Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2015.

Ape extinction[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 Hominidae#Conservation to preserve attribution, despite the redirect itself not being particularly helpful. Deryck C. 09:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was formerly an article. It seems per its history that the information in the article was either merged into or planned to be merged into Ape, but the information seems to be absent from the target article'a current version (if it was ever there.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Primate extinction → Hominidae, which also doesn't mention extinction. That one's been a redirect throughout its existence, for most of it to ape extinction, which was created as an article in January 2003. From an hour after its creation on 26 April 2003 it pointed at Ape extinction until 8 April 2013.
  2. Ape extinction was converted into a redirect (to Hominidae, but not to section) with this edit of 8 April 2013 by User:Jackhynes, who had put in a {{merge from}} on 27 March 2013, here.
  3. Shortly after that day, Primate extinction was retargeted to Hominidae by User: AvicBot to resolve the double redirect.
  4. Ape extinction was then retargeted to Ape on 23 April 2013 by User:Dtgriscom, but Primate extinction wasn't, so making a fork, since Primate extinction still targets Hominidae.
  5. In the meantime, User:Jackhynes had done a (partial) merge from Ape extinction into Hominidae#Conservation on 8 April 2013: here. The merged content (a table) still exists.
@Steel1943: do you want to add Primate extinction to this nom, or should I make it separately? Their fate seems rather intertwined (regardless of whether or not you agree with my weak retarget, which may well not be the best option). Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC) updated Si Trew (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si Trew, it would probably be best to nominate Primate extinction separately since due to your findings above, the discussion's result will probably be different that this one's result. Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I'll wait until this one closes. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 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.

Ringli[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. The discussion below has shown that "ringli" may refer to different things in different cultures, none of which would be independently notable for the English Wikipedia. Delete along the lines of WP:XY. Deryck C. 09:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the origin about how "ringli" refers to "doughnut". The redirect is not mentioned in the article, and other translations I am finding in other languages for "ringli" include it translating to "eyelid" or "anchovy". Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, better to the specific section. If we do, we should remember to delink it there else we get a cryptic circular reference. Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As for the Hungarian, it is not that these are common in Hungary: and the word is essentially a loanword because the Hungarian for "ring" is not "ring" but hu:Gyűrű. There's also hu:Ring_(egyértelműsítő_lap) – a DAB – which in the cunning new way of WikiData I can't tie up properly because of the enforced 1:1 relationship.
But It just happens to be that I am an Englishman with a Hungarian wife and live in Hungary so asked her, then checked the "best" Hungarian dictionary, and it agreed with her. I don't think that what it means in Hungarian should influence our decision on what it should mean in English, if anything. I had another thought as a misspelling for Ringgit -> Malaysian ringgit, anyway. (User:Lenticel might have some idea about that one). Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure man, I think they're too different for "Ringli" to be considered as a plausible misspelling. -- Lenticel (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. "Ringli" could refer to a bunch of different things in different languages, and by retargeting to one item, you're taking preference to one language while leaving out the others. No matter where we put it, someone is going to be disappointed or confused. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 18 August 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.

