Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2014.

The Amazing Race Philippines: Biyaheng Asya[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. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The theme "Biyaheng Asya" literally means "Trip to Asia" was the pre-season promotional title and it was never used. As the second season of the Philippine franchise starts in few days, there it no seems with the described title. ApprenticeFan work 14:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. This it seems was the promotional title, and so it's a very likely search term for people who have seen the promotional material and don't know or don't realise the title has changed. This is reinforced by the 80-130 hits each month (I checked April-August). Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add mention about the promotion at the target ("It was promoted before the season under the theme 'Biyaheng Asya', literally meaning 'Trip to Asia'."). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:51, 23 September 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.

Next Fijian general election[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 List of next general elections#Oceania. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this redirect is currrently outdated. There is no article which regards to election after 2014 in Fiji. Aight 2009 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak retarget to Elections in Fiji; ideally (as opposed to the current state of the article), this article should mention term limits (ie. length), and parliamentary procedure regarding election planning -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Another possible target is List of next general elections#Oceania. At present this doesn't contain any information for Fiji, but it should. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Thryduulf's topic can be populated. This is never going to be a high-traffic topic, and it's not at all difficult to imagine it will usually be out of date, and thus misleading or otherwise unhelpful. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 21 October 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.

Wikipedia:MONOTYPIC[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, with no prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because misleading; there are two different sets of instructions for dealing with monotypic taxa, one for fauna and one for flora. I've set up two shortcuts WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate as a likely search term for both naming conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unusual to do this for a WP shortcut, but if acceptable this would be better, I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: See the target pages of WP:DRAFT or WP:NCSPORTS. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too ambiguous to be of use. Since it's a newly-created shortcut, external links shouldn't be a concern. - Eureka Lott 00:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should have thought of the fact that people might type it looking for flora conventions also: thanks Peter coxhead for fixing this up. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 September 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.

Masshole Commonwealth[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. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid alternative name. - TheChampionMan1234 08:36, 22 September 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.

Alabahmu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 12#Alabahmu

Juvenile Law in Illinois[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdJohnston (talk • contribs) 01:44, 12 December 2014‎

Weak retarget to Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, if not delete. - TheChampionMan1234 08:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget per TheChampionMan1234. This was originally an unsourced stub that was boldly redirected first to Category:Juvenile law then later to the present target. I wondered about Law of Illinois as a target, but it doesn't mention juveniles at all, so I think Champion's suggestion is better. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Juvenile law is a broad topic, under which juvenile detention facilities are only a minor subtopic, so I don't think that the proposed redirect target would be particularly useful to people linking to or searching for this term. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP. This is a related topic, but I'm concerned that redirecting there would make an article on the topic less likely. Of course, the article would belong at Juvenile law in Illinois anyway. On the other hand, in the meantime, we don't even have a Juvenile law article, let alone Juvenile in the United States. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 21 October 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.

New Corea[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) 18:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

See discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 15#New Korea - TheChampionMan1234 08:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @TheChampionMan1234:, also surely same criteria as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_18#West_Corea? Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 22 September 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.

Akhtiar[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. As this is a former/historic name for the whole topic, and since it's mentioned in multiple places, I'm not refining the target, though I wouldn't revert anyone who did. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name isn't mentioned at target. And I doubt that its a valid alternative name. - TheChampionMan1234 07:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrary to the nomination, this is mentioned at the target, so refine to Sevastopol#History (section) or Sevastopol#Under the Russian Empire (subsection) that contains the sourced statement "Sevastopol was founded in June 1783 as a base for a naval squadron under the name Akhtiar" (emphasis mine). Please engage in at least a little bit of WP:BEFORE before nominating. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 22 September 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.

Communications in Crimea[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) 18:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not covered. - TheChampionMan1234 07:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:RED. We should have coverage of this topic somewhere, but it seems that we don't at present. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 September 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.

Hell Hath No Fury[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. This redirect was created after a recent page move but the consensus retarget, that contains a disambiguation for precisely this capitalisation, is clearly correct. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion request, but retarget it: from Hell Hath No Fury (Clipse album) to Hell hath no fury. Basically, no reason given to being targeted to Clipse's album. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:53, 22 September 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.

Wikipedia:Kirakira[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 delete per WP:CSD#G6 as a redirect caused by moving a page created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect to article -- also there's a good chance the article itself is not notable, but I cannot currently check that Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete DB-TEST, accidentally placed into the wrong namespace. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:59, 22 September 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.

