Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2017.

Schnabl (surname)[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 . [Keep per consensus below, as redirect is deemed harmless.] Jax 0677 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this redirect under WP:G6 as an unnecessary redirect to a {{surname}} page, and it was speedily deleted. It has since been recreated with the summary "restored technically necessary redirect to a surname page". I am also nominating Schnabel (surname) > Schnabel (see above) for the same reason. If I've missed a reason as to why redirects like these are needed, I would be happy to learn. Narky Blert (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose . Disambiguated page names are for a reason in such cases. Schnabl is basically a disambiguation page for people with different surnames. AFAIK is a bot sees somebody added a link [[Shnabl]] then DPLbot will warn the user as follows: User_talk:Staszek_Lem#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_11, so that the user must replace with exact link. However in some cases we may need to actually link to a disambig page. In this case, to suppress the message from bot, we explicitly link as follows: [[Shnabl (surname)]]. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schnabl is not a disambiguation page. (WP:SIANOTDAB.) -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
formally not but de-facto yes. People must link actual Schnabls, not their surname. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to reference the surname, then it's perfectly fine to link directly to the surname article. There's no rule against it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just slap a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} tag on it and move on. It's not harming anything. Deleting this redirect as WP:G6 is absolutely incorrect. I'm calling you out, RickinBaltimore. -- Tavix (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pee Tavix. I don't normally bother with creating such redirects, but they can be useful for example in avoiding potential future ambiguity in linking: we don't know if the surname index is going to stay at the primary topic forever. – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Surname SIAs are the perfect example of SIAs that are functionally almost the same as DABs, and these types of redirects are harmless. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:52, 17 April 2017 (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.

Jungle Book: Origins (2016 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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not released in 2016. Due to the use of "Origins" in the titles, the redirects are too precise to be retargeted elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (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.

Czechoslovakia in in World War II[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) 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as implausible typo. Loopy30 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2017 (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.