Template:Rfs[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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete opaque shortcut used on only three redirects (before I orphaned it); ambiguous with all the other R from s---, at minimum. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redirect documentation should have clear names. Also RFS has articlespace uses -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is common practice – Template:Rfs is just one of many hundreds of redirect shortcuts/aliases just like it. {{-r|r tsh|R template shortcuts}}, to include {{-r|rtrt|R to redirect templates}}, are commonly abbreviated this way. And not for anything, but shouldn't we wait for decisions before we orphan proposed redirects? – Paine  11:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I came across {{rfs}} because I jumped into the endless sea of {{R from surname}}s to try to find ones which need to be updated into {{Surname}} set-indices. Here's my three edits to revert if you would like to return to status quo ante while the discussion is going on. But I don't see the benefit of converting existing uses of {{R from surname}} into {{rfs}}.
Most of Category:Redirects from template shortcuts aren't really shortcuts, and certainly not TLAs, but simply alternative descriptive names or leftovers from mergers. Many redirect acronyms are used little or not at all, e.g. {{rfn}} or {{rfm}} (which is used properly once and has one mislink left over from a different meaning of the same acronym from ten years ago). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I often prefer the use of shortcuts myself (to save time while categorizing redirects), the only reason to convert to a shortcut might be if another edit(s) is being made to the redirect. IOW, it's at best a "trivial" edit. I do disagree with your statement about the template shortcut category. There are nearly 2,000 redirects in that category (which does not count thousands more that still need to be categorized), and "most" of them are very similar to this shortcut you want s-canned. They are one-, two-, three-, four- or five-letter or letter–number combinations, and "most" of them are "ambiguous". I'm certainly not the only contributor who uses them, and I use them during the vast majority of my editing time. This particular redirect is linked on the template page using the {{-r|tsh|Template shortcut}} template box, so it is right up front there for any editors who categorize redirects of all kinds, including surname redirects, and who like to use shortcuts to save time. There is no good deletion rationale that persuades us to delete any of these. – Paine  16:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nominator mentions, this is far too ambiguous. {{R from song}} and {{R from school}} are two extremely common Rcats, with plenty of other potential uses. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely ask you to reconsider, BDD, as your influence in this matter will, I'm certain, tip the scales. The category is chock full of shortcuts just like this one, many just as ambiguous and yet useful to those who may use them. For those of us who have used these shortcuts for many years to save time while tackling the humongous task of finding and categorizing redirects, shortcuts just like these are truly gifts from the gift givers of the universe. I said above that there is no good deletion rationale that can persuade us to delete any of these useful shortcuts. Please, this once, please consider that it just might be true. – Paine  14:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paine, I appreciate your diligence when it comes to Rcats, but we want their profile to be raised, right? We want more people to contribute to tagging redirects, and to understand the robust system we have in place for that. Precisely for that reason I want to move away from ambiguous abbreviations and other opaque designations. That's why I always break up {{redr}} into individual Rcats (when I'm already editing a redirect). I want these tags to be clear and easy to use; I'm sure you want the same. You may be accustomed to having shortcuts like this save you time, but how much more time would it save to have more editors working in this area, and how much better for the project? --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is of use and appears most likely use of Rfs. Rubbish computer 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that? There are 12,356 redirects from surnames, but 15,794 from songs and 18,239 from shortcuts (only 2078 from schools, to my surprise). --BDD (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Unfortunately I guessed that this would be the most likely one. Please cross out my above comment. Rubbish computer 15:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise: I'm someone who does a lot of WP:RCAT tagging, so I know where Paine is coming from. I also can see the problem that {{rfs}} delivers because it's so ambiguous. It'd be one thing if this was an established shortcut for this, but since it was only used three times, it's not. I also don't see how helpful the rcat shortcut is in the first place, because someone could easily assume its {{R from song}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R from school}}, etc. Keeping all this in mind, here's my compromise: Delete this shortcut, but create another less-ambiguous shortcut, such as {{rfsur}} (R from surname). Can we all agree to that? -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: I second the above Rubbish computer 17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see that I appear to be outnumbered here, and what this deletion will open up is that someone will start through the categories and find every shortcut they can that may be deleted from this precedent. And thank you, BDD, for your compliment, which I do consider high praise. This precedent, though, might very well lead to many other such proposals, like the ones I already mentioned in the "nowiki" code above. It's not just rcats – it's many other templates and many other shortcuts to pages other than rcats and templates in general. This shortcut, added to the top of the rcat documentation page, is just like a great many others, so if this one is deleted, then you'll need to dig in your feet for the barrage of other similar shortcut proposals that will inevitably follow. Joys to all! – Paine  18:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful about that, see WP:BEANS. This would be a slippery slope to apply precedent to, and would discourage any mass nomination of this sort. From what I could gleam, I don't see too many more rcats that would fit in this same boat (highly ambiguous, no usage) so I'm not sure how useful it'd be to raise any alarms of this type... -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think I understand your frustration here. Yes, this will probably lead to some similar discussions; just think of it as growing pains associated with bringing Rcats into the light. And, humbly, I think my position on template shortcuts is in line with usual consensus here: they're only problematic if one could reasonably expect it to refer to something else. For example, I wouldn't object to {{rfq}} or {{rfy}} redirecting to {{R from quotation}} or {{R from year}}, respectively, as there's nothing at RFQ that would be likely to have a template, and nothing at all at RFY. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I shall probably use Tavix' good suggestion and create {{rfsur}} if this one is deleted. Ftr, though, I must continue to stand on my strong "keep-this-harmless-shortcut-redirect" !vote (till the bitter end ) – Paine  03:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment deleting or retargeting won't break very much [1].—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 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.