WolVes[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. Of very little use, perhaps, but the potential for harm has not been demonstrated. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion because it's just seems to have a completely random capital letter in it. I really think Speedy R3 is too strict for cases like this. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment speedy delete R3 does not cover cases like this because for the significant majority of those cases it takes a discussion to determine whether they should be deleted - indeed a majority of those redirects that are nominated here by someone thinking they should be speediable under R3 despite being old are kept or retargetted following discussion. The problem with R3 is not in its strictness, but in the over-lenient interpretation of "recent" by some administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong keep. This redirect has been around since 2001 - the first entry in the page history is by user:Conversion script in 2002 which converted Wikipedia from the original CamelCase links to the present free links format. Earlier history can be seen at Nostaligia Wiki which shows the page was created as "see WolF" on 3 January 2001 (redirects didn't exist until several years later) - see also Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. Given that Wikipedia has had a page by this title for over 13 years the chances that there are links to it are very high. Stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so it's not possible to say how many of the thousands of views are for this title, but given the age we have to assume it's nonzero. Deletion would be therefore be harmful but would gain us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I've now tagged the redirect with {{R from CamelCase}}. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The only substantial reason in your comment to keep the redirect is "the chances that there are links to it are very high". Could you elaborate on this? Links from where? There are basically no links to this redirect on Wikipedia (unless you include the deletion discussion itself). Looking at the grok stats shows that there's a steady flow of 100 views a day for "wolves". The vast majority of those one can expect are being generated by direct Wikipedia searches or wikilink clicks from other articles. A small percentage will be due to external links. A much much smaller percentage of those external links (perhaps zero) will be due to the external links using "wolVes" (which even without the redirect would be okay because most web servers treat URLs case-insensitively). I would be surprised in the extreme is this redirect is actually being used more than once or twice a year, especially since "wolVes" is not shown in either the current search engine or the one in beta testing; "wolVes" is masked by "wolves". Perhaps I'm just being myopic so if you can think of any source that would actually generate traffic from "wolVes" I'd be glad to hear it. BTW, there is also Category:Redirects with old history for old redirects. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is "implausible and not common", but the reason these "Redirects with old history" are kept is because of their "old [page] history". It is like AlgeriA, we can't delete it for copyrights. As such I prefer it to be kept. Having "a completely random capital letter in it" isn't a good argument to delete a redirect anyway. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. Some old redirects are kept for copyright reasons. I don't see any copyrightable text in this redirect's history so I don't see why this argument should be accepted in this case. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The old history has not yet been merged (I'll see about sorting that), but when it does the old history will contain copyrightable edits. You have also neglected to address the argument related to incoming links, bookmarks, etc, nor have you expressed why you believe this redirect is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now performed the import. I've also had a look at the revision history, and the following revisions are definitely copyrightable, others may also be: 3 February 2001, 25 February 2002, 7 September 2005‎, 23 June 2013 (all), 22 September 2014 (both). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment I wish you would have discussed this matter before making changes. It appears to me you are muddling the waters to support your opinion in an unfair way by complicating the edit history. Anyway, I did address the case of incoming traffic for this redirect and I presented a reasonable argument that shows it essentially doesn't exist. You are straining good faith by acting as if I hadn't at least partially responded to that. I reject your claim that there are copyrightable edits here. The only text involved is "See WolF". Short phrases are not copyrightable! Sure, you can claim copyright but it will not be upheld in a US court. Why it is harmful? The same reason that all useless redirects are harmful, it's just going to sit around for years accumulating bot edits and wasting editor time by adding pointless entries to lists (like "what links here") editors needs to read and generating valueless bureaucratic discussion like this (as this redirect has already done in the past). On the flip side, since I pretty much reject both the "incoming traffic" argument and the "copyrightable text" argument, I see no sound explanation what the benefit of the redirect is. Wikipedia is not a museum for old useless pages. Nor should we let a misguided sense of nostalgia prevent us from cleaning house. If there is no good reason to keep a redirect, delete it and let the nostalgia stay on the Nostalgia wiki. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS Also, even if some of the edits are copyrightable, I don't think that implies this redirect must be kept because the text has not been merged into any article that is definitely staying. So unless I am missing something, this argument is logically flawed too regardless of the copyrightable status. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No "muddying of the waters" was involved at all - all the old history from the Nostaligia Wiki should be merged into the main database here so we correctly comply with the attribution requirement of our license. That not every page has already had this happen is irrelevant. We can find and change any links to this title on Wikipedia, they're not relevant, we cannot do the same for links that exist on the wider internet, in bookmarks, hard copies, old mirrors, etc. Stats.grok.se is case insensitive so we have no way of knowing how may of the hits for "wolves" came via this redirect, but in the absence of evidence that it is zero deletion would be harmful. We don't keep redirects out of a sense of nostalgia, misplaced or otherwise, we keep redirects unless they are harmful. You have not given any reason why this should be deleted other than that you dislike it - it's not in the way of anything, it's not misleading, it's not disrupting anything. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read comments before you reply to them? I directly gave you reasons why I thought it is harmful. The proper thing to do would be to say whether you agree or disagree with those points and why, not to act as if I haven't said anything. This is the second time in this thread you've done that. I also gave an argument why the traffic is likely zero or almost zero and you ignored it. You've now even continued to ignore that even after I pointed out your mistake. It's clear you don't even spend a moment to consider arguments other than your own. It's not clear to me that you even finish reading the comments to which you reply. You are not debating in good faith and I'll save my time and energy to reply to other people. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:29, 25 September 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.

Panalba[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) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletion; the redirection is simply wrong, as there is no relation between famotidine and panalba (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1979/11/upjohns-shuck-and-jive-routine, andhttp://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=marketing_papers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilienfeld (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 September 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_September_22&oldid=1138579897"