Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

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

St. Joseph's High School, Mysore[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 16#St. Joseph's High School, Mysore

Vivid dream[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 Dream. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion or a more suitable redirect. A vivid dream is not the same as a lucid dream, in many ways they are opposites. A vivid dream is a highly realistic dream that is remembered and recalled when one wakes, often triggered by biological changes such as pregnancy and antidepressants. Lucid dreams are, as the article says, dreams in which one becomes aware that one is dreaming and then exerts control over what happens in the dream. One usually becomes aware of that because the dream is surreal - the complete opposite of a vivid dream. In common parlance these two may be confused, but that doesn't mean one should redirect into the other Harambe Walks (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:REDLINK.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dream as there are multiple places where the word vivid is used. Not sure if there is a particular term that needs to be split off from the article, but that can be discussed offline. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dream - The term seems vague enough that the related concept should be discussed in this main article, in context. I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:13, 8 February 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.

Ian Nicholas Stewart[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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too well-versed on whether it is standard practice to create a full-name redirect for a biography, but is it really necessary? This specific redirect has not been linked anywhere else and is apparently not a likely search term since it's been viewed six times in the last 90 days. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Full name is acceptable. Non-notable Middle+Last, assumed married names, or arbitrary nicknames are not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is absolutely worth keeping. People can very well become aware of him by his full name online. For just one example, Amazon's main U.S website lists at least one of his books as by "Ian Nicholas Stewart". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why is this redirect shown as Unassessed, when the talk page has{{WikiProject Biography|class=redirect|listas=Stewart, Ian Nicholas}}?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 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.

Comparison shopping[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 12#Comparison shopping

Nintendo culture[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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The article does not mention "culture". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm really not sure about this one. If somebody is specifically interested in the 'Nintendo corporate culture', in terms of the firm's development processes, then we have the useful article 'History of Nintendo' for that. However, they might instead be looking for something more general, like... I don't know, 'Gamer society and trends' (not sure if we even have an article like that). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wastes users time. We have no content on Nintendo corporate culture, only descriptions of their products, strategies and marketing, neither in Nintendo nor History of Nintendo. If Video game culture had anything to say about Nintendo gamers as a culture (if such a distinction exists) we could point there, but it doesn't. The correct answer is "we go nothing" which is what a redlink says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Article Video game culture mentions Nintendo at least 3 times. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mentions that Nintendo exists, yes. But identifies a "Nintendo culture"? The closest it comes to that is when it says chiptunes/gamewave is inspired by game music, exemplified by Nintendo along with Commodore, but not really Nintendo specific. Similarly, the phrase "Nintendo generation" exists, but it actually refers to all personal console gamers, in which Nintendo gamers aren't really a distinct culture. I feel like we're creating an article or redirect of a thing that doesn't exist only for the purpose of pointing to an article that says this thing doesn't exist, without having any evidince that anyone believed the misconception that the thing exists. A HOAX, or FRANKENSTEIN, in other words. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the word "culture" isn't explicitly mentioned in the article, one can get a sense of Nintendo's culture from reading the article, especially the "policy" section. -- Tavix (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Video game culture. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. "Culture" may not be there, but the article gives a feel for it, particularly the history section. To wit, I'm also open to a retarget to History of Nintendo. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:35, 12 February 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.

Universal love[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, though there may be a specifically philosophical or theological use of the phrase that connects it to charity. Universal Love is an obvious target, but Universalove also exists, so perhaps a disambiguation page is more suitable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate to the Christian ethical principle, the album, and the movie. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main reason I didn't just do this is because I'm not sure of the relation, if any, between "universal love" and charity as a virtue or ethical principle. Including the current target in a disambiguation page without the phrase being mentioned in that article would seem to run afoul of WP:DABRELATED. And if it isn't to be included then there's probably no need for a disambiguation page at all per WP:TWODABS – we could just retarget to Universal Love with a hatnote for Universalove. But then, there are other possible targets – Agape, for example, which is "a universal, unconditional love", or Mozi, whose philosophy uses the idea of universal love – are these worthy of including in a disambiguation page? (This question isn't directed at you specifically Koavf – I'm mostly just expanding on the nomination.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:Redirects are cheap--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Redirects are cheap gives reasons why we ought to avoid deleting redirects. But no one has proposed deleting this redirect. Could you clarify what you mean? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Universal Love as it could refer to the album / song name or the Universalove film. Added hatnote to the film. Create Universal love (disambiguation) for the other uses. The term isn't really fleshed out with its own article like Unconditional love, except perhaps in Mozi which uses that term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Universal Love as an R from alternate capitalization. Do not create any disambiguation page, though a hatnote might be merited. Not everyone will believe in Christian theology and attribute universal love to that particular virtue.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per koavf. There are clearly multiple uses here as he and Arms & Heart have noted, and that fact that Universal Love and Universalove are distinct means this is an area ripe for confusion. Hat note the album. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:38, 12 February 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.