Pokémon locations (Kanto)[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 all. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of Pokémon redirects. These are locations in Kanto, the setting of the original video games. It's described briefly at Pokémon universe#Kanto, but nowhere in enough detail to mention these specific places. A few of these are redirects from merges, but since it will never be appropriate to have such detail (see WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE), attribution shouldn't be a concern. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if these are real locations in the real world, then the edit histories of the merged pages should be displaced to "X (Pokemon)" and the current titles become redlinks. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of them are; that would be interesting. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I thought this was uncontroversial and just awaiting admin action, but if a more clearer consensus is needed I'll chime in. -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. (@Tavix: Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure how to interpret the comment in the discussion, so I couldn't see this hurting. That, and per WP:RELIST, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." So, anyone who sees consensus here and can technically execute the outcome is free to close this whenever.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I would agree with you on that. FWIW: I just hate !voting WP:PERNOM without saying anything further. The comment was more of an "I wish I would have !voted earlier and save the relist, but I didn't because I thought it was uncontroversial.") -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not have relevant information on Wikipedia. Therefore these redirects are misleading. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 13 August 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.

The Girl from Ipanema (Amy Winehouse)[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 Lioness: Hidden Treasures. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect. The song was written in 1962 by Antônio Carlos Jobim and Vinicius de Moraes, not by Winehouse. Winehouse recorded a non-notable version of the song but it was not released as a single and did not appear on any album during her lifetime (appears only on a posthumous compilation album), and her cover is not mentioned at the target article. Since she is not the writer of the song and she is not mentioned at the target, this redirect can only serve to generate confusion. The creator of the page (before changed to redirect) seemed to want to call attention to the (trivial, non-notable) fact that a character from The Big Bang Theory sang the song on the show, but was erroneously attributing the song to Winehouse. General Ization Talk 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is not at the target. --Rubbish computer 18:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Improbable. Bazj (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. The redirect doesn't seem helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, although I doubt Winehouse's rendition is notable. I am a bit surprised that there aren't any notable cover versions listed at the target; I recall Frank Sinatra performed a well-known tribute. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised too, and had there been I would have added Winehouse's cover. Perhaps it is because it is now such a standard, there are too many. General Ization Talk 18:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of search engine results as well as number of references from Google Books, it looks from at least first glance that Frank Sinatra's version is notable in-and-of-itself as a tribute. I'd at least expect it to be highlighted at the song's main page. However, all of this is neither-here-nor-there when it comes to Winehouse's version, which never was released on an album in her lifetime (while Sinatra's version came during the middle of his career as a well-promoted single where he performed it with the song's co-writer, and it was in a popular album that was nominated for a Grammy... but I digress). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the target should be just Girl from Ipanema which also redirects there, but I presume the "The" (not The The) has consensus. Sing it Frank, you do the high notes and I'll do the low notes and I'll be in Scotland afore ye. Cos he's dead and buried and forever under ground so I cut off this song afore I bore ye. Si Trew (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Disclaimer: I converted the less-than-notable article on the cover to this redirect). Personally, I hate this kind of redirect, where one would have to type the whole target name, and then keep typing for this to kick in, so the irony of me creating it is... well, ironic. I was waffling between the redirect and a full on AfD, since no CSD would seem to apply. This way seemed the least damaging to the intent of the creator, so I went RD despite my aforementioned dislike for this kind of RD. But it truly is an improbable redirect, whose only purpose would really be search engine seeding, which is not our concern. CrowCaw 21:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lioness: Hidden Treasures where it is listed as a song released/recorded by Amy Winehouse -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 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.

