Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2015.

Layman[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, retarget, retarget, retarget, retarget, and keep, such that the first six all target Layperson. I'm retargeting Lay people to Laypeople as an {{R from modification}}—pardon the BOLDness. These pages would probably benefit from merging as suggested. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lay woman, lay women and lay men are red. Layperson is an article to which lay person and lay people redirect, but laypeople is a DAB page, somewhat redundantly, as lay is also a DAB page that covers it. This may all be a bit of a WP:SURPRISE.

Retarget so all go to layperson (to which layman was moved on 2 October 2011 by User:Anthony Bradbury with this edit). It's beyond the remit of RfD, but if this is done I'll propose to merge the DAB at laypeople into that at lay, then change laypeople to be an R to layperson too, thence hatnoting the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to layperson and maybe Merge some links at laypeople as a "See also" section at layperson. --Lenticel (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe that, but merging the 2 target articles would be better. There's only 1 topic here. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, there's a churchgoer who isn't clergy, and there's an amateur. Si Trew (talk) 00:36, 17 February 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.

List of male rappers[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 Category:Male rappers. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various male rappers are named at the target article, but there's no such list. Delete or write the list. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment List of female rappers redirects to Category:Female rappers, I don't know if this is any more or less appropriate than that, but it seems to make sense. Obviously list of male rappers would be a behemoth of a list (there are about 2,500 deleted edits at List of rappers, which I suspect was primarily made up of men) but categories are effectively self populating. So I guess I say retarget to Category:Male rappers? Or is that speedy deletable under R2 (I can never remember). --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think mainspace to categoryspace is speediable, but WP:CLN specifically says categories and lists shouldn't be regarded as redundant. "This should be a category" was the crux of the argument at the most recent AfD for "List of rappers", so maybe consensus has changed. I did bring this up after seeing a somewhat related RfD. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 15 February 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.

Happy New Year (2013 film)[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) 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate article. The film was delayed and released in 2014. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:10, 15 February 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.

Astrography[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 celestial cartography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what to do with this. Google assumes "astrography" is a typo for "astrophotography", but that may be influenced by this redirect. Astrography seems to be a distinct concept, but I'm not sure it's one we cover. It sounds very similar to Astronomy. None of these options are especially appealing to me. BDD (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm currently leaning to Weak Delete to encourage article creation until someone who is more knowledgeable in Astronomy can give us a better background info on the matter.--Lenticel (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm also fine with this retarget if this is indeed its synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to celestial cartography. It's a separate concept to astrophotography, although the instrument name astrograph does confuse people. Astrography means drawing maps of the heavens and is another word for uranography, which already redirects there. Modest Genius talk 11:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Celestial cartography and Astrograph seems most likely to be helpful to the reader. Possibly also Astrophotography, though this connection is clearly indicated in the lede of Astrograph (the converse is not the case). ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted? It looks to me like there was basically unanimous agreement to retarget to celestial cartography above, other than the nominator who was also the relister, but didn't comment on relisting. Astrophotography is a different thing entirely (taking photographs of stars) and although very slightly possibly confusing, there is no ambiguity with astrograph which is basically a star camera. Ivanvector (talk) 17:31, 17 February 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.

U. S. Bank Stadium[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 U.S. Bank Arena and mark as {{R from incorrect name}}, as well as adding a hatnote to distinguish the new target from the possible name of "New Minnesota Stadium". In the event that there are references added to New Minnesota Stadium to declare its new name "U. S. Bank Stadium", then the option of moving New Minnesota Stadium to U. S. Bank Stadium can be explored at that time. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created under the mistaken assumption that US Bank would buy the naming rights to a proposed stadium in Minneapolis. Mosmof (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - rather than a mistaken assumption, it seems to have been almost a done deal, per [1], and per [2] calling this name the "frontrunner". And I don't see any reliable source that the deal fell through. Ivanvector (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason to keep it now, if us bank gets the naming rights the page would need to be deleted anyway in order to move the page to the new title Skippypeanuts (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete per WP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". While I note Ivanvector's refs, they're not at the target and I see no easy way to integrate them there (if they were I'd change my view to keep it as {{R from incorrect name}}). Since US Bank Stadium and U.S. Bank Stadium are red (which tends to indicate to me this term was not that popular), and the stats are <1/month on average, I think on balance that it's better off deleted. But User:Skippypeanuts' reasoning for delete is invalid: the article could be moved over the redirect at any time. Si Trew (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to U. S. Bank Arena. Yes, that would be better (with a hatnote). Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. US Bank Arena and U. S. Bank Arena are both Rs to U.S. Bank Arena, and both marked as {{R from modification}}. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 16 February 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.

