Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2014.

Loyalty to the Resistance bloc[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a misplaced redirect discussion from June 2014, but I'm placing it here in respect to the nominator:

Separate page exists under a slightly different spelling TheWarOfArt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

... Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 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.

List of oldest 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 retarget. Number 57 15:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should be targeted to Oldest people. The target article clearly has stricter inclusion criteria, and Oldest people has lists as well. I would've done this myself, but it was done in the past and reverted. BDD (talk) 17:29, 31 December 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.

Dialect of Transylvania[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 Transylvanian varieties of Romanian. Number 57 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creator seemed to attempt to redirect this to Vampire as well. Seems like a joke. Neither target mentions dialect. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Dialects of Transylvania
  2. Transylvanian dialect
  3. Transylvanian dialects
  4. Transylvanian Dialects
  5. Languages of Transylvania
  6. Transylvanian languages
  7. Transylvanian language
  8. Transylvanian Languages
  9. Transylvanian Language
Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2015 (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.

Devil Prays[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 Rebel Heart (Madonna album). --BDD (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved to "Devil Pray", the confirmed title of the song. No pages link to this redirect, so it may as well be deleted. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unneeded redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though it is just an "s" at the end, it is too unlikely of a misspelling if the song is notable without the "s". Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like an entirely plausible search term from another grammatical form ({{R from modification}}). The article (now redirect) was at this title for the first ~18 days of its existence, which again suggests plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf but retarget to Rebel Heart (Madonna album) so that it's not a double redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 17:10, 22 December 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) 14:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't infer that. Both Template:R from misspelling/doc and Template:R from modification/doc say "Use this rcat template in any namespace", but since "modification" is more-general I'd go with the more-specific one. (If it's considered a misspelling.) Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (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.

Zionist Federation[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 dabify. I'm using Si Trew's draft as a starting point, but I think the page should focus on entities actually called "Zionist Federation", with other groups which could be called Zionist and a federation in a different section. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect used to make sense because the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland was the only wikipedia article about a Zionist Federation. A new page has been created entitled the Zionist Federation of Australia and so it no longer makes sense to automatically redirect users to the specific Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. Aussiedownunder99 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. There are two articles that can be referred to by this title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote. This appears to be the primary target. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: While WP:TWODABS encourages hatnotes over a two-item disambiguation page, the latter is still best practice when there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Evidence of primacy would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search on a popular search engine shows up with several groups that are called "Zionist Federation". For that reason, I say disambiguate is the way to go with this one. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB per Steel1943. I found much the same. Since the ZFGBI has not itself been made primary, it would seem the way to go. There are other federated organisations that may not have "federation" in the title but might be worth DABbing: I've made a draft at Draft:Zionist Federation. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found that when searching as well, but I've been lectured previously that we don't create dabs for similar things, only things which are identically named. Or at least that's how I interpreted it. So for example the dab page should only list organizations which have "Zionist Federation" in the name, without listing variations like "Zionist Organization" or "Zionist Movement", unless they are also known as federations. Personally I think this view is overly pedantic and isn't in the best interest of navigation, and as such I support moving the disambiguation draft to mainspace over the redirect, with history merge if necessary. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I suggested one was the primary topic; that seems to be impossible to determine. Ivanvector (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (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.

San Francisco Sharks[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. It's not surprising that a potential team from 40 years ago isn't turning up many hits, but the nominator's concerns seem to have been addressed, and the topic is discussed at the target article. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to come up with a reference that says this team, which never played, ever went by the name Sharks. This article[1] says they were called the Seahawks, and this article[2] says they never had a name. ...William 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This franchise is not the same franchise as the current San Jose Sharks. It is actually the same franchise as the current Colorado Rockies, but they were the Nordiques first. Ivanvector (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado Avalanche, actually. The Colorado Rockies are a baseball team. There was a hockey team of that name, but they're now the New Jersey Devils. Confused yet? --BDD (talk) 14:51, 31 December 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) 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/reply: Yes, yes, I meant the hockey team; I will surrender my Canadian passport forthwith. My point is that creating a redirect from the defunct hockey team to an entirely unrelated extant hockey franchise creates navigation which is confusing and wrong, especially so because the defunct team is related to a different extant franchise. This should not redirect to San Jose Sharks; at best, an explanatory hatnote at Quebec Nordiques should refer to San Jose. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note as well that there is a discussion of the San Francisco Sharks history in the Quebec Nordiques article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (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.

User template:333-blue/sandbox/Template:2014 Sleeping 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 speedy deleted per criterion R2 by Bgwhite. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. 333-blue 09:30, 31 December 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.

The Feed[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. Use WP:RM to request a move. While moves can happen as a result of RfD, if a move is your original intent, it's best to start there. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap (i.e. Reverse the redirect). There's no need for the disambiguation in the title here. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 31 December 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.

United Nations Supreme Court[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 International Court of Justice. This outcome appears obvious and helpful, so I think the speedy close is warranted. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation or deletion...redirect appears nonsensical, perhaps at best being a redirect from an error. djr13 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djr13: Yeah, it's essentially an erroneous title, but the redirect is essentially synonymous since International Court of Justice is a branch of the United Nations. Also, International Court of Justice's scope is broader than just the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 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_December_31&oldid=1138579530"