Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 30, 2017.

Hinduism in the Gaza Strip[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The current target is no good because the Gaza Strip isn't mentioned at all. I've looked though a couple other potential targets, such as Gaza Strip#Religion and culture and Demographics of the Palestinian territories#Demographics of the Gaza Strip and neither one of them mentions Hinduism, so they don't work either. That leaves deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gaza Strip#Demographics where the final sentence "Most of the inhabitants are Sunni Muslims, with an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 Arab Christians, making the region 99.8 percent Sunni Muslim and 0.2 percent Christian." will educate searchers that Hinduism is not significant in the Gaza strip (i.e. it's not that we're missing an article). Not perfect, but I don't think we'll get any better. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for everyone else that there is absolutely no content about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip at the target, so that target would still be actively misleading for anybody looking for information on this subject. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree that this would be "actively misleading" - the content there (and quoted above) makes it clear that Hinduism is not present in the Gaza strip - we do need to credit readers with the intelligence to note that (a) Hindus are not Sunni Muslims or Christians, (b) that 99.8% + 0.2% = 100%, and (c) that if 100% of the population are not Hindus then 0% of the population are. This is different from the e.g. Easter Island nomination the other day where it was not possible to conclusively infer anything about Hinduism in that locale (there was no information about any religions there). Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we've got another place without any Hindus, making this absolutely no different than any of the others that have been nominated. -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've literally just explained why this is different to the Easter Island nomination. I understand you disagree with my conclusion, but there is no need to pretend that I have not explained my reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no pretending necessary. I read your explanation, but it's incompatible to your conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reader is informed about Hinduism in the Gaza strip, which is what they are looking for. Nothing misleading about that in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Is there some information about Hinduism at the target that I'm unaware of? -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained previously, yes - 100% of the population are not Hindus. That's not a lot of information, and it does require some very simple inference, but it does tell the searcher something about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip - i.e. it is not significant. This is different from for example the Easter Island nomination where there was no information about any religion, so we cannot say that there are no Hindus there (we can guess, but guesses are not reliable sources). Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence - in the Easter Island case we have an absence of evidence, in the Gaza Strip case we have evidence of absence. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So to answer my own question for you, there isn't any information about Hinduism at the target. That's a fact, and it's a fact that will remain unless someone finds some information to add about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip and adds that information into the target. For you to say that there is information is a blantant lie. Yes, there's information on Sunni Muslims and Christians, but neither of those groups are Hindu, so you can't use those groups to give readers information about Hinduism. There's literally nothing to say about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip, so there shouldn't be a redirect of that type saying there is. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information that Sunni Muslims and Christians together make up 100% of the population of the Gaza Strip is the information about Hindus (and about Buddhists, Sikhs, etc, etc) as I've said at least three times now - it's clear you're simply not listening. We can disagree on whether this warrants a redirect, but not about the facts that if 100% of the population are not Hindus that means that 0% of the population are, and that the number and/or proportion of a population that are Hindus is information about Hinduism (c.f. Hinduism in India: "Hinduism is the main and majority religion of India, with over 79.8% of the population identifying themselves as Hindu…"). The word "Hinduism" does not appear in the article, but that is not the same thing as there being no information about it (see my repeated explanations in this thread). The word "Hemisphere" does not appear in the Luxembourg article but there is ample information in the article to tell which hemisphere it is in. Should we delete Macedonian Navy because the target (Macedonian Lake Police) does not mention the word "navy"? Feel free to argue that this is insufficient information to warrant a redirect, I disagree but that is a matter of opinion, but arguing that there is no information is factually incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information that Sunni Muslims and Christians together make up 100% of the population of the Gaza Strip. Yes, you've said this several times now, I understand this fact. is the information about Hindus. That part is false. That is not information about Hindus. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, check out Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 31#Macedonian Navy. You're more than welcome to state your case. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, the problem is if you delete these implausible redirects, then they will just be recreated: topics like "Hinduism in the Gaza Strip" come from topic templates (e.g. Template:Africa topic). Sooner or later, someone is going to see these redlinks in a navbox and think to change the three or four redlinks out of 60 to blue. So we can delete this sure but it's time wasted, really. The only option that makes any sense to me is just to redirect it to the best possible target. E.g. even if Religion in the Gaza Strip were an article (it's presently a redirect) that has no information on Hinduism (because there is none to be had) then it's the best and most logical option (since someone will see that it is almost entirely Muslim with a small Christian population). