Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 30

August 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 30, 2015.

Other Wikipedias[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. We're split between "this is vague" and "'other' obvously refers to 'other to the Wikipedia you're already on'". Der yck C. 21:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias → List of Wikipedias (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unclear what is excluded (all Wikipedia editions are included in the target) - The ChampionMan 1234 23:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a confusing circular reference to its target article. (However, very weak target to Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages, but I may just end up nominating that essay for WP:MFD for lack of helpfulness, or renaming it since I do not think the current scope of the essay meets the title. That, and it would be a WP:CNR, which are usually unhelpful due to misleading readers, such as this one probably would if it were a CNR.) (Revoked this statement since the situation of this page has changed since I made this statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since it lists all Wikipedias, it should also list whatever 'other' is wanted. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whatever other wikipedias they're looking for, they'll find it there (and from context, they're almost certainly looking for versions other than English Wikipedia - But a reader can't reasonably object to English Wikipedia also being listed there). Wily D 07:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilyD and 70.51.202.113. Whichever other Wikipedia they are looking for they will find it at this target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than what? Unless "other" is defined, it's confusing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - harmless at worst and possibly useful at best. I see no good reason to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilyD. That was my thought—"other" than the one you're already on. Since that listing is comprehensive, and it would make no sense to exclude the English Wikipedia there, I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 6 September 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.

Election 08[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 both. Just Chilling (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election 08 → Electoral calendar 2008 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
US 08 Elections → United States elections, 2008 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete as vague because this is a WP:RECENTISM violation. This could just as equally refer to a Election of 1908 or Election of 1808 (for the second one) or older '08 elections on the first one (arguably as far back as 508 BC, when Athenian democracy was established). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very confusing due to ambiguous dates on both, and lack of a specific government's election on the former. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rubbish computer 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague "08" can mean 1908, 2008, 1808 etc. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a recentism. Ambiguous as to the century.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:32, 31 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.

Other 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus (roughly equal split) between retargeting and deleting, default to delete. Der yck C. 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates → United States presidential election, 2004 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect's title does not make clear what candidates this redirect is meant to exclude. Otherwise, the reference is a confusing circular reference to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 which has the information on the handful of people who contested the Republican presidential nomination against a sitting president. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Ívanvector. "Other candidates" seems a likely search term, WP:RFD:K2. In (horse) racing terms, "others", means all those not in the place bet, so one has first, second and others, or first second, third and others (depending on the size of the field). You can count me as one of the others). Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Ivanvector. Given 2004 saw a single successful Republican candidate for president it is likely that people will search for who any other candidates were. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Ivanvector. Whatever the reader is looking for is going to be there. Wily D 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTPIV All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

That has to be the laziest !vote I've ever seen. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004. I'm not thoroughly convinced that deleting this would do more harm than good, as the problem with "other" redirects does apply here too. But it does seem fairly plausible that a reader using this term would be looking for candidates "other" than the obvious one—cf. also-ran. Also, it does date to early 2004. I might look more harshly on it if someone created it last week. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "the other problem", WP:BIAS, and the strange caps. Steel1943 defines "the other problem" quite nicely so I won't expound upon it. However, bias is a big problem that has been overlooked. The Republican Party (United States) isn't the only Republican Party and assuming this redirect to refer to the United States would not be showing a WP:WORLDWIDE view. Just browsing through Republican Party, I found, for example, Malawian general election, 2004 and Namibian general election, 2004 as potential other targets. Finally, this is a super minor issue, but the capitalization is a little wonky. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: In my opinion, retargetting to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 would cause even more confusion since at that point, it really would be even more of a circular reference to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add more confusion: 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates and 2004 Republican presidential candidates do not exist (the nominated redirect without the word "Other" in its title.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created those redirects as they are clearly useful search terms with no ambiguity over the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:
- @Tavix: I can't quite tell: were there Republican party candidates for President in those elections? There don't seem to have been in Malawi, but there was in Namibia. What about others?
- @Thryduulf: If there are Republican party candidates for President in other countries' elections, then don't the redirects you created suffer from the same WP:WORLDWIDE problem?

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I control+F'd "Republican" and got a hit, but yeah, it looks like a Republican candidate was just fielded in the Assembly election, not the presidential election. But does it really matter? As long as there is an "other" candidate anywhere, the "other" problem is in effect. By other, do you mean "other than American candidates" (ie: "Republican presidential candidates other than the American election"?) It's possible to construe it that way, so you can't say that someone will find what they are looking for at the proposed retarget. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but if Namibia is the only other country with Republican presidential candidates in 2004, then this could be solved with hatnotes. The U.S. Republican Party is likely to be a primary topic for English-language readers, versus Namibia's Republican Party. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's assuming it's a plausible search term to begin with. I don't think it is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 1 September 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.