Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 13, 2016.

2017 Atlantic hurricane season[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 there seems to be consensus that an article should be created at this title, so that article will be restored. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate article about the upcoming season was redirected to tropical cyclone naming, which includes very little information on the season (only a list of names, to be precise). Either the article should be restored as a future-class article for the remaining 18 days until the start of the 2017 Atlantic tropical cyclone year or the redirect should be retargeted to Atlantic hurricane season, which at least gives more useful information on the topic of an Atlantic hurricane season than a list of names. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – There are also redirects for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Dustin (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those I would prefer handle separately; my main issue with this redirect is that it's supplanting a legitimate future-class article over something that "starts" within a month. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ks0stm: Officially, the season only starts on June 1, 2017, though tropical cyclones forming from January 1 onwards are still considered part of the 2017 season. ~ KN2731 {talk} 03:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's exactly what I was getting at. The season article should be created in time for the tropical cyclone year, not for the limited June-November season, since people are likely to search for 2017 season information in 2017, or even just before. The only information the current target gives is a list of names that may be used. Ideally the article would be restored, but as an alternate the redirect should be retargeted as I specified in my nomination. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is currently a discussion on Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season regarding restoration to a future-class article. ~ KN2731 {talk} 03:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree that the article should be restored yet when there is not any significant coverage of the season on either google or google news. I do not disagree with Ks0stm's thinking that this is a legitimate article, however, i seriously question the need to have the article before say March, April or May, when only 2 forecast agencies have provided details on what they think the season will do.Jason Rees (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are 2 forecast agencies that have provided details, then the article page should be created. In two weeks, the fact that there has not been any Atlantic tropical storms will be a fact the article should declare. Not starting this page until the millisecond it's no longer talking about a notable future event and is talking about a current event seems unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this for sure, there have already been numerous forecasts released, so the article should be created. Jdcomix (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have not been numerous forecasts released by scientific agencies predicting what the AHS will do. There's only been two and those do not contain much information which isn't speculative and reliable. As a result I fail to see why we should be creating the article so early.Jason Rees (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why two weeks is "so early".--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article should be created. What is the harm in making the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cinderella & Other Stories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 21#Cinderella & Other Stories

63rd Nova Scotia general election (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) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not ambiguous, delete per disambiguation convention. See also User talk:117Avenue#Election redirects. 117Avenue (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a redirect with "(disambiguation)" in the title that does not redirect to a dab page, nor is there an appropriate dab page available.— Gorthian (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, wrong-number dab pages are a rather ingenious method of resolving the eternally irritating problem of Nova Scotia election numbering — much better than the idiotic idea I came up with (and more wisely self-dismissed) of just slashing them all as "40/62/63". But indeed, a dab page doesn't really need to exist until there actually are two items to dab. Delete, without prejudice against recreation as a dab page once the creation of the next-next election's article actually justifies it. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:'Adan Governorate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Category:'Adan Governorate

Harambe mcharambeface[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, also per WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference to a hoax, an allusion to the "Boaty McBoatface" naming controversy of the target article, that a Chinese zoo named a baby gorilla "Harambe McHarambeface". The target section no longer exists, and probably should never be restored. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: If memory serves, I created this redirect after an initial BBC News article about this, which was later updated by BBC News as a hoax. This is a good deletion.‑‑Dstone66 ⑆(talk)⑇(contribs)⑈ 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mela (1986) Original Poster[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) 17:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have redirects as this? Then we can have any alternative words as redirects. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Goed[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Delete as WP:RFD#D8. Hungarian, not a Germanic umlaut. Si Trew (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the Dutch, West Frisian and Afrikaans word for "good" and the soft mutated form of the Welsh word "coed" (wood, trees) but none of these are useful to en.wp and I can't find any other potential targets that are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet more User:Eubot crap, treating ä/ae, ö/oe, and ü/ue in all languages and alphabets as if every umlauted vowel is German. I'd bet the bot is generating similar nonsense with Scandinavian vowels like å and ø. (I know it's doing so with Wade–Giles transliterations from Chinese, turning ü into ue.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I dread to think what eubot might do with something like jõuluöö.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

George Wаlker Bush[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a mixed-script redirect, the "а" in "Walker" is A (Cyrillic), every other letter is in Latin script. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Welkom to my house[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 per WP:CSD#R3. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was deleted here per criterium R3, but was recreated by the original creator. The first line of the song, Welcome to My House, is already a redirect. Absolutely no reason to have a misspelt text line as a redirect. T*U (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Frjálshyggja[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) 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No particular affinity for Icelandic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Utterly pointless redirect, especially when the article links to is:Frjálshyggja, which is where anyone starting from the Icelandic word is likely to get to the English article. Narky Blert (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Womanish[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 a side note, I don't think X1 is necessarily restricted to pages only edited by Neelix, though such activity might indicate it's not a straightforward case for speedy deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Not plausible search term. Not X1 since it has been edited, but I can't seem to find an option other than deletion or a Wiktionary redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AC/DC (electrical)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 21#AC/DC (electrical)

