Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2017.

IPhone 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 retarget to IPhone 3G. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was retargeted by Ï¿½ last year. The iPhone 3G was the second-generation iPhone, so I struggle to see why it was retargeted. --Nevé–selbert 22:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to iPhone 3G, which says in the lede that it is the second-generation iPhone. This would be a reasonable exploratory search, as in, "what came before iPhone 3?" which also isn't technically a thing, but also came before iPhone 4 which totally exists. Good job with the versioning there, Apple. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 25 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.

MV Amaco Cadiz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 30#MV Amaco Cadiz

List of gairaigo and wasei-eigo terms far from complete[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 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how the use of "far from complete" is a plausible/useful search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - harmless, stats show a low but consistent trickle of activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the "far from complete" part. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. The target is essentially a dynamic list that may never be complete so I don't see that the redirect is misleading in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thryfuulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are for either the index-worthy access points to an article, or for any plausible search terms. This is neither. We don't create redirects for any of the myriad possible ways to state something about the target article. – Uanfala 08:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the "far from complete" part. This seems to be a joke redirect. Deryck C. 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to help clear the backlog and close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 8. Per WP:RELIST, if anyone not involved can assess consensus in this discussion, it can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector and Thryduulf. This is neither confusing or misleading, so there's no benefit to deleting it. Arguments along the lines of "We don't create redirects..." miss the point: what is being discussed is not whether such redirects should be created, but rather whether this one, now that it has been created, ought to be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the redirect might not be misleading at present, but it can potentially become such in the future: if the article gets expanded enough so that the description "far from complete" stops being true; and when this happens editors might or might not be aware of the existence of the redirect in order to bring it here again. Also, it is true that we discuss individual redirects, as created, on a case-by-case basis, but any such particular discussion does have some general ramifications. We don't have anything that gets close to a formal system of precedents, but the sum total of all RfD discussions creates the environment of expectations of what is kept and what gets deleted. An individual discussions doesn't set a precedent but it does contribute to the eventual implicit endorsement of redirects of the given type. – Uanfala 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comment above about the completeness of this list - it wont be. However, if it ever does become complete then we can discuss it again at that time - we don't delete redirects because your crystal ball predicts that might be problematic at some unknown future time. Your comments about precedents are irrelevant - individual discussions do not create precedents, and the collective expectation is that useful redirects get kept even if a handful of people don't like it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless redirect. The mainspace is not for meta commentary about the state of other articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For being a useless redirect that gets the occasional hit, probably to almost certanly, from people wondering where it goes after typing "list of gair" into the seach bar. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 1 October 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.

Faffing[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. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect without "-ing" exists at the target, but that title, Faff, does not exist on Wikipedia. (Content at Faff has apparently been deleted several times.) This redirect seems to be the only variation of a word which has a redirect to this page. With that being said, the best course of action may be to delete per WP:NOTDICT or weak retarget to wikt:faffing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or soft redirect. With almost 400 hits this year, it's clear that people are looking for this and I don't see why it couldn't be added at the target. "Faff" does have both noun and verb senses. Whatever the decision here, Faff should link to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can also support a Wiktionary redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly advice Wiktionary redirect. I moved to England at the age of 16 speaking fluent Hong Kong English and it took me 3 years of immersion to fully understand what "faffing around" means. With 400 hits in 8 months it's clear that people are searching for this. {{wi}} exists precisely for this sort of purpose. Deryck C. 15:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deryck Chan: Not trying to debate your point in my following statement, but I just noticed that Faffing is linked at Pfaff (surname), and this page receives about the same amount of page views on average. I have no definite way to determine if this is a coincidence or not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refine section to Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States#F. I would support a Wiktionary redirect if there was no content at all, but we have a definition in a glossary list with encyclopedic context, so we ought to point there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Thryduulf. It's not article-worthy, but already has a glossary entry, so redirect both Faff and Faffing to it (use {{Anchor}} to create an anchor point). It's pointless (and potentially even disruptive) to do "to Wiktionary" soft redirs when we have an encyclopedic glossary entry on a term. [If you want a backgrounder on why it can be disruptive, ask on my user talk page; but it's old history, and the fact that we can have encyclopedic glossaries at all, when properly written, is no longer even slightly controversial.] We shouldn't create redirs for every entry in every glossary, but if there's proof people keep looking for it, we should have one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SMcCandlish: you make a good point and so I no longer support a soft redirect in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect: wiktionary redirects shouldn't be created for terms that are covered on wikipedia. – Uanfala 10:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to help clear the backlog and close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 7. Per WP:RELIST, if anyone not involved can assess consensus in this discussion, it can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Ivanvector and SMcCandlish. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:23, 20 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.

