Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2017.

Engaeus affinis[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 restore stubs, retarget the common names to the stubs, and create articles for the species that have no history. SchreiberBike, I'll leave it to you to carry this out, thank you for volunteering! -- Tavix (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a policy statement, but I believe practice has been that we do not redirect species names to genus articles. I have mixed feelings about it because the genus article does provide some information, but the blue link gives the reader the expectation that there is a species article and they do not get what they expect. In the genus article at Engaeus they all show as blue links but in fact go nowhere.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll ping the relevant project(s) but from memory standard practice is to redirect genus to species or vice versa in the case of single-species genuses, and to redirect species to genus when there is information about that species on the genus article but not enough yet for a standalone article. I haven't looked to see if either of these apply here or not. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? Nothing keeps these from being turned into articles, if someone wants to. But yes, at least when it comes to palaeontology articles, species are usually redirected to the genus (for various reasons). Extant species usually get separate articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the case of at least E. rostrogaleatus and E. urostrictus, they were redirected from merge by Stemonitis, and retain some categories. While preservation of history is probably not strictly necessary given what is in the main article, retention seems more useful than deletion. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as {{R to subtopic}}, {{R with potential}}, or similar. it's unlikely that any of these have high readership or interest in the general public, and I have no objection to future expansion, but a list of species, with year of description, authority, and conservation status of each, has the same information content of 35 near-identical stubs, with the advantage of easily viewing and comparing all species. I don't think all species must have their own article: content should dictate that in some cases. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't seem to care if they have high readership/interest. There appears to be long-term consensus that species (not subspecies) are inherently notable and should eventually have articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The RFD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Breeds of horse? may be related to this one. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Plantdrew since I recall this is somewhat their area of expertise. Pinging other participants from the aforementioned discussion to hopefully help assess to see if the discussions have any relation and/or for their input: Montanabw and SMcCandlish. Steel1943 (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't seem related to me; that one was about junior synonyms and misnomers, not more specific names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless monotypic, species articles of extant organisms shouldn't be redirected to their genus page. The only exception I know that does this is WP:WikiProject Palaeontology, and it's done deliberately because the creation of species articles are discouraged. While I agree that this doesn't really bar the creation of articles, I do believe it makes it problematic for editors to make new articles. New editors might not know how to access the redirect page, for example. And more experienced editors might not realize they don't have articles yet because the links will show up blue all the time. Making sure that people are aware of WP:REDLINKS is a very important mechanism in encouraging the creation of new articles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, where applicable. Now that I realize some of them are critically endangered/endangered, I think it's even more vital that they be separated. Even if only for more individualized range maps which can not be represented in the genus page. Lumping together very similar species might work in some cases where there are only a few members of the genus and additional expansions can be accommodated within one article, thus avoiding a situation where some redirects are recursive but others aren't. However in this case, Engaeus has 35. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Let me know and I'll do the tedious work on the above or whatever choice you make. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, by which I mean with SchreiberBike's preceding comment/enhanced proposal. That is, restore those stubs which were redirected, "un-redirect" remaining species (to red-link), and redirect common names to restored stubs where possible. This is not at all an area of expertise for me, but I do some editing on plants. I feel the same when it comes to species: that they are inherently notable, per SMcCandlish above. And that threatened species are especially worthy of documentation, per Obsidian Soul above. There's considerable endemism to Tasmania also (if that term can apply to crustaceans). Granted, the old stubs are minimal, as all Polbot stubs were initially. But on a quick search just now for books covering Engaeus, I came across A Guide to Australia's Spiny Freshwater Crayfish, McCormack; Crustacea: Malacostraca : Phyllocardia, Hoplocardia, Eucarida; and Biology and Ecology of Crayfish, Longshaw & Stebbing. I think there's room for stub expansion in many cases. And better a red-link than a blue-link when article creation is hoped for. A bit long-winded but thanks Declangi (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirects from species to genera are usually unhelpful, as they imply to editors that articles on these species exist, when they don't. They also create circular links when lists of species are included in genus articles, as is normal. So most should be got rid of: delete in most cases; restore stub where these existed. The only species redirects should be for monotypic taxa and for extinct species where there are no wikilinks in the target article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Engaeus affinis, Engaeus karnanga, Engaeus laevis, Engaeus victoriensis, Engaeus yabbimunna; I believe these are all the scientific names that were created as redirects and which never existed as stubs. Keep the rest, pending SchrieberBike's offer to do the dirty work restoring the articles, dealing with common name redirects (and don't forget unredirecting talk pages). Redirects from (living) species to genera are quite rare on Wikipedia, and thus very unhelpful as the general assumption is that a blue linked species has it's own article. However, I'm also not a fan of creating substub articles for species which carry no more information than could be presented within a species list in a genus article. Everything that was in the Engaeus stubs turned into redirects can be found in the Engaeus article. Better a red link species than a substub redundant to the genus, IMHO. But better a substub than a redirect to the genus if the link is already going to be blue. Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SchreiberBike: Are you willing to create (sub)stubs for the five species that have no history as independent articles? If so, I'm happy to keep all. Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be enough material at http://www.iucnredlist.org/ to make stubs for those five. I don't write much, but I think I can do that. Effectively I guess I'm saying I withdraw my original proposal to delete and if there's no objection, will begin creating or restoring articles and fixing redirects (and talk pages).  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:49, 1 February 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.