Arc of Iris[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 Iris (mythology). --BDD (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this term is not mentioned in the target article, I don't think the current target is helpful. However, the best alternate target I can find is Iris (mythology). Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to Arc Iris a band. In greek mythology Iris, a goddess, is the personification of the rainbow. I think that is what this is a reference to. I wouldn't appose a retarget to the goddess either, or a pure deletion as it isn't mentioned at either, hence the weak.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget Retarget to Iris (mythology)#In myths-- Rainbow very briefly mentioned but not by this name. Paragraph 4 of that section, 4th line: She is also said to travel on the rainbow while carrying messages from the gods to mortals. Rubbish computer 14:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it better to target the lede, which says she "is the personification of the rainbow" in the first sentence. Odd, really, to have a section "In myths" in an article disambiguated as "(mythology)": what's the rest of it about, then? "Ïn classical literature" would probably be more apt (considering there is a section "Fictional adaptations", too): and I doubt you would suggest retargetting to a section so-called. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm going to WP:BOLDly change that, leaving "In myths" as an anchor. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE because this is a synonym for "rainbow". While it's not explicitly mentioned, there's enough there that it can be deduced. I might look into making that clearer when I have more time. There are a lot of potential retargeting options, and I think all of them are helpful to figuring out what "arc of Iris" is. However, I don't think they are as helpful as the status quo because an "arc of Iris" actually is a rainbow, and not Iris herself, a band, or a rainbow sub-article. I've found Rainbows in mythology, Rainbows in culture and Iris (mythology), all of which can be found from the main Rainbow article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have evidence of this phrase being used in English? Could it be a mistranslation from the Spanish or Portuguese phrases? --BDD (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Iris (mythology) per Rubbish. A deeper search reveals that it's probably just a mistranslation, or if not, it's obscure. I've heard it before, which is why I argued to keep it, but I think it was in Spanish. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it a pun? I thought there was a computer virus called Arcovirus, which would sound the same in my bad English. Apparently there isn't. (We do have Arbovirus, but that's stretching it too far.) Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Arcoíris" is fairly common in Spanish since it's the word for "rainbow" so I've heard it before in Spanish. That's pretty much all I'm saying... -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 16 August 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.

Previous Sheffield Tigers Seasons[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) 22:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> Delete. Per WP:CONCISE, I've moved the target to Sheffield Tigers seasons. They can't go out of date in the same way that "Next..." ones can, though. Stats are at noise level, the only use was in article space was in the Sheffield Tigers article. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Struck to volte-face to keep Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this appears to be a redirect which is used and one which cannot go out of date unlike 'Next' ones. This appears to be a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is used in article space. Si Trew (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete WP:NOTNEWS this kind of redirect assumes that Wikipedia's primary destination form search terms only has information on the current news-y portion of their histories. and that their pasts must be in subarticles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, appears to direct readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. WilyD 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5. It's nonsense because it implies that the the current season can't be listed, when it can and should be (although it does appear to be out of date, that has nothing to do with the redirect). -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - old {{R from page move}}ses from 2011, having lived at one title for a couple of years and then at the other for a few more, getting well above noise-level activity on both redirects. Exactly the same number of hits, actually: is the stats tool not case sensitive? In any case (pun intended) I disagree with WP:NOTNEWS for this redirect: if a user wants to search for previous seasons this team played, this redirect brings them to that information, and not everything that happened is news. In this case it's specifically not news, since previous seasons are by definition old - olds? I also don't think the redirect implies anything about the content of the article, it would be nonsense selection criteria to have a list of every thing other than the most current thing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, makes sense to Keep it then. Does no harm. I struck my delete as proposer above the watershed, and said so, I hope that's OK. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 12 August 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.

