Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2018.

Paraguay at the 2019 Pan American Games[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 article. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way too early for this. The country has not officially qualified an athlete as of yet. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's not unusual to add redirects before the country has qualified athletes, if they almost certainly will. Smartyllama (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Convert to article Nation has qualified a women's football team, despite nominator's assertions. In fact, it appears he removed that information and created a redirect, then nominated it for deletion. Restore the article since I have no idea why nom did what he did. Smartyllama (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article. RfD is being used here (intentionally or otherwise) as an end-run around AfD which is very much not RfD's purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 8 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.

Wholesomeness[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 06:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have said that water quality comes at all to mind when thinking of this word. It does not seem right that it redirects to where it does. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 16:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete title is too ambiguous --Danski454 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target does contain some discussion of the term in a very specific sense, but the reader who searches for this is much more likely to be looking for something more general, or if they're looking for something specific it's probably something unrelated to water quality regulations in the UK. I don't think soft redirects to Wiktionary are useful for commonplace terms like this, so we're best directing the reader to the search results. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. I'm mildly surprised that we don't have an article on the concept of what is an isn't wholesome in a given context, but given that we don't there is no appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:16, 9 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.

Baby balloon[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 06:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is ambiguous, also referred to this B dash (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think about balloons that they have at baby showers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation of the Belgian film per Arms & Hearts's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 8 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.

Hard right[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 right (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was unilaterally redirected by DrFleischman for V and SYNTH reasons. I don't think these terms are synonymous. I thought the term "Hard right" was used primarily to avoid the negative connotations of "far-right".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are synonyms. Synonyms always bear at least subjective connotations. It is not unusual that two people make the same kind of associations but not the same way: If A and AA are synonyms, then person X may find A to be more M than AA, person Y is convinced that AA is more M than A. Yet a third person, Z, finds A exactly identical to AA and a fourth (this is hard, my alphabet does not reach far enough to the right) sees a difference in N, not M. Your opinion of a difference is in fact highly subjective: Not everyone will agree; others may see 'hard' as rigorous, thus most extreme, and 'far' as towards extreme but not quite. I think I already explained that the perceived differences in meaning (including the appreciation of a term) may strongly vary according to culture (or political stand) and what appears a generally accepted difference in meaning may well undergo considerable changes over time. In this case, there certainly is no clear difference that is generally accepted and the usage has changed as well. A perfect candidate for one article that mentions the several ( there are more than just 'hard' and 'far') terms. The article might explain the differences as these have been used in certain countries and periods but I'm afraid that this would quickly become original research (if not ridiculously subjective). Just read my earlier thoughts about this topic.
​▲ SomeHuman 2018-08-05 04:27 (UTC)
Mr. Guye misrepresented the doings of DrFleischman: The latter did not act 'unilaterally' but correctly stated to have made the page a redirect according to the earlier remarks by several others, those being his reason. He therefore of course had to blank the content of the page and mentioned V and SYNTH for not having to incorporate that by Wikipedia standards unsatisfactory content into the target article. — In fact, the page had been created as a redirect and later had become hijacked for representing only two fractions of the term's many usages, supported by cherry-picked sources. DrFleischman's subsequent action found agreement by categorizing the redirect.
​▲ SomeHuman 2018-08-05 13:06-14:29 (UTC)
The informal 'to make a hard right' is short for 'to make a hard right turn', which is still rather informal for 'to make a hard turn to the right'. The informal expressions are always clear by their context and two words merely picked out of these would hardly fit an encyclopedic entry; hence Wikipedia does not need that disambiguation page. 'Hard' on the other hand, does have several meanings of which one fits for 'a hard turn', 'a hard right', 'a hard switch' etc. Unfortunately, Hard fails to mention this particular though quite ordinary meaning as 'radical, when in relation to time also sudden'; it should. It is the origin of the use in 'hard right politics', in which context it —precisely as other adjectives— developed further connotations that require summing-up in their common article.
​▲ SomeHuman 2018-08-05 14:55-16:11 (UTC)
  • Whichever ideas or whichever party, parties or movements are considered far, radical, extreme, hard, ultra... right depends on the country or region (and who is/are or were of the opinion) and varies as time went and goes by. Any differences there and then are not the ones perceived in other areas and/or times but all terms have a lot in common. The one common article can merely sum up these various usual characteristics and precise distinctions only belong in the separate articles about the areas' politics and in those about specific parties and movements.
Most of such separate articles are bound to cause everlasting discussions about this terminology. Wikipedia by no means needs these to be transferred to the common article and/or its dozens of redirect pages such as 'Hard right'. Any result that would (temporarily) create a separate article for one of those terms, would almost certainly have been won by and cause further 'aunzuscauk' as I call a particular wp:BIAS.
​▲ SomeHuman 2018-08-05 16:29 - 2018-08-06 04:34 (UTC)
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.

Yô[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 Yō. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is either implausible and should be deleted, or should be retargeted. Either way, this can't stand as-is.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mr. Guye: The French circumflex was often used to indicate the long "o" in Japanese (usually indicated with the macron "ō") - Since "Yô" is an alternate way of spelling the Japanese name "Yō", it should redirect to whichever page has people or characters with the name "Yō" - that would be Yō. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yō per WhisperToMe. 15 years ago, Yo was a disambiguation page, which eventually grew to cover the Japanese name spelled You/Yoh/Yō, so back then this was a perfectly good redirect. It just got forgotten in the shuffle when the base page got hijacked for an article about the word and the disambiguation content was copy-pasted to Yo (disambiguation). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per WhisperToMe. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per WhisperToMe --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 8 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.

Bad people[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) 15:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we seriously not have a better target for this?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's a 2016 film by Alex Petrovitch according to IMDb, and some non-notable song titles/albums, that's about it. It could also go to Villain for "bad guys/girls" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is unhelpful both because it's not synonymous or even all that close to the target, and because the reader who searches for this is more likely to be looking for a song or film or something else by this name. As we don't have articles on anything by this name, though, this does more harm than good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't really think of another NPOV target this could possibly have - evil people are objectively bad, by definition, but any attempt to further refine or retarget it would be POV. Still not sure this is an appropriate redirect, but there's really nowhere else it can go. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to List of people known as the Bad, which also links to List of people known as the Evil. These are the best targets I can find, although they're not an exact match. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better served with a new redirect like The Bad. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arms & Hearts. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 10 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.

Sieg Heil song[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. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search doesn't seem to indicate that "Sieg Heil song" specifically refers to Sieg Heil Viktoria [tr], and and in fact, seems to suggest it could refer to other songs as well. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 00:12, 5 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_5&oldid=1036306853"