Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2014.

Lotus: Legend Of The United States[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted; created by user also responsible for Legendtina and Legend X redirects, which seem to have been created as vandalism. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a misleading redirect. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirect --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: apparently the name of the album is believed to be acronym for "Legend Of The United States", but combination of acronym and its expansion don't seem overly plausible combined. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (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.

Me. I Am Mariah World Tour[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False redirect since no tour by this name was ever confirmed. This should be deleted because of WP:OR redirect creation. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Name of tour hasn't even been announced, and one concert in Singapore hardly confirms a tour at all, not to mention a world tour.  — ₳aron 15:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until Mimi herself says something about upcoming tours. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. The artist hasn't announced a tour yet anyways.--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: combination of weird punctuation and capitaization with WP:CRYSTAL issues make this redirect highly implausible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:48, 4 August 2014 (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.

Nondemocracy[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. This set of redirects has been listed for about two months and even relisted once, but there are multiple votes/opinions for the redirects. There is no consensus here. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current target is not helpful TheChampionMan1234 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag as {{R from antonym}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We see throughout the world that countries that aren't the slightest bit democratic make a half-assed attempt at appearing that way. Such as North Korea calling itself "Democratic Republic" and claiming to guarantee free speech and religious rights, or the obviously fraudulent elections run in oppressive states. I've been trying to find an article that addresses this, since that would be the best target, but I'm failing at that. Maybe someone else knows where to point? Ego White Tray (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Single-party_state#Current_single-party_states is the best I can find TheChampionMan1234 01:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Single-party state - There is no need to further specify the "current" section because nondemocratic states have existed in the past as well. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single-party state does not automatically make it nondemocratic. If there are democratic processes within the party, then there's still a possibility of some sort of democracy. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example or source? I don't see any form of single-party state democracy discussed on the Democracy article. Neelix (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really want the sources: any Chinese editor may provide countless sources about PRC being the most democratic country ever. Likely, these sources would even outnumber the sources saying otherwise... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually really would like to see such sources, if they are reliable enough to use on Wikipedia. I am not confident that there are reliable sources stating that single-party states can simultaneously be democratic, but you are welcome to produce some if you think otherwise. Neelix (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't provide Chinese sources (I don't speak Chinese), but I can suggest Lenin's works (all of them, actually) as widely accepted sources stating that single-party communist regimes are inherently democratic. Pretty reliable primary third-party sources; or at least reliable per WP:EXPERT. I believe the amount of communists these days allows to conclude that the view behind this source is prominent enough, if not most prominent. I am pretty confident that there are newer similar WP:EXPERT sources, but I am not interested in Communist ideology enough to bother digging them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any in particular? If so, we can expand this redirect into an article on the subject. At present, none of the sources we have indicate a difference between single-party states and nondemocracies. Neelix (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from antonym}}: the article about democracy provides the best answer to the question "What is nondemocracy?". Being a national of nondemocratic state with four parties in the parliamant, I strongly oppose the idea of retargetting these terms to single-party state. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is a dominant-party system that is de jure democratic and has been argued to be de facto nondemocratic. De facto single-party states are discussed on the Single-party state article, therefore retargeting Nondemocracy there is not excluding countries like Russia. Neelix (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, retargetting these to an article containing arguably incomplete list is misleading in my opinion. I hold to my argument that an article about democracy explains the subject best. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better solution would be to add Russia to the single-party state article as an example of an arguably de facto single-party state. If the Nondemocracy redirect were expanded into a full-fledged article, I would expect it to simply be a duplication of the Single-party state article. Neelix (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, nondemocracy is not all about single-party. Eg. pre-crysis Ukraine was arguably nondemocratic state with real multi-party political system, which arguably denied participation for vast majority of citizens as well. (I am not implying anything about Ukraine as it is now.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any difference between being arguably single-party and being arguably nondemocratic, just as I don't see any difference between being single-party and being nondemocratic. Even if excluding portions of the population from voting is unjust, it doesn't make a country nondemocratic. Women were excluded from voting in the early 19th-century United States, but we don't call the early 19th-century United States nondemocratic. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under that standard, the Holy Roman Empire was a democracy, because electors elected the emperor, and did so each time the emperor died. Franchise was very limited, but some people were enfranchised. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide how to define these words. We are only supposed to reproduce what is found in reliable sources on the subject. Even if you had sources stating that some people believe the Holy Roman Empire was a single-party state and simultaneously a democracy, that point of contention could easily be explained on the Single-party state article with reference to that source. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a section to Democracy and target there - Have a section on non-democratic systems that sometimes fool people, and explain why there are not democracies. Some possibilities include Apartheid, Single-party state, Oligarchy and Totalitarian democracy which all have some elements of democratic systems but are unquestionably not democracies. Essentially a "what democracy is not" section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless and until a section like what Oiyarbepsy has described. --BDD (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the section that Oiyarbepsy described. Neelix (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2014 (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.