Parallels Desktop[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) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels Desktop runs on more than just Macs. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In the absence of articles about Parallels Desktop for other platforms, this is the best target. Si Trew (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Rubbish computer 11:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Si Trew – while there are guest OSs, it looks like this one's mainly for MAC and likely will be the only article written on the subject. It does seem that the article should be at the redirect and vice versa; however, to maintain status quo is acceptable. – Paine  12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Parallels, Inc., where someone can find all the versions. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing !vote to Keep following the rationales of Ivan and Alakzi. -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just FYI, the versions are mentioned in the present, more focused target, as well as a link to Parallels, Inc. – Paine  14:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but that target is specifically "for Mac", and, according to Geoffrey, Parallels Desktop runs on more than just Macs. I know nothing about the subject, but am assuming that he knows what he's talking about. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the target article tells us that, while the subject is designed specifically for MAC, it works on other "guest operating systems". In other words, it is designed for the MAC, but with appropriate hacks can be used on other OS's, probably with varying degrees of efficiency. – Paine  20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be confused. Guest operating systems are the systems you can run in Parallels for Mac. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am so confused!!! – Paine  14:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - according to Parallels' product list, there is only one "Parallels Desktop", the full name is "Parallels Desktop for Mac", and it runs on Mac exclusively. There are other software packages that run on other operating systems (e.g. Parallels Workstation for i386-based systems) but they are not called "Desktop". So it seems to me that Parallels Desktop implies Parallels Desktop for Mac. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector - no evidence that other operating system versions exist. Tag with {{R from short name}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse the redirect, per Paine. On all evidence, we want the article and the redirect, but we would probably be more WP:CONCISE if we switched the two. But I certainly don't want it to be deleted, so a keep is kinda all right by me, I think it just would be better switched around: the "for Mac" is essentially acting as a needless disambiguation. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Parallels Desktop" might be the common name, but that's best discussed in an RM. Alakzi (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about that: after all, Redirects for Discussion is the place to discuss redirects. An RM just would seem like makework to me, aand right now would subvert this discussion. If we have consensus that we want both but that the shorter title is better for the article. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Added a reason not to take to RM i.e. subversion but not substantially changed. By Si Trew (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have certainly had discussions here which resulted in moving an article over a redirect (effectively doing RM's work), and I think it would be fine to do so here if consensus called for it. I don't feel strongly either way: "Parallels Desktop" is WP:CONCISE, but "Parallels Desktop for Mac" is the proper title. If we were to discuss moving, I would vote for status quo, or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 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.

Lista de Antigos Mestres (Old Masters) italianos[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) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable that anyone would search for this malformed title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as seems implausible due to being a mishmash of two languages. --Rubbish computer 13:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Odd mix of English and Spanish to refer to Italians. Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I solidly agree with what's stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:45, 12 August 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.

