those couplets used by the people we're talking about from the Augustan period"). So I don't believe there could possibly be a technical distinction between "Augustan couplet" and "Augustan heroic couplet". Phil wink (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Phil wink: do you think you could add sourced content anywhere describing what an "Augustan couplet" would be? It seems like you are advocating for a retarget to heroic couplet, but without any indication of what an Augustan couplet is, that seems confusing to me. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've tried to explain, "Augustan couplet" is not a technical prosodic term, just essentially a nickname. It's whatever couplet was being used by Augustans. In English literature the Augustan period is roughly the first half of the 18th century, but it's a loose term, and is often used for a longer period (like "the 1700s"). The heroic couplet was "the dominant form for English poetry from ca. 1640 to ca. 1790." (Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics 4th ed. (2014) p. 623). There can be no doubt that if someone is looking up "Augustan couplet", they are referring to heroic couplets written during a loosely-defined period which almost exactly coincides with the dominance of this very verse form. "Closed couplet" is not strictly a wrong redirect, but given the choice is too broad. Heroic couplets are the precise subset of closed couplets that we would mean by "Augustan couplets". Hope that helps. Phil wink (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does help since you offered a source. I was hoping you could add information to the article specifically about the concept of "Augustan couplets" since it seems like you are the closest thing to an expert we have here at the time. I could probably look into it, but knowing nothing about the subject, I wouldn't feel as comfortable. If not, I'm sure the closer could use that source to add something if that's the route they decide to take. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems unlikely that this will be resolved until someone adds sourced content about the concept somewhere. My close of this as delete prior to the relist was not well received, but here we are a week and a half later, not really any closer to resolution. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, Thryduulf, any thoughts? As it stands, even with the RfD tag "freezing" the redirect, any reader using the redirect is not going to find the term mentioned. Phil stated "There can be no doubt that if someone is looking up "Augustan couplet", they are referring to heroic couplets written during a loosely-defined period". I think there can be substantial doubt about this statement. Someone who is familiar with the concept, sure, but what about a student seeking a definition? Or anyone who encounters the term in literature and wants to find its meaning? I admit to being quite frustrated here at how much concern for our readers seems to have been subordinated to bureaucracy. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really what needs to happen is that someone who understands the topic (I really don't) to add some content somewhere and then retarget this if (as seems likely) that is not the current target. If the redirect is deleted then nobody is educated, if it is retargeted without some content being added then many (most) people will figure out the concepts are probably related but not be very educated about them, but that is better than nothing I think. It seems from Phil's comments that an article at this title is desirable, so a redlink is not desirable. I think retargetting to heroic couplet is probably the best solution, even without added content. I'm most disappointed by the lack of input from the poetry project members. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete until we have content on Augustan couplets somewhere. Once there's content somewhere, then it should be kept/retargeted/restored/recreated depending on where and when this happens. Until then, such a redirect does not benefit our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2016 (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/2016_August_2&oldid=1143743329"