Ilbo[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 Ilbo to List of newspapers in South Korea and Retarget Shimbun to List of newspapers in Japan. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Japanese. TheChampionMan1234 04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Ilbo to List of newspapers in South Korea and Shimbun to List of newspapers in Japan: plausible search terms as parts of the names of many Korean and Japanese newspapers. (Unless there is an established practice of not having partial-title redirects?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Hasirpad -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @65.94.171.126: I oppose this retarget due to, a: the subject of newspapers is not especially Japanese or Korean, b:it is unlikely that Japanese or Korean users type Roman letters as opposed to Kana or Hangeul TheChampionMan1234 11:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd agree with (b), but a lot of these newspapers use "Ilbo" or "Shimbun" even in their English editions' titles, instead of translating their name (e.g. The Chosun Ilbo instead of "The Chosun Daily"), making it likely that an English-speaker will see the romanised form and wonder about it (i.e. plausible search term). Clearly newspaper isn't the right target, but the country-specific lists might be. quant18 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Quant18, these terms are used in the English language names of newspapers from Korea and Japan. The only relevant articles for these terms are those that deal with Korea and Japan, and not the general newspaper article. What are especially Japanese or Korean are those papers from Japan or Korea, not the general topic of newspapers. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Hasirpad --Lenticel (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: definitely not plausible search terms for lists, and no other language-related target was proposed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they are plausible search terms for someone who remembers half the name of a newspaper, and these lists are (theoretically) a perfect index for finding the full name—definitely preferable to browsing through pages of search results. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly why I want to see these redirects deleted: we should not redirect fragments. If someone remembers part of the name of something, he should look up articles "List of something" and "Something in its country", but not name fragments he remembers. Alternatively we would end up with countless redirects like geot→Peugeot and wski→list of Polish people. Just don't feed editors with WP:BADIDEAs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • the difference is that “wski” and “geot” are not complete words. � (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Ilbo to List of newspapers in South Korea and Shimbun to List of newspapers in Japan. Redirects exist as a service to our readers and when, as here, they are harmless and potentially useful they should be kept. As a BTW I don't subscribe to what I term the 'Chinese deletion rationale' ie 'if this article on X is kept then 1 million articles of the same type will be created'. They never are and we need to deal with each page on its merits. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFF. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2014 (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.

Nothing sucks like a vax[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. Consider this a WP:REDLINK deletion—there may well be interest in this subject, but we currently have nothing to say about it. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda harmful, unlikely search term. TheChampionMan1234 07:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see what makes it harmful. This was the VAX sales pitch. No comment on whether it's worth keeping. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify: as the story goes, this phrase was a slogan of vax (vacuum), but it gained popularity among IT folks for obvious reasons. Provided that vax just copied slogan of Electrolux, retargetting this slogan there is not really a good idea. Neither is keeping current target, as apparently it was used against CISC, and not VAX in particular. It may, of course, be deleted per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 as obscure, but it would be a loss IMO: this amusing story would really improve the coverage of RISC vs. CISC topic. The only problem is lack of sources – I can't find anything that would look like RS to pass WP:GNG for this topic. I hope someone else will. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page history says: "Nothing_sucks_like_a_vax has been viewed 51 times in the last 90 days." Someone is searching for the old slogan. Dream Focus 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2014 (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.

2013 F1 Standings templates[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, no prospect of use and misleading. The targets ({{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}) are intended to always contain the standings for the current season, i.e. they currently contains the 2014 standings. They will never again contain the 2013 standings. The existence of "2013" templates could possibly encourage the creation of other "year" templates (this has happened in the past). DH85868993 (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The way it is done now it not what is was when they were created. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:54, 1 August 2014 (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.

SARS[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. Consensus remains that the current target is best. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created in 2003; on a few occasions since then, editors have sought to retarget it to the disambiguation page, SARS (disambiguation). I request a determination as to whether there is consensus to change the longstanding target of this term. bd2412 T 02:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. With the rise of MERS, SARS has increased its visibility. No other topic has global reach/coverage on the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. Otherwise, we might as well go ahead and retarget AIDS as well, which is probably not happening any time soon. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (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.

Eluosi[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect in Chinese pinyin for the Chinese name of the country, a topic which is not especially Chinese. TheChampionMan1234 00:05, 1 August 2014 (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/2014_August_1&oldid=1141906316"