Wikipedia:DIVA[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 convert Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas into soft redirect and tag as historical, then point the other titles to it. Deryck C. 09:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:Don't be high maintenance#Requested move, consensus was found that "diva" is a gendered term and its use offensive. Consequently, all the "diva" variant redirects that point to the essay, which has since been refactored (though not without protest), should also be deleted, as their continued use would undermine the consensus. Alakzi (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC) *Delete per a decision concerning this being made through consensus. --Rubbish computer 12:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it may be harmful to not keep as a soft redirect due to the number of incoming links and the page history. --Rubbish computer 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Way too many incoming links. Deleting these would break the context of those discussions, and frankly make editors using these shortcuts look pretty bad. Moving the essay was fine, but this is just going to make it look like people were slinging "diva" around for no good reason. --BDD (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:R#HARMFUL. Whatever the current name is, the essay has existed for a long time under that other name. Deleting the redirects may break links in discussions, and make it difficult for users that did not notice the discussion to locate the page. In any case, the word "diva" would not be seen in the title or the essay itself, redirects are just a technical background thing. Cambalachero (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not quite right. WP:DIVA has often been used in the context of accusing someone of being a diva, and will continue to be used in this manner if it remains a blue link. Alakzi (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We really can't prevent anyone from calling another editor a diva. Better that there be some context to the comment, then. --BDD (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but the essay no longer presents that viewpoint. This isn't about whether people say "diva" on Wikipedia; it's about disassociating the essay from the use of the word. Alakzi (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal. Perhaps we could restore the redirects to Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas, where it would be explained that the essay now located at Wikipedia:Don't be high maintenance used to be titled "Don't feed the divas", but that it has since been renamed and repurposed, and that it no longer advances the viewpoint that some Wikipedians are or act like "divas". Alakzi (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd have to make Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas into a soft redirect, then. Not a bad idea. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect - give these the same treatment as WP:STALK and WP:VANITY, other redirects which were found through consensus to be unduly offensive and subsequently soft redirected with an explanatory note so as to avoid breaking historical discussions but also strongly discourage their use. This is essentially the same as BDD's alternative proposal. Note also that the requested move is currently under move review and the result may make this Rfd temporarily moot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to see that there's some precedent. Though the move is under review, it is the new name that's under dispute; the page won't be returning to the "diva" title. Alakzi (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect is a smart idea and has precedence as Ivan pointed out. Seems like a good compromise too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously helpful Wikipedia namespace shortcuts and phrases with incoming links due to their length of existence ... so, deletion or retargetting makes no sense, in my mind. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 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.

Andrey Rublev[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 keep. It is not another name, but his name as transliterated in BGN/PCGN, which remains popular in the Anglophone world. Alakzi (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different name. 333-blue 06:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. I have marked it as such, without prejudice to this discussion (that is just how it is right now). Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, for instance, for someone who's heard the name but not seen it spelt. WilyD 09:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo. --Rubbish computer 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this is a pretty open-and-shut case that will probably be closed soon. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from alternative transliteration}}, rather than a misspelling or incorrect name. It's the same name, just an alternative transliteration from the original Russian. Sideways713 (talk) 11:21, 12 August 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.

Portal:World Heritage Channel[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) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article created in the wrong namespace and then moved; there's no need for a redirect from portal space. John of Reading (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More disturbing is that someone can't spell "Channel" when moving it. I shall do so, which will leave the target as a redirect too. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the plot thins.World Heritage Channel is an R to this article, and we should reverse the redirect so that it sits correctly spelled, although a bit WP:PROMO, with this as the {{R from tzpo}} Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I didn't leave a redirect, as "World Heritage Chnl" would've been R3 anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the irony, I typo'd {{R from typo}} sorry I use AZERTY and QWERTZ quite a lot so I am forever fouling my fingers with those two. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Did you mean "World Heritage Chnel"? Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See, it's so implausible I couldn't even remember it moments later! :P --BDD (talk) 14:07, 11 August 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.

Upisodes[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 and refine to Up (2009 film)#UPisodes. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do any reliable sources use this name to refer to the 2009 movie Up? I've tried searching it but the engine corrects it to "episodes." SONIC678|Hang out with me! 05:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created UPisodes since the first part of your rationale is basically an argument for creating that. The second part makes no sense to me. What the heck does WP:WORLDWIDE have to do with this redirect? There's a whole section in Up (2009 film) on "Upisodes" so it's a perfectly valid and helpful target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 14 August 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.

