Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2014.

With glowing hearts[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only part of a quote, unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 22:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both Both phrases are strongly connected to the Canadian national anthem and nothing else, except for various Canadian references to these. There is a documentary called With Glowing Hearts, and if an article is ever made, that one should be retargeted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag as {{R from quote}} or {{R from phrase}} ; both these phrases are frequently used to indicate Canada or Canadian patriotism, so should point to their origination -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 67.--Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep per all above. sings "Oh Canada, Oh Canada, de dum dum dar dar dee, Oh Canada, Oh Canada, there's lots of stuff to see". Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep I've put lyrics through Google to see what song they are from. People may do the same on Wikipedia. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 14 November 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.

Hymn Stanów Zjednoczonych[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. Anyone who can find a valid target is welcome to re-create. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Target has no affinity for Polish. - TheChampionMan1234 22:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, further, this is a descriptive term saying "Anthem of the United States", and not directly about the Star Spangled Banner, as the US has had other unofficial national anthem (such as that played at Fort Sumpter at the start of the Civil War, being Yankee Doodle Dandy), it is also not completely accurate. Also, the original content was #patrz [[Hymn Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki]] clearly a mistaken creation meant for the Polish Wikipedia. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been fretting about this. You're right pl:Hymn Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki which is fairly obviously "Naional Hymn of America" but in the infobox there it says the Polish name is Gwieździsty Sztandar. Which we haven't at EN. I am not good at Polish but it says that Francis Scott Key nicked the tune from God Save the Queen (or king, the article in Polish says Queen, I think), and I think it should be at My Country, 'Tis of Thee. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's neither. The tune Key grabbed was a popular drinking song called Anacreon in Heaven. Kinda why it's so tough for regular folks to sing: just picture a tavern full of liquored up dudes belting it out. Nha Trang 20:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to imagine it, that's my usual Friday night out. I bow to youre wisdom, but are you suggesting an R to Anacreon in Heaven? Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 10 November 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.

Tssb[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many (non-notable?) uses of this acronym, and not one of them, AFAIK, is related to the target in any way. - TheChampionMan1234 22:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am seeing a lot of informal uses of "TSSB" (in various capitalisations) as an acronym for "The Star-Spangled Banner" (including a few in project and talk space by Baseball Bugs) so it is clearly related to the target - please try do some basic WP:BEFORE so you avoid these factually inaccurate rationales. You are right that there are lots of other uses that are unrelated to the US national anthem, but as not one of them is notable (Texas Skill Standards Board gets one unlinked mention in passing, which is the closest any get) so this is not in the way of anything and so it would appear to be totally harmless. It gets 10-20 hits each month, which is above bot level, suggesting that not only is it harmless but it is actually useful meaning deletion would be the harmful course of action. If any other TSSB use becomes notable in the future then this redirect can be reevaluated then, but deleting it now on the off-chance they do is WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Come back when another TSSB has an article. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The tune and song is "The Defence of Fort McHenry". It is not officially called "The Star Spangled Banner". That is WP:COMMONNAME I expect, but "TSSB" is pushing it a bit far in my opinion. Why not TSB as a likely typo? Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether this target should be mentioned on the TSB dab page is entirely irrelevant to whether "Tssb" is a good redirect or not. Equally it matters not what the proper name of the tune is - people use this abbreviation to refer to it and there are no competing uses, so it's clearly a useful redirect to have. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 12 November 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.

Part 15[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 is that this is a useful redirect to the present target and that no other targets would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the WP:COMMONNAME and there are many uses outside the particular field. - TheChampionMan1234 22:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Convert to disambiguation / set index / listify. The FCC's unlicensed low power radio station regulation is known as "Part 15" [1][2][3] ; Other important uses can be listed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How many books have fifteen parts, let alone how much furniture from IKEA? The R seems unhelpful. Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many of those books have the force of law, and noncompliance results in legal consequences? (such as being charged with operating a pirate radio station) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common shorthand for FCC legislation regarding low-power devices such as personal FM transmitters for transmitting MP3 player music to a radio, wireless routers and telephones, and 'talking house' stations, though a case of making a new RD at FCC Part 15 might be more specific (already created long ago); it refers to the FCC rulebook Simon, not a part in a book. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 13 November 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.

Do you even lift[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) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target, target is seemingly unrelated. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listroiderbob (talk • contribs)

  • Weak delete. Steve Pulcinella is not unrelated to this meme (search for his name at http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-you-even-lift) but if there is no mention at the target then the it isn't a good redirect. We don't seem to have any mention of this on Wikipedia at present, so it is probably best to delete unless it merits a mention somewhere (I don't have an opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 05:21, 13 November 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.

Template:Jusitice Party[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 by Ben MacDui per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Improbable misspelling for moved template. Bamyers99 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Ill try G6 as uncontroversial housekeeping. Si Trew (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, accidental creation at this location, moved soon after to the proper name -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 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.