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a certain template is so designed that redlinks can't be removed from it, then this is clearly a problem of the template, and not the rest of wikipedia. – Uanfala 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding onto that, there only needs to be one discussion. If it is deleted and recreated, then it can be deleted via WP:G4 assuming the situation that led to its deletion doesn't change (eg: there's still no mention of Hinduism at the target). -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously, as misleading. At the proposed target there is no relevant content, and there isn't the slimmest indication that such could be added in the foreseeable future. If the proposed target has content that may allow a reader to conclude that there are no Hindus is Gaza, then well 1) such a conclusion isn't warranted because of the rounding of reported numbers, the inevitable discrepancies between the self-reported and the actually practised faith, etc; and 2) we do not make such inferences when writing articles, and we certainly shouldn't invite readers to do so. – Uanfala 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what Thryduulf says. [I'm slightly confused at the current state of things, thus no "keep" or "retarget"]. This would be a silly title if Hinduism were a really localised religion (it would be absurd to have redirects for Yiguandao in Belize or Yoruba religion in Mongolia, for example), but with more than a billion Hindus worldwide, it's quite plausible that someone would look for information on Hindus in any major location worldwide, even without the linked template. A statement that everyone in Gaza is a Muslim or a Christian is a statement about Hinduism in Gaza, so it resolves the issue. Nyttend (talk)
  • Retarget to Hinduism by country which has a table for the major areas and has entries such as <0.1%. If Gaza is too specific a region, then delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: Hinduism by country does not include the Gaza strip. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a weak retarget to Gaza_Strip#Religion_and_culture but I'd prefer Delete then. Given that there's only "Other religion" in that section as opposed to like saying there's like 1 person in the entire area. There just isn't any information, not even whether there's a Hindu religious building or underground house assemblies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that Islam by country has an entry for Palestinian Territories, which I assume includes Gaza Strip, and that if there is RS statistical data for Hinduism in Palestinian Territories that indicate 0 people, that could be a valid entry for the table. The Islam by country even has an entry for Islam in Vatican City which redirects to Islam in Italy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no info at target about this topic. It is not real topic because there are no hindus in Gaza, and anyway Gaza is not a country. Legacypac (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does there not being any Hindus in the Gaza strip mean this is not a real topic? It means that there is not a lot that can be said, but surely that there are no Hindus in the Gaza Strip (which information is at the target) is information about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip? If not, why do articles like Hinduism in India include information about the number of Hindus? Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can appreciate that the above is tl;dr but there is actually information about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip - namely that 0% of the population are Hindus. I'm not sure why the Gaza Strip not being a country is relevant to anything? Neither the redirect nor any suggested target claim it is? Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The information requested by the redirect is apparently nonexistent. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can appreciate that the above is tl;dr but there is actually information about Hinduism in the Gaza strip - namely that 0% of the population are Hindus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OP. We should only keep the redirect if we have substantial info about it in our articles. --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If, for whatever reason, someone wants information on Hinduism in the Gaza Strip, the last thing we should be doing is redirecting them to an article that has no information about Hinduism in the Gaza Strip. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can appreciate that the above is tl;dr but there is actually information about Hinduism in the Gaza strip - namely that 0% of the population are Hindus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no such information in the article, and with the current state of affairs we can't add any because of the fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. – Uanfala 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helpful per Xezbeth. By Thryduulf's reasoning, perhaps empty set is a reasonable target, but we don't want to encourage creation of Pastafarians in Saudi Arabia or Martians in Antarctica as redirects to empty set. —Kusma (t·c) 09:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. All the substantial information on Hinduism in the Gaza Strip does exist at the proposed target, since it shows that there is no significant population of Hindus there. We can safely expect anyone using this search term to have basic knowledge such as Hinduism not being the same religion as Christianity, Islam, etc. and to understand simple math. Redirects like this for Hinduism, a major world religion, with lots of adherents around the world via immigration from the Indian subcontinent, are more valid search terms than some of the strawmen redirects referred to above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA factbook reference for the chart only indicates "other, unaffiliated, unspecified" as less than 1% [1]. Where is the part about the less than 0.2%? Perhaps a section for Other Arab areas and a sentence can be added for Gaza Strip in the article, at least to show the grouping among less than 1% from that CIA Factbook article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Over-redirecting (is that a thing?). I mean, <major religion>-in-<country> seems OK as they are quite common, I agree with Thryduulf that, e.g., if we redirect Hinduism in ZZZ to Religion in ZZZ and that article does not mention Hinduism then readers are smart enough to do the math and understand it is (almost) not present there. I note that those readers are also smart enough to look for religion in ZZZ by themselves, but the redirect may be useful to tidy up some lists or templates. Yet, Gaza Strip is a administrative zone within a coutry, I think we do not need to go into that much detail. We do not need Hinduism in Lisbon, Hinduism in Alabama, or Hinduism in Edinburgh - unless there is something notable about it, off course, but then we'd have a article or at least a obvious section to redirect to. - Nabla (talk) 21:43, 3 September 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.