Orissa Brahmins[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) 14:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a fake direct created by a POV pusher Sitush (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled these together -- same creator, same reason: utcursch | talk 23:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spammish redirects created by now-blocked user. utcursch | talk 23:04, 21 January 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.

Kshatriya caste in orissa[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) 14:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically a fake redirect, created by a blocked sockpuppet with a POV to push Sitush (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. No evidence that these terms refer exclusively to Khandayats. utcursch | talk 22:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm WP:BOLDLY bundling these nominations with identical comments from Sitush and Utcursch. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've updated my vote to explicitly mention delete all, and bundled four more related redirects. utcursch | talk 23:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: I'd also add these: Odia kshatriyas, Oriya Kshatriyas, Odia warriors and Odia warrior. utcursch | talk 23:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I'm wondering now whether they could have been speedied as sock creations. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added these four to the nomination. Personally, I'd like these speedied as well, but these were created by the sockmaster when he was not blocked, so G5 doesn't apply. utcursch | talk 00:00, 22 January 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.

Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air[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. Of course, anyone may contact me if the history of this page is needed. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not covered at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air closed as "merge to Fatigue (material)" in 2013. An edit summary by user:Yaksar shortly afterwards stated that the "content is there", presumably Fatigue (material) so they redirected it. It is unclear to me if material was or was not actually merged. The relevant content in the target article seems to have been deleted in this edit by user:John in November 2015 removing material that had been tagged as unreferenced since June 2013. This is not my field at all, but it looks the sort of information (but prosified) that would be encyclopaedic to include somewhere if it can be referenced (and I suspect it could be). This redirect would make a useful search term to the content if we have it somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question of how object strength changes based on the environment is an interesting one, but this is a clunky sort of wording that I don't think is that helpful to have in a redirect. As well, maybe the related article on fatigue needs to be changed. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:33, 22 January 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.

Louis Raymond (garden & landscape designer & writer)[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 without prejudice against creation of "Louis Raymond (landscape designer)". Most editors in this discussion think that this redirect is too implausible a search term to keep. Deryck C. 23:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This disambiguator is much too unwieldy to be useful. Stats are negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless, unless user:Pollard&coppice (the person who created the article at this title) indicates they want it deleted (i.e. a G7) then I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a synonym for the article though, it's an unusually long disambiguator that may help people find the article via search engines if they use these search terms (e.g. Louis Raymond garden writer) as "horticulturalist" (a word my spellcheck doesn't recognise) isn't necessarily going to be one everybody knows or associates with him. Above all I don't see what harm it is doing. Thryduulf (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The disambiguator is so WP:PRECISE that it is quite vulnerable to having WP:XY problems. Might as well get rid of this now. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: I really don't understand how something can be bother precise and be WP:XY - XY is entirely about not being specific enough to identify a single topic, whereas this is about a single person who designs and writes about gardens and landscapes. Unless there is someone else called Louis Raymond who does these things (in which case we'd create a dab page if one wasn't primary) then it's far less likely to have XY issues than the much broader term "horticulturalist" is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point here is that though this redirect may be a valid {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, this redirect has a good chance of eventually having a WP:XY issue if another article comes along with a subject by this name that is notable for one of the aspects of the three terms in the disambiguator. In most cases, I would opt to "keep" such redirects, but this one uses three separate terms in its disambiguator, leaving it unwieldy and unlikely. Also, it almost reminds me of recently-deleted page Drake (singer/rapper). Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Louis Raymond (landscape designer), which is the occupation at that target page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Louis Raymond (landscape designer) per AngusWOOF, without leaving a redirect behind. It's extremely implausible as a search term and seems to be the remnant of a move from the article's first title (where it spent the first 10 days of its existence back in 2012) – apparently created by a novice editor who was not completely acquainted with the naming conventions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf. Definitely an unlikely search term, but unambiguous and not harmful. I used to track titles like this with the intent of fixing them, but it wouldn't've occurred to me to try to do anything with the old names. Even in the unlikely case that we got an article on a different Louis Raymond who was both of these things, this could be retargeted to the disambiguation page. Creation of Louis Raymond (landscape designer) is fine, even good, but need not be connected to this redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY. Implausible. The only reason to rename/move this would be if it had history worth preserving, which it doesn't. I have no issue with the creation of Louis Raymond (landscape designer). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this costly? The only maintenance it will ever need is retargetting if the target page is moved (a bot will do that) or becomes ambiguous (much less likely to happen than with a shorter title therefore less costly). It is no more or less likely to vandalised than most redirects so that is not a realistic concern either. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - old {{R from move}}, harmless, points at the correct target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:46, 9 February 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.