Part I[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) 19:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is being ridiculous and exclusively Indian. I tagged for speedy deletion with rationale as R3, but an admin declined it just because it's "not recently created". Wanted to propose deletion because it's clearly quite uncontroversial, but am afraid of being rejected for the same reason, so I am submitting this for RFD. I request this to be deleted soon for obvious reasons. HYH.124 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The speedy deletion was correctly declined, as this was created in 2012. R3 is explicitly limited to "recently created" redirects for good reason, and while there isn't a unanimously agreed precise definition of "recent" the oldest I've ever seen argued for is about 6 months (my personal preference is for a cut-off at about 10-14 days) not just shy of two years. Proposed deletion would also have been rejected, because that is applicable only to articles, again for good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't keep as is. While this is a very heavily used redirect (over 200 views last month), it is too ambiguous to point directly at the current target, for example it's only article space use is at Wapping Autonomy Centre where it is intended to link to a band (we don't appear after a cursory search to have an article about them at any title). I would normally recommend disambiguation, but I strongly suspect one would just be an unmanageably long list of partial title matches, although Part II is a redirect to a disambiguation at Part Two. Part One is a psychedelic rock album, which is the most obvious target if this is not disambiguated (Part 1 is a redlink). If this is disambiguated Part One of the Albanian Constitution and Part One of the Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania are equally worthy of inclusion with this link I think. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need a DAB per WP:PTM - TheChampionMan1234 22:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about a redirect to Part One? Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that the actual primary topic for the term "Part One"? I would think the primary topic would be the partition of things into parts, there being a first part to such partitions. There's also the conceptually similar term "The First Part" -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are they being PTM? Just because the title of the Wikipedia article is one thing, does not mean that the actual topic's official name is the same thing. For instance "Part One of the Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania" is not the actual name of that part, in the provided fulltext, the actual name of Part One is "Part I - General Provisions". While Part One of the Constitution of India is actually called "Part I" [4]. I would hazard that some things are actually named (official names) just "Part I" or "Part 1" or "Part One" in many things. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOTDIC. And I would agree. Henry IV Part I would seem the obvious target to me. I have read a book or two in my life and a few of them have a part I. The rest I buy in installments. Patently no obvious way for this to go. Delete and let the search engine do it. If you disagree, you can sign a partition. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 10 November 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.

Chinese Federation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 19#Chinese Federation

Canadian 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#American Federation - TheChampionMan1234 00:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 1867. And Canada is a federated dominion, which I think is slightly different than a federation, certainly in the US sense. Ivanvector (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did mean around something like that sort of time, I got there within a century or two. Now, can you please take my queen off your coins :) Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Canadian Confederation. If "federation" is meant to mean the process by which several disparate British colonies agreed to unite under a new federal political entity resulting in the current entity of Canada, then that is the appropriate target. I don't think that Canada is commonly referred to as the "Canadian Federation" (or at all), but "Dominion of Canada" used to be common (not as much since the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982). Ivanvector (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My worry with that if is if it were to be confused with the Confederated States of America or something. Confederation would seem no help. Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confederation#Canada does provide some insight, actually, but shouldn't be considered as the redirect target. Within Canada, Confederation is the process by which the nation achieved effective sovereignty from the British government (but not the Crown). So "Confederation" refers to a point in time, or as the article suggests, it refers to the British North America Act which created the Dominion of Canada, the current federal government (prior to this there was a Province of Canada which was a different entity altogether). In that sense "confederation" means "the act of federating", similar in American context to the United States Declaration of Independence although we didn't declare, we asked nicely. However, it is also used to refer to the federation when provinces became part of the country, as in "Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949". That isn't the modern usage elsewhere but we stick to it here, naming major landmarks for it as recently as 1997. That said, I don't recall ever having heard "federation" used in that context, so I think it is probably more likely that someone searching for "Canadian Federation" is looking for some particular Canadian organization (of which we couldn't possibly determine which is the primary topic) or for the country itself. So actually it's fine as-is, so keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Users looking for more specialised topics can easily navigate to them from Canada (I'd hope), but I don't see a reason to believe there's a sub-target that almost all users would be looking for. WilyD 10:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is whether a federation and a confeferation — or the act of isting or federating — are the same thing. Nobody is in doubt that Canada federated (or confederated), and no doubt we will make Rs to direct non-canucks towards that info. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Literally, a federation and a confederation are not the same thing, going by the standard definitions. It's just that the Canadian definition is not the standard. From the fourth paragraph of Confederation: In Canada, the word confederation has an additional, unrelated meaning. "Confederation" refers to the process of (or the event of) establishing or joining the Canadian federal state. The question is: what topic is a reader likely searching for if they type "canadian federation" into the search box? Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think that sums it up very nicely, would they want the activity of federating (or confederating), or the (con)federation created as a result? I dunno. (Sorry about my "isting" slip above by the way, at least the misplaced "f" didn't go at the front!)
To add to the mix, are we trying to serve a Canadian audience with this redirect or the rest of the world? (obviously both in a perfect world) My guess is Canadians wouldn't look at this because "everybody knows that..." but the rest of the world would be puzzled and maybe would look it up. That is just a guess and I don't know a way to find stats broken down by region. (Thryduulf might.) Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likely, a Canadian reader would use this term to refer to the country, not the event. A non-Canadian reader might go either way, I guess, although I think it's unlikely someone would type "canadian federation" looking for info on the formation of the country. More likely "canadian unity", "canadian independence", "canadian rebellion", "canadian statehood" etc. Ivanvector (talk) 15:14, 13 November 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_November_8&oldid=1142587325"