Lists of all Georgian monarchs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 14#Lists of all Georgian monarchs

Halifax law[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 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misleading redirect. There is no notable entity or event known specifically as the "Halifax law," so a reader using this term could be searching for any legal topic relating to any of the various jurisdictions called Halifax. A parliamentary constituency seems like the least likely topic. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no apparent target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Often with redirects like this I can see some logical in why they might have been created, even if that logic is faulty or missing something relevant - e.g. if this targetted Halifax Regional Police, but this one has me stumped. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the Canadian city of Halifax presumably doesn't have its own legal system separate from its province, and the same is true of other jurisdictions with this name. And redirecting to anything except an actual jurisdiction, whether this parliamentary constituency or anything else, is downright absurd. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some bylaws that the Canadian city has made, but the final sentence of Royal Centre (Halifax) is the only reference I can find to them on Wikipedia, so I conclude that there are no notable ones and so, even if it were not ambiguous, there is no suitable target for those laws. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 31 August 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.

Idiot moron imbecile[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to IQ classification where the terms are officially used on one of the historical tables. Another option is to retarget to Moron (psychology) or Imbecile which have sections comparing the three terms. Or add the comparison to the Idiot article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to IQ classification, as that is what someone searching all three is most likely looking for. These terms used to be in official use as classifications for specific levels of (measured) intelligence and if someone has heard of that but doesn't remember any details about it (a good reason to be searching Wikipedia) then this is the sort of search term they're likely to use. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XY or retarget at POTUS (nay, that would be inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a set there is no XY issue as there is only the one article with information about their use in this regard. As a collection of individual words that would be Wiktionary's domain. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IQ classifications are not the only or most prominent usage of these terms. -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individually no, but together as a set (which is how they are presented here, someone isn't looking for three different things at the same time) IQ classification is the most prominent use by far. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to IQ classification per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:21, 10 September 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.

\Alfred E Johnson[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects' target articles have no affinity for using a forward slash backslash. Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pedantic note - those are backslashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dagnabbit. And I was trying to be as pedantic as all get out to get the name of that slash right, and I still messed up. That's what I get for thinking forward and left were the same thing with slashes falling, and thus I said the wrong word. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - redirects from moves from obviously incorrect titles which were redirected soon after creation. No need to keep these. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Old redirects often shouldn't be deleted, simply because they're old, but the combination of "moved almost immediately after creation" and "very implausible" means that there's virtually no chance that someone's linked to this title, on- or off-wiki. We can treat it like a new-ish creation, and a new-ish redirect from any of these titles would obviously be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 31 August 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.

Template:TNA World Heavyweight Champions[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 Template:GFW Global Championship. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A template redirecting to an article? This is ridiculous! GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Dangerous. Someone could transclude the template, and end up transcluding the whole article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:GFW Global Championship. It appears that the former TNA championship is considered continuous with the current GFW label, as indicated by the list at the current target, so redirecting the former name to the new template seems appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. A template should not redirect to an article but it should be redirected to the current name of the template, which is the GFW Global Championship.LM2000 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 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.

Template:Badarticle[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not really make sense. The name seems to encourage the use of this template as a badge of shame, in direct contradiction of Template messages/Cleanup. Delete and possibly Salt.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:53, 30 August 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_August_30&oldid=1138581449"