Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 30

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 30, 2019.

Full of Eastern Promise

[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 Fry's Turkish Delight. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure why this redirects to Marco Fu. Apparently it's a nickname of his (according to the infobox) but it's unsourced. Perhaps Eastern Promise would be a suitable destination, but I don't know if this phrase fits. I suggest full on deletion as an unlikely thing to search for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MICRO$OFT

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 11#MICRO$OFT

Kenneth Cowan (China Airlines Flight 676)

[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) 17:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently a victim of this crash, but of course not mentioned in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fielding Hurst

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Fielding Hurst

Lolcow

[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this made-up word should redirect anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Uncle Billy

[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. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud! --BDD (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the primary meaning of the title. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jammu and Kashmir

[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. Specifically, there is consensus here that most of these redirects are basically close grammatical synonyms of each other, and should probably point to the same place as Jammu and Kashmir does, but in both this discussion, the no consensus Requested Move from last month, and in other discussions, there is not a strong consensus as to where that place actually is. The union territory is new and potentially still being contested; the state has a lot of previous baggage in terms of articles and categories linking to it with that meaning. There are two ways forward I can see here:
  1. A disambiguation page at Jammu and Kashmir would solve the ambiguity but would be rather untidy given the number of incoming links.
  2. Given some more time, it's likely that the dispute regarding the union territory will at least partially resolve itself, lending a future consensus either for or against linking directly to it.

In the mean time, all the targets are comprehensively interlinked via hatnotes, so readers will find where they're going, even if it isn't optimal. If a future consensus arises as to what Jammu and Kashmir should be pointing to, I would suggest that this discussion does provide support for all these other redirects being fixed to go to that same target. Until then, I am leaving them as their current mixture of targets, as there isn't an agreement to change anything in particular via this discussion, and all the targets are at least reasonable. ~ mazca talk 19:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are ambiguous. Sharouser (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only the first redirect was tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really dislike the idea of Jammu and Kashmir being a disambiguation page. It would be better to have a WP:CONCEPTDAB article about the geographic region—compare to Ireland. We could also have a Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation) to list the various political entities with that name. All that said, the status quo is quite bad. "Foo" should not redirect to "Foo (bar)". --BDD (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article about the region already exists at Kashmir. It would not be the best idea to redirect Jammu and Kashmir to that page, though, as the term is more commonly used for the political units, and sparingly to refer to the geographic region. DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Retargeting there sounds like a pretty good idea now that I think about it. Probably not for the "India" ones, though, since they're much louder about implying a political entity. Keep in mind that for much of our global readership, there's an awareness of a "Jammu and Kashmir" that's a disputed region, for whom any specific provinces and territories will just be subtopics that they can look into if they have further interest. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not too sure, but would not be opposed to such a set up. Either way, the status quo is not sustainable. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all but the last two to Kashmir. My discussion with DeluxeVegan above explains my rationale; in a nutshell, it's that many readers as a starting point will be looking for the geographic area and won't want to get bogged down with the details of specific administrative units. Keep the last two, where it does sound like a reader would be looking for a specific administrative unit, and it makes sense to give them the current one. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please see the related article Mass graves in Jammu and Kashmir. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy. Yeah, there's a whole Category:Jammu and Kashmir with lots of subcategories and pages that could be affected by this. I don't think an RfD is the best venue for such a far-reaching change. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premise of the above vote is based on a wrong assumption. 'Jammu and Kashmir' is NOT Kashmir. 'Jammu and Kashmir' is just the name of only the Indian controlled part of Kashmir (which the Indian government has now reorganized on this 31 October to 'Jammu and Kashmir' and 'Ladakh', the source of all this confusion). It doesn't include the Pakistan controlled Kashmir (Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir) or China controlled Kashmir (Aksai Chin, Trans-Karakoram Tract). In short, the term is almost never used for the whole Kashmir. Redirecting to Kashmir would be totally factually inaccurate. Imagine redirecting England to the United Kingdom. A reader with only a very basic understanding of the administrative setup may confuse the two, but thats not a reason for a redirect!
  • On October 31 this year, the Indian government split Jammu and Kashmir into two, a smaller Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Now we have many topics that share the same name 'Jammu and Kashmir'. I would support a page to differentiate the Jammu and Kashmirs, a disambiguation page.
  • I also don't see a need to touch the non-visible category pages and their subpages. All the categories and their subordinates can only refer to the current administrative unit. For example, the 'Places in Jammu and Kashmir' category is obviously referring to places in an administrative unit that currently exists. Srinagar is a place in Jammu and Kashmir union territory, not Jammu and Kashmir state, since the state no longer exists. A similar logic applies for all the categories. Subpages like 'Mass graves in Jammu and Kashmir' will also be about graves in the existing administrative unit, and so on. The is no scope for a 'Mass graves in Jammu and Kashmir (former state)', so moving wouldn't be required in any of these cases. 2.51.188.240 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most categories, including the ones I referred to, are visible to users and are meant for their navigation. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Kashmir. These need to target the general article on the region, and the Kashmir article is able to fulfill that role. As far as navigation, the article includes the timeline for the administrative units, and it appears Kashmir (disambiguation) also includes everything that may be considered "Jammu and Kashmir" for those who may want to take that route. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Indian-administered Kashmir

[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 Kashmir#Current status and political divisions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need to seperate an article. Sharouser (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the redirects were tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions per above. The whole geographical area and the associated political disputes are so complicated and overlapping that targeting an article section specifically discussing that complexity seems the only option. When you overlap areas that have disputed control, and a variably defined geographical area that doesn't match territories named after it, there just doesn't seem to be a real alternative for an encyclopedia. ~ mazca talk 13:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Orlando Airport Marriott

[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 21:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no specific mention of this property. Marriott Hotels & Resorts#Location of properties in the US lists two hotels in Orlando, but doesn't get into specifics. Orlando International Airport has a hotel, but it is a Hyatt Regency. -- Tavix (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dutch encyclopaedia's

[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 21:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a plausible time to use an apostrophe. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in Dutch: plurals that end on -s but where writing the s immediately after the singular form would cause a change in vowel sound get written as 's instead. (For example, zebra - zebra's, paraplu - paraplu's) That said, delete this redirect as nonsensical anyway, because although the Dutch language may be highly relevant here, neither encyclopedia nor encyclopaedia exist in Dutch; the Dutch word (encyclopedie) doesn't have a plural on -s; and even if it would have had an -s plural, it wouldn't require an apostrophe because -ie- doesn't get changed in Dutch pronunciation by adding an s after. AddWittyNameHere 00:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2019_November_30&oldid=931581484"