Alt-left[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) 19:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the term alt-left might, at some point, have referred to a regressive leftist (a term used by conservatives to refer to a liberal who, through desires to be inclusionist, embraces Islamism, despite the perceived inequalities espoused by that religion), the term no longer has that connotation, and instead has been adopted by conservatives as a response to references to the alt-right. There is certainly an article to be written about the newer use of the term, but until that article is written, this redirect doesn't appear to accurately reflect the modern sense of this term. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a quick google search corroborates WikiDan61's assessment. Regressive left appears to be a much more focused term.Onel5969 TT me 15:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A little history. Because there is an Alt-right, there was an idea that the world needs an Alt-Left for balance. In December last year some Fox News commentators began using the term Alt-Left to refer to some leftist fringe elements, but the term didn't take hold. If the term has any "connotations," they are subjective. The fact is, there is no Alt-Left. For that reason this redirect should be deleted in my humble but informed opinion. Chisme (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being used by Sean Hannity does not constitute "taking hold." Chisme (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does alt+left do anything notable when using a keyboard? Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Steel1943: There is no standard Windows definition for that key combination, so any functions it performs on a Windows-based program would be software specific. I'm unaware of any uses within other operating systems. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I've added a couple variant redirects to the nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more note, Alt-liberal, Alt-liberalism, and Alt-liberals also redirect to Regressive left. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia editors have too much left bias, recently manifested in blocking of right wing daily mail as source. When there is an article for Alt-right, article alt left is missing. There are sources like forbes, the hill etc to support alt left. This redirect should stand until separate article is created for that. Also Regressive right redirects to Alt Right article. Crashed greek (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Crashed greek: I have no doubt that Wikipedia should have an article about the alt-left, in the current sense of the word (a term used to describe liberals who are perceived to oppose any conservative thought solely because it is conservative, used largely in the context of the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump). But the present redirect to Regressive left makes no sense because the regressive left is not the concept embodied in the present sense of "alt-left". Nor is the Alternative Left. We desperately need an entirely new article on the topic of alt-left as embodied in current politics. (This may or may not be a US only thing; I'm not aware whether the term alt-left has found a foothold in other English-speaking countries.) The Forbes link that you provided is to an article that describes an entirely different kind of alt-left: a sub-movement within the conservative movement itself that attempts to bring a centrist voice to the conservative movement. The article from The Hill speaks more to the present sense of alt-left. And perhaps here in itself is the problem: while alt-right has a concrete meaning (there is a group of people who actively identify themselves as alt-right and have defined their philosophy in this sense), alt-left has no such concrete meaning because there is no one group that has self-identified as alt-left; the term is merely used as a pejorative epithet by conservatives who wish to denigrate those who disagree with them. As such, one could create an entire article on the evolution of the word and its usages in modern political discourse, but no single redirect will properly capture the term's meaning. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Crashed greek writes above, "There are sources like forbes, the hill etc to support [the] alt left." But if you read the Forbes article, you'll see it's a refutation of the Hill article. The Forbes article says, "I do not find the evidence presented in this piece (the Hill article) to be particularly convincing in proving the main claims, which are 1) that an 'alt-left' similar to the Alt-Right exists and 2) that it is waging anything like a 'cyber Jihad.' One protest, some personal hurt feelings, a few anarchist accounts on Twitter, and some claimed 'cyber intelligence' that is never actually presented does not an 'alt-left cyber Jihad' make." So the Forbes article doesn't "support the Alt-Left" -- it makes a convincing argument that the Alt-Left doesn't exist. Chisme (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chisme. An inevitable pejorative, but one without a fixed meaning right now. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:. It simply doesn't exist: 1) Unlike the alt-right, there are no individuals or groups who describe themselves as 'alt-left'; 2) The few people referring to an 'alt-left' are those who use the term as an implicit pejorative - similar to that of 'regressive leftism'; 3) There is no coherent group or movement which could be described as 'alt-left', nor any coherent definition of what an 'alt-left' group or ideology might entail which differentiates itself from so-called 'regressive leftism'; 4) The presence of an 'alt-right' does not necessitate the presence of an 'alt-left', because even past the basic criticism that axis paradigms of ideology are borderline meaningless, there is no need for 'balance' within that axis system. Moosetorpedo (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this isn't a thing. As BDD said:"An inevitable pejorative, but one without a fixed meaning right now." Neutralitytalk 01:33, 20 April 2017 (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.
  • Delete +1 to many arguments above. --Jensbest (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Van Buren Democrat Party[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. It seems we've decided that the current target doesn't work and we can't decide on an alternative target. That leaves deletion, which has some support, along with the arguments that the phrase isn't official by any means and may be too novel for a redirect. (FWIW: "Van Buren Democrat Party" isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia) -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am NOT proposing deletion. This would be a very useful and encyclopedic redirect. . .if it were targeted somewhere else. The current target isn't good enough, though I am open to a section on that page. I think there are a lot of possible articles we could retarget this to. But the redirect as it stands is inadequate. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • But where? At different points in his life, Van Buren was associated with the Democratic-Republican Party and the Free Soil Party besides the modern Democratic Party, so any of those three could be referred to with this label, if with varying degrees of accuracy. Additionally, Albany Regency lists a few factions he was involved with. I think only Martin Van Buren itself provides the best access to all of these articles, but retargeting there doesn't feel right at all. The phrase itself has very little footprint outside of Wikipedia; phrases like "Van Buren's Democratic Party" have much more usage, but obviously just refer to the Democratic Party under Van Buren.
tldr: I appreciate the desire to retaget, but I'm unsure of a good place for it, and wonder if this is too novel a term. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since apparently, the redirect is ambiguous and possibly not an "official" alternative name for any target. But, if the latter part of my statement turns out to be false, disambiguate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2017 (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.

Delta connection[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 28#Delta connection

Fall from Grace (2014 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This film still hasn't been released, so it's not a 2014 film. -- Tavix (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2017 (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/2017_April_12&oldid=1044888709"