Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2015.

Central meridian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 13#Central meridian

Romano-Britian[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 G7. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per (inter alia) WP:R3: redirect from uncommon/misleading/unhelpful misspelling. The creator seems to have simply misspelled "Romano-Britain", which is an incredibly uncommon way of saying Roman Britain. The better usage is "Romano-British" as an adjective or "Romano-Briton" as a demonym, so keeping the link may cause people both to continue with their misspelling and to continue to misphrase the term being used. Letting the term redlink is more helpful here. — LlywelynII 01:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a keep. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 8 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.

Historical Abstracts[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) 16:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term not used on target article, unclear how this would relate. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:00, 6 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.

'Tis the season[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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be retargeted to 'Tis the Season. We just had a move discussion at Talk:'Tis the Season, in which no consensus was seen to make that a redirect to Deck the Halls. This redirect here seems to be just an alternative capitalisation, and should redirect to the same disambig page; the difference in caps doesn't constitute a primary topic, especially as users may type in the words in the search box all lowercase or all uppercase.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Nom target edited to show section redirect, due to that Twinkle "feature" us regulars are so familiar with. Ivanvector (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deck the Halls is clearly the primary topic; the move discussion was flawed. All of the subsequent uses were obviously inspired by the lyric from the well-known traditional Christmas carol, thus the carol is the primary topic. Ivanvector (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being first is not a primary topic criterion, Boston being the obvious example there. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Ivanvector: putting clearly and obviously in italics doesn't change the fact that those are just your opinions; others may not find it so clear or obvious. The move request was undecided on the matter, hence the no consensus closure. You can argue that one either way, but this request here is really just to address an inconsistency that has arisen as a result. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the merits or not of the uppercase, this RfD is for the lowercase. When you say "inconsistency", this is a feature we use, not a bug with redirects/dabs.
Also, the logic of invoking change when there was no consensus for change is worth pondering. Widefox; talk 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not first necessarily, but the instance which inspired the later works, which are clearly related to it, none of which have had a measurable influence on the notability of the phrase. Boston is not a great example - I find it highly unlikely that someone's going to come along and declare that Boston must be a disambiguation page because things like Boston Tea Party, Boston Red Sox, Boston Pizza, Boston (band) or Boston Marathon exist - not because the American city was first (it wasn't) but because they are all obviously named because of their relation to the American city. A better example is the redirect 12 angry men - it doesn't redirect to the Academy Award-nominated 1957 film which was published with the numeral 12 instead of the word Twelve, nor to a dab page listing all of the possible targets, it redirects to Twelve Angry Men, the dramatic work on which it is based and which inspired many other works, and which is obviously the primary target. Ivanvector (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the Boston argument is that Boston, Lincolnshire is the source of the name "Boston", both for the American city and other uses. You could easily say "All of the subsequent uses were obviously inspired by the name of the well-known British town." Technically correct, but very misleading, and hence why PTOPIC doesn't, by design, privilege uses that are the source of others. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's half-correct at best. The original New England pioneers who settled the area gave the settlement the name of their town in England, but then over centuries the settlement grew and became a city with a rich history and cultural identity all its own, no longer related to the English town. The source of all the later uses is the American city. To bring it back to the song lyrics here: if there had been another notable song recorded in the last 140 or so years that happened to use this lyric, or a recreation of the Christmas carol that was notable on its own (think White Christmas) then there would be a need to disambiguate. As it stands, there is not. Ivanvector (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BDD's example is good to illustrate that correct principle. Its relevance on this dab isn't justified - the dab doesn't have a larger/more popular rival candidate PT. In fact the opposite - there's no rival at all. A classic PT - both long-term significance and most popular. Even a closer example of Birmingham vs Birmingham, Alabama is a long way from this dab. Where's the Alabama in the dab? Yes the lyrics is a new entry, and not obviously relevant, but considering all the other notable songs presumably derive their names from the lyrics - it was a glaring omission from the dab (now fixed) and a clear PT (to be fixed). Widefox; talk 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Ivanvector is correct. There was no consensus to create a PT and change the uppercase 'Tis the Season. But, that was only due to objections that were resoundingly countered. The PT is so clear, and all other items are named after it. It's that easy. There's no response to that point. It will be renominated afresh in future.
    • Coming back to this, the lowercase is not ambiguous. We use case all the time for this. With no other entry on the dab being lowercase, the lowercase is clear. There's a hatnote at the target back to the dab to catch the obscure uppercase ones. Widefox; talk 16:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Widefox. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep, WP:DIFFCAPS, primary redirect. bd2412 T 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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_6&oldid=1138580121"