Tricephalous Christ[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 The Trinity in art#Less common types of depiction. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as {{R with possibilities}} but without mention of the concept at the target article, it's only going to disappoint readers. BDD (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, that's confusing all right. All of the images in the article depict him with monocephaly (is that a word?), the word heads does not appear in the article, and none of the references to head refer to a plurality. Some Christian religious art isn't particularly realistic in style, but aside from depictions of figures after they're subject to violence (e.g. cephalophores), the subjects are pretty much always depicted with the right number of appendages; it's Hinduism, not Christianity, whose religious art depicts figures with extraneous appendages. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. As part of WP:BEFORE, I did find depictions of a tricephalous Christ, though. I agree that there are "possibilities" here, but WP:REDLINK seems appropriate given that we don't have anything on it now. The phrase is actually mentioned at Golden Horns of Gallehus, though it wouldn't be a logical place to redirect, and the idea of it depicting Christ at all seems quite speculative. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Trinity in art#Less common types of depiction which discusses such depictions. There's mentions of a Tricephalous Trinity in books [1] [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Trinity in art. This is an obvious case that can be fixed with a single edit, please don't start deletion discussions on such cases. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a statement I'd expect from the redirect's creator... --BDD (talk) 15:05, 7 February 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.

6-Song (E.P.)[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) 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing and ambiguous with 6 Songs (EP) which redirects to a dab page. The target is a 6-song EP, not the 6-Song EP. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 5 February 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.

Quelle Chris[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 article created. -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confusing redirect. It's not clear why this should be the target when the subject has 3 other albums/mixtapes. Sro23 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zawl: Do you feel the draft is ready for publication? You can overwrite the redirect with your draft, and that would resolve this matter. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I'll do that. — Zawl 07:25, 10 February 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.

History of the Arab Peoples[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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I typed this in expecting to find the article on the subject itself, not a book on it. It turns out that that article is located at History of the Arabs, but that's not obvious, or at least it wasn't to me. Per WP:LEAST, I think this should be retargeted to that article, and a link to the current target should be placed under the "See also" at History of the Arabs (disambiguation).  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both and hatnote the target - These are {{R from modification}}. Leaving off a leading article is not an implausible search for the book, which is otherwise an exact match. --NYKevin 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kevin. Unless the modified and non-modified version of a word have significantly different meanings (e.g. Queen and Queens, or Crown and The Crown), modified should redirect to non-modified. In the library, we routinely amputate initial articles, so the reader might encounter references to this book without the initial word. The hatnote should serve individuals who are looking for the subject of the book. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both redirects and hatnote the target per Kevin. Redirects are cheap, and so are hatnotes. I often add Redirect, and sometimes a hatnote--01:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
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:Db-internet[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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. The internet and world wide web are not the same thing. Just because something is related to the internet doesn't mean it's web content. A7 specifically refers to world wide web content. Adam9007 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Podcasts are not web pages, and I'm sure you could stretch A7 to include a non-notable Usenet group, mailing list, or any number of other non-web internet things. --NYKevin 08:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos are not web pages, bu they're still web content. And no, {{db-web}} does not include non-web things, even if they are run over the internet. It specifically says web content such as web pages, YouTube videos/channels, Browser games etc.. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos are indeed web pages. They live at URLs starting with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=.... Podcasts, by contrast, may not be directly accessible over the web at all. They can for example live exclusively within the iTunes walled garden. --NYKevin 04:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos may be accessed on via a web page on YouTube, but are not web pages themselves (they can be accessed from other web sites too). Also, {{db-web}} says: website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, so they are web content for the purposes of A7. Adam9007 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that podcasts are mentioned in {{db-web}}. That's why I picked them as an example of non-web content which is nevertheless covered by A7. --NYKevin 00:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly the original intent of the criterion is to cover Internet topics. It links to Wikipedia:Notability (web), which defines its scope with Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. This criterion covers Internet topics in general, so {{db-internet}} is quite reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 5 February 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_February_5&oldid=1146030035"