Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2018.

Template Alps Tour seasons[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In mainspace due to missing colon. HotdogPi 12:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Should have been speedied per G6, i.e. "deleting [titles] unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace", at the time they were corrected. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nigej (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2018 (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.

Canticles[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 Canticle. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better retargeted to Canticle as an R from plural, which has a hatnote to Song of Songs, rather than the assertion that Song of Songs is the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2018 (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.

Keesingia (redirects)[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 move and keep. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why this created but such a disambiguation seems implausible. A history merge may be due. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: I see you used "asked" as the move summary. I just want to be clear that I did not ask you to do this. Rather, that was simply my !vote as part of the RfD discussion process. Please use less opaque and more accurate summaries in the future. Also, if this is your way of resolving the issue you created, please tie up the loose ends and follow the steps at WP:RFDAI. I see the RfD tag is still on the redirect now located at Keesingia gigas. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2018 (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.

Free sugars[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 close, inappropriate venue (WP:PCLOSE). @Bodhi Peace: See WP:RM/TR or Template:Db-move for such requests in the future. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion to move "Free sugar" to "Free sugars", which is the proper article title. Bod (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2018 (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.

Relational database management system[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 Un-merge. This is clearly not an "un-controversial" merge after several additional editors have commented, and see no consensus now. I did such a merge as an uninvolved editor, and will now revert it to give my opinion. Hopefully other editors reading this page will participate in the merge discussion at Talk:Relational database. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this redirect. (1) The redirect squashed an unclosed/unresolved proposal to merge the two articles. The editor who redirected the topic didn't contribute to the merger discussion, close the discussion, or merge the articles. The merge proposal sought editorial consensus; redirecting the topic before the proposal to merge was resolved was disruptive, more WP:RECKLESS than WP:BOLD. (2) Redirection discarded useful content that a merge would have preserved. It was the wrong editorial action, given an open proposal to merge. (3) An earlier merger proposal was opposed by Rursus for conflating two related but different topics. The current proposal concedes that "logically thinking [, these topics] are different things", and I agree. It's not at all obvious whether consensus will be to conflate these "different things" or to keep them as independent articles. The topic shouldn't have been redirected until there was a consensus to merge and the merger was complete. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without prejudice. The merge discussion (at talk:Relational database#New merger proposal, both articles were correctly tagged) was opened on 13 April by Sasha1024. NE Ent replied "Go for it" on 13 June, and there were no more comments between then and when Power~enwiki carried out the merge yesterday (18 August). 4 months with one comment in support and none in opposition is more than enough to say that this did not appear to be a controversial merge at all, and I cannot support the the nominator's description of this as "reckless" at all (Although formally closing the discussion would have been ideal, not doing so isn't worth more sanction than this comment). I haven't looked in detail what was merged, but at least some content was so point 2 is at best hyperbolic. As the nominator has not engaged with Power~enwiki on their talk page at all (I've just notified them of this discussion), I'm left thinking that if anyone is acting contrary to best practice here it Yappy2bhere. All that said, the merge discussion has received two oppose votes since the merge happened so it isn't as uncontroversial as it first appeared. RfD is not the venue to contest merge discussions though, so discussion on reversing that and splitting the content should happen on the article talk page. While the topics are merged though the redirect is entirely correct. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Go for it" isn't an argument for merging the articles, and a merger discussion is not a poll. NE Ent simply urged unilateral editorial action to resolve the matter by fiat. (2) Again, another earlier merger proposal, proposed for the same reasons as this latest, was opposed for the same reasons given by the latest two "voters". How could this "not appear to be a controversial merge" to anyone who read both proposals? (3) I do see Power~enwiki's changes to Relational database. Apologies; evidently I was viewing the wrong history page. (4) I reverted those changes, the topics are no longer merged, so it's again just a question of the redirect, which I'm unable to WP:BOLDly revert myself. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did merge the articles (not just redirect), though I failed to close the discussion on the talk page. I don't understand why Yappy reverted my changes at one page but not the other. There was a sufficient period without objection that I considered this non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to Relational database were editorial; those I'm able to revert. The change to Relational database management system is a redirect; that I can't revert, which is why I came here. I reverted the changes to Relational database so that this request would remain in the RfD wheelhouse ("While the topics are merged though the redirect is entirely correct").
The first merge proposal was in place 3 months before it elicited a response, 7 months before the last response. Four months is a long time in editor-years, but not so long in reader-years. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2018 (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/2018_August_19&oldid=1036307740"