ABC 123[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 Speedily kept as WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be re-targeted to a disambiguation page, but I'm not sure whether it should now point to ABC or ABC song. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:42, 11 August 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.

Ozgurluk[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) 22:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; liberty is not a concept exclusive to Turkish-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete General concept that isn't language specific. - TheChampionMan1234 03:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no affinity for any particular language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been presented for deletion. Treating readers with hostility and contempt due to them being second language speakers contributes to systematic bias, and should be avoided because it makes the encyclopaedia harder to use, discourages potential editors from getting involved, and is likely to be perceived as a ethnocentric/racist microaggression by readers and editors who receive this rude treatment. WilyD 09:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have already stated in several recent RFD discussions in the past week, since this the English Wikipedia, a term that is not in English redirecting to any subject (English or any other language) can be seen as harmful since it gives readers the false expectation that the non-English term is used in English text to an extent that it has been established as an official loanword. In fact, this has already been discussed quite extensively on WP:FORRED's talk page. There is no systemic bias invoked with this nomination since the bias would only be present if these were true loanwords (which I have not found any references to prove otherwise). Wikipedia is not a translation service; that task has been designated to the helpful interwiki links and Wikipedia's sister project Wikidata, venues in place that truly are helpful for our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the song goes, why did Constantinople get the works? (It's nobody's business but the Turks'). Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. WilyD, a good reason and argument was presented for deletion at the first instance: WP:FORRED. To say that no argument was presented is simply7 wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FORRED doesn't provide any rationale for deleting any of these redirects. It's an unrelated essay. WilyD 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FORRED opens "The guideline for deleting redirects suggests that foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept." You can disagree with that—as I know you do—but to assert that it's "unrelated" is just astonishingly wrong. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as this is from an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 13:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8, which is a guideline and a much stronger argument than saying that there isn't a reason for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 11 August 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.

Wîkîpedîä[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) 22:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid spelling in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as appears to be an implausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer 13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see this (oh I can on edit it, they are both I circumflexes). At small rendering sizes the thing on the top of the character is indistinguishable from a dot a circumflex or for that matter a grave or an ague, so WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I thought it would be a swindle with Dotted and dotless I, actualy. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is supposedly Tatar, but I can find no reliable evidence for it. Gorobay (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting "Vikipediya" as the Crimean Tatar word for Wikipedia and Википедия as the (Russian) Tatar word for Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 12 August 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.

Murica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Murica

Wіkipedia[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) 22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is. It came up in the results here, but I don't get why, is this a bug or something else, not sure if I should've nominated this here. Apologies for any misunderstanding. - TheChampionMan1234 00:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the first letter "і" is actually HEX d196 whatever that's supposed to mean, when I checked the string's codepoints -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My search came up as "CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I" -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym due to the "i" character--Lenticel (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)r[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling. --Rubbish computer 13:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mojibake? Gorobay? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s not mojibake; it’s a homoglyph: U+0456 і CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I. This redirect was originally a copy of Wikipedia and the Cyrillic letter was probably meant to trick readers. Gorobay (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, delete as vandalism and copyright violation, then. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Compare to IDN homograph attack. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's a copyright attack, that is putting it rather strongly when the target is Wikipedia, but it is just WP:RFD#D5 őszrmz nonsense. (őszrmz is apparently when I type blind to try to hit "patent": I was one letter too far left in most cases, but ő is to the right of P) Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that article could use a better title. All instances of that aren't "attacks", and the syntax applies something called the IDN is committing the attack. --BDD (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not actually a homograph, is it? But on small screen sizes it is. So I guess it is a demihomograph or pseudograph would be the best word, and unfortunately that redirects to multigraph which is about mathematical graph theory so no good for us discussing typography. Turkish Dotted and dotless i always spring to my mind when I see these. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 12 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_11&oldid=1142587279"