Centre to Centre-right[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Centre to Centre-right

Democratic organisation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Democratic organisation

Definitions of democracy[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 Types of democracy. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC while we do have other articles with similar titles, there is no appropriate target. An article may be created if this is proven to be an encyclopedic subject. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eleven Jinping[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) 17:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title associated with certain event [1]. People searching for this will almost certainly be looking for this certain event, which is not notable. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Antiliberalism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 21#Antiliberalism

Redirects containing "Cheif"[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need all of these redirects which misspell the word "chief"? Shouldn't the fact that Cheif redirects to Chief be enough? Having all of these redirects exist could lead to incoming links to the misspellings which may never be corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom It's not like Sheik which is more prone to spelling variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom We really don't need to anticipate every possible misspelling of every article and create redirects for them.Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them including "Cheif" - these are completely obvious misspellings. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't list Cheif here since it is both the base misspelling, and it leads to a disambiguation page, making it a bit helpful (in my opinion). Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Fabrictramp. I misguidedly created one of these in 2009 but agree wholeheartedly that we should not use redirects in this manner to try to make the Search results page obsolete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE - You missed Commander in Cheif, among several others. Once-upon-a-time, the search engine was such that we needed these - note the official template concerning misspellings. I did some searches for the nominated redirects, and the results weren't great. Is there an actual good reason that these should go? Otherwse, I believe we have a guideline about redirects for misspellngs which would trump IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. That same page has rules about when to delete redirects, as well. Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F. So in short, if you can show that improvements to the search engine mean that our readers no longer need these redirects, great. but unless that is true, I strongly oppose this, and since I don't see a policy reason to delete, the closer should side with the guideline argument over IDONTLIKEIT because consensus is not a vote. - jc37 18:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I've been using WP logged out for years now. Mostly via search engines and mobile apps. Redirects from misspellings are absolutely essential and critical to users to find what they want. The point of redirects isn't accuracy. That should be obvious. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all'. These redirects all correct a very common misspelling.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirects look like they could be plausible search terms for the pages. Feinoha Talk 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the search engine indeed does correct for ie -> ei error. You can't see it working because these redirects are in the way, but search for "cheif illiniwek" and you'll see what I mean. {{R from misspelling}} should be used for common misspellings where it's likely to be commonly typed incorrectly, like centrifical force, not just a blatant error, like centrifgual force. "Cheif" is a bit of both but it's more the second than the first, and since the search engine handles it now we should let it do its job and dispose of these, they do more harm than good. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as plausible misspellings. Some of these (at least Cheif justice and Cheif justice of India) have received more hits in the last 5 months than Ivanvector's example common misspelling centrifical force. Sideways713 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this level of hits shows evidence of utility, it's less than 1 per day over 90 days prior to the nomination for all of these pages. The difference with mine is that it's a common, plausible error that the search engine will not correct for. The few users (more likely bots) searching "cheif" in error will still get to the pages they're looking for if the redirects are gone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the default view presented by the stats tool (and what is linked above) shows only human views, bots are counted separately. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: really? I thought it just counted page loads, and couldn't differentiate between human readers and, say, webcrawlers. Has it changed? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: The old utility, stats.grok.se, could indeed not distinguish but the modern Pageviews tool on labs (I guess we've been using it for about a year?) has various options on the side, one of which is for "Agent" which filters views by the user agent string, which defaults to humans - see the FAQ. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, I'm learning a whole bunch of things this weekend about how our tools work. I suppose if they're actually in use then they should be kept. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete all The search box can now automatically correct the user's typos, proposing similar title matches, but I have no strong opinion and don't strongly favor one option over any other. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search box is only one of many different ways to search and browse Wikipedia, and even if you do use the internal search function suggestions are only provided if you are using a device with javascript enabled. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all - WP:RHARMFUL applies. I am seeing no real harm and plenty of benefits. Reversing two letters in the middle of a word is possibly the most common typo type. These seem entirely plausible typos. Just Chilling (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

(album)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid redirect, nothing to disambiguate, but Lists of albums would be a better target nevertheless. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget. This is getting an average of 44 hits every day (over 150 on some days) and was created by BDD with the summary that it appeared on WP:TOPRED and it's linked from three articles, so it's obviously performing some function. I don't understand what that is at present but I don't think that a redlink here is going to be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurs when someone messes up piping a link to an album article with an ambiguator. Having it bluelinked is not beneficial as it means the editor in question doesn't notice the link is broken. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Linked from three articles, and all three links are utterly useless. I haven't fixed them (which would be trivially easy), because they demonstrate the problem. Look at them, and see for yourself: Drinking Again, Joe Lee Wilson, and Secretly Canadian. Oppose retarget. Narky Blert (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cleanup issue. No one needs this to go to an overlinked common word. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Delete) as poorly formatted disambiguator --Lenticel (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_December_13&oldid=1138580879"