The LSE[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 LSE. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LSE is a disambiguation page. At first glance, London Stock Exchange, Lahore Stock Exchange and Luzern–Stans–Engelberg railway line can all be referred to as "the LSE". feminist 13:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to LSE. No prominent usage of "The" in the school's logo or branding for it to claim primary topic over the other LSE's. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to LSE per above discussions --Lenticel (talk) 08:15, 21 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.

The Wolf (TV series)[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) 17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with two incoming links (Li Qin (actress) and Darren Wang) to a DAB page with no relevant entries. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. NB the TV series is redlinked in Chinese Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A different TV series. The one I found is Chinese, not American. Narky Blert (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, to encourage potential article creation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:58, 24 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.

Torrential[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) 00:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This word does not seem exclusive to streams of water, but rather heavy rains or waterfalls. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Torrent which is a dab page as R from adjective. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC) updated 14:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Torrent per AngusWOOF. A much more natural and expected destination. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete None of the eventual targets actually connects to the normal meaning of the word, making the DAB page entirely useless. Really all we could give would be a definition, and we don't do that. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning delete, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about this. FYI, torrential rain redirects to rain. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Torrent since potential targets such as the dicdef is found there. --Lenticel (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not retarget to Torrent: only one of the many entries there is relevant, while one of the major meanings/uses of the word (for referring to rain) isn't covered at all. If kept, this is a straightforward candidate for soft redirecting to wiktionary. – Uanfala 10:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking previous vote. Is there another use for torrential besides describing rain or storms? It could go to Rain but there's already torrential rain for that. Narky Blert, Lenticel reconsider? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or failing that soft redirect to Wiktionary. I agree with those above who've argued that the Torrent disambiguation page offers nothing of use to someone searching for "torrential". I don't think the term is uncommon enough for a soft redirect to be necessary, but that's really a subjective assessment and it would be a better solution than retargeting to the dab page. The ideal solution would be to retarget to a section in the Rain article in which "torrential rain" is mentioned (perhaps Rain#Intensity), but no such mention exists. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But torrential can be used about streams as well. I think the best target would be an article like Glossary of terms describing fluid flow but that hasn't been created yet. – Uanfala 10:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but we have to ask what the reader who searches for this term is most likely to be looking for – the term as used in the relatively common phrase "torrential rain" (though I suppose that might depend where you live) or a less common, more specifically scientific use of the word (this is the same problem as we encounter at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 4#Amenable, where I also !voted to delete). I think, with that hypothetical reader in mind, that deletion is the best option. Thinking about ideal solutions is really a bit of a distraction – I mentioned it above just in the vain hope that a hydrologically-literate editor might come by and make the proposed improvement, but that sort of thing rarely happens at RfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this redirect is a good example of why adjectives don't make good redirects - there are too many potential targets which could be described as "torrential". Autocompleted queries or search results are a faster way in this case for readers to find what they're looking for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:33, 25 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.

Ukkunagaram[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 1#Ukkunagaram

Country metal[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, not sure if this is a notable topic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if they originated or popularized the term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per feminist. It's maybe not the best target but there's not apparently a better one. Metal music is certainly a subgenre of rock music, thus readers are likely to find something of interest at this target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_20&oldid=1088105863"