Scottians[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, dabify, keep, and keep, respectively. I think this distills the consensus here, but please let me know if you have any concerns with this close, as always. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article was recently created under this wrong name. This redirect (created as a result of the move) is totally unnecessary. There are no links to this page. SD0001 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was written by an inexperienced user. I have now modified the first sentence on this R's target. It seems that 'Scottian' is just a term that people at the college use internally. It has no relevance otherwise. A Google search for Scottians or even Scottians Scott Christian College does not turn up any relevant results at all. By the way, the content added to the college's main article was by 220.225.222.66 (contributions), who seems to be the same person as the creator of this R's target (Samueljjohn), given the similarity in editing pattern. SD0001 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I know I is the only perfekt editor on the hole project. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me, apparently, but since you mention it... Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the college is pretty much the only thing that didn't come up for me when I googled. I get Scott Ian, or if I tweak the search criteria to exclude his name I get results for Fort Scott, Kansas. I think it would be best here to retarget to Scotian as a misspelling, and add entries for different uses for "scottian" there. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Added to nom Scottian. Plurals generally should R to the same as their singulars.
  • Retarget and add entries at DAB Scotia (disambiguation). Same etymology, intemperate spelling. Scotians R's to Nova Scotia, as I would expect, but Scotia is an article to do with Romans in essentially the pax britanicus and probably has been hard fought for.
We do have the DAB to get out of jail free. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Maybe this or this are more reliable sources for the word's English usage. For a redirect, it doesn't need to be particularly reliable. But on second thought it does seem unlikely that the pluralized form also refers to Scott's work, that just seems awkward. Ivanvector (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Let's just delete the Scottians redirect and keep the others as is. SD0001 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to keep it as is. We agree that it definitely (probably?) doesn't refer to Walter Scott, but that it does (maybe?) refer to alumni of the college. It's unlikely to cause confusion and isn't misleading, so I don't see a reason to delete. This short newspaper bit mentions Scottians as college alumni, and this blog (not RS, I know) refers to alumni as Scottians extensively; it may be that it's a highly local term. And like I said before, I haven't found a competing usage which would open the door to possible confusion or ambiguity. Ivanvector (talk) 15:14, 22 February 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.

Anti-whistleblower laws[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Anti-whistleblower laws

Anti-whistleblower legislation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Anti-whistleblower laws

Chicken shit[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 converted to article by LadyofShalott and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense". Not mentioned at target. Chicken Shit was at AfD in November 2004 and deleted (as a redirect) in 2006. (I can't examine its logs much more.) This was created in 2009 to Coward, swiftly corrected by a double-redirect bot to current target, and has remained unmolested ever since. But it's not at the target; Chicken and Poultry farming are silent on the matter; bird shit goes to guano but that doesn't mention chickens at all, and animal fertilizer is red. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Chicken shit is a common enough expression for coward, and since coward redirects to cowardice that is where it should redirect to. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are other uses for the phrase, but this is the most common, and is indeed very common. The best solution is a db page to other uses, but until then, the current redirect is still better than deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see no evidence that it's a common expression; WP:NOTDIC and it's not mentioned at the target. (The British equivalent is more commonly just "chicken".) Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it has an entry at wictionary, maybe an interwiki redirect would be more appropriate. But it certainly is a common enough expression in North America (keeping in mind Dennis and I are from very different parts of the continent, and are of the same opinion). It would be one of those things like not having to cite the sky is blue, in my experience.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly common collaquialism. See here, here and here as well as the Wiktionary entry. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am good with a Wictionary retarget, it would likely be more useful than where it sits now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish someone would just make a short article or db out of it. "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit", Chicken shit -> cowardly, chicken shit -> petty or inferior, chicken shit ->fertilizer. These just have to be sourceable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what Wiktionary is for. One can put citations there. Anyway, why not let that "someone" be you? Si Trew (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short, I don't have time right now. It's complicated, or I would have just done it already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have started making a stub out of it. LadyofShalott 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC) I would prefer keeping it as an article, not a redirect. LadyofShalott 00:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is more to the noun than the euphemism, though I think the euphemism may be enough if sourced. I'm just guessing, but I would think that there is more than one political situation which involved the phrase... - jc37 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close please, converted to article by @LadyofShalott: nicely done!
I've removed the RfD tag there. I have Partridge (your ref) in the 1st edition so if you remind me I'll see if it's in there. Si Trew (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! LadyofShalott 00:42, 17 February 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.

List of ZERO1 title reigns by length[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) 16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RFD#D5, the redirect makes no sense. No such list at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 15 February 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.

Tama Williams[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) 16:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this person in the Zero1 article. Meaningless redirect, done by a user with a history of this sort of conduct. Curse of Fenric (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. He seems to be a wrestler but I'm not sure about his notability.--Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 16 February 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_February_15&oldid=1208173122"