Studiengang[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) 19:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 21 January 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.

Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization[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 procedural keep, Thryduulf is correct. I'd also recommend discussing the categories with the redirect's creator. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this redirect genuinely need all these categories? I know all those countries have signed up but there must be a more economical way of doing this? — Iadmc♫talk  19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you are not proposing that the redirect be deleted, retargetted or disambiguated then this is the wrong forum. You need to discuss this on the redirect's talk page (advertise the discussion on the target talk page and to relevant Wikiproject(s)) or at a WikiProject talk page if there are multiple similar pages. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 22 January 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.

Draft:Carbon Ranches - Working List[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) 14:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary double redirect in draft space — Iadmc♫talk  14:52, 21 January 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.

Draft:List of carbon ranches (2)[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) 14:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary redirect in draft space — Iadmc♫talk  14:50, 21 January 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.

Extraordinary Incident[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) 14:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear how this name is explicitly related to the film - doesn't appear to be a name the film is marketed under, and additionally could refer to extraordinary events outside of the context of this one film. Would be better either as a disambiguation page or deleted entirely. Mike1901 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the ambiguity, I think that we really should just get rid of the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it could conceivably be a malapropism per the first commenter but is unlikely. Per a loose reading of WP:EASTER, this should go — Iadmc♫talk  19:23, 21 January 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.

Montrose Railway[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 Montrose Branch following creation of an article there. -- Tavix (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect. Name of redirect not mentioned in final target article. — Iadmc♫talk  12:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are three historical railways with Montrose in their name, two in Scotland (Montrose and Bervie Railway and North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway), and one in California (Glendale and Montrose Railway). If one or more of them was ever abbreviated to just the "Montrose Railway" this this should be retargetted there. I will ping WP:TRAINS about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We can add to that a railway in Pennsylvania with that exact name. It ran from Montrose to Tunkhannock and became the Lehigh Valley Railroad's Montrose Branch in 1889. An eventual article on that subject would probably be at Montrose Branch or Montrose Railroad, but it's a plausible target. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The user created a redirect for Eagles Mere Railroad, a short line in Pennsylvania near the line Mackensen mentions, two edits before. (Montrose Railway 1869 → Montrose Railroad 1905 → merged into LV 1949) I should have the sources to make a decent short article out of it (I think I'd pick "Montrose Branch") and retarget the redirect there. I'll leave a note for the creator pointing at redirect deletion criterion 10, as they've been making a number of redirects like this which will probably have to come here. Choess (talk) 03:00, 22 January 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.

Terry Duffy (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, and redirect/hatnote as described by Tavix. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect. Disambiguation not necessary — Iadmc♫talk  09:58, 21 January 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.

Bayman-Bet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Baymam-Bet

Baymam-Bet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Baymam-Bet

Latin name[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Latin name

Politics of Taiwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Politics of Taiwan

File:KPKK logo.jpg[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, unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This logo for a "105.7 The Oasis" station was incorrectly placed on the article for KPKK and uploaded at this name when KPKK was never on 105.7. I've moved it to a more descriptive title — the redirect doesn't need to remain. Raymie (t • c) 02:51, 21 January 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.

Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_21&oldid=1151047724"