Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2015.

File talk:Montgomery Alabama.jpg[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 blanked the page, the quickest resolution for talk pages that target the wrong page, especially in the "File talk:" namespace. I will leave a message on the nominator's talk page in regards to these redirects, and how the issue can be boldly resolved in this manner. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected redirect. The target talk page belongs to a different image. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Stefan2 said, WP:SURPRISE and WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect might cause confusion". Best to be red and let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SURPRISE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:41, 12 January 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:Infobox Rice residential college[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) 15:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unnecessary redirect Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep to preserve attribution history. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 9 January 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) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I've relisted the discussion for Template:Infobox Yale residential college here, as it seems to be the same issue. Both were nominated at TFD on the same day and closed as merge on the same day. The votes above still only directly address the Rice infobox redirect, unless they're edited otherwise. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 13 January 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.

Linux distribution remix[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, but retarget to List of Linux distributions. I don't find consensus to delete here, but neither did any editor support keeping the redirect as it was. Absent specific arguments against Si Trew's suggestion, it is implemented. No prejudice against a new nomination to discuss the redirect in its new form. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - I never heard of "Linux distribution remix"-es, and Linux distribution certainly does not cover them in any case. Chealer (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well Google tells me they are a thing, and there is a page explaining Fedora remixes at [1] but which could apply to any distro. So, if there is coverage of this somewhere on Wikipedia the redirect should point to it. I haven't got time to look for it at the moment but I hopefully will later. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because there is no information about them on Wikipedia and we should not mislead people into thinking otherwise. I'd recommend keeping this if there was somewhere to point this though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Retarget to List of Linux_distributions.
My search leads me to think the term "remix" is used mainly for Fedora and Ubuntu distros, but none of Linux remix, Fedora remix and Ubuntu remix exists. The entries in my proposed target that do use the term "remix" are:
Other redirects/articles that aren't in that list (redlinks are mine, they're not in the articles):
Of course, this list could replace the R as a DAB page... Si Trew (talk) 21:51, 4 January 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) 15:29, 12 January 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.

Hanguk Dambaek Insam Gongsa[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. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently incorrect romanization (see Special:diff/640726365). I don't read Korean, and, unsurprisingly, can't fnd any ghits for either this one or the one currently appearing in the target article. (Though it had this one until December 2012.) Well outside the WP:CSD#R3 window, in any case. —Cryptic 00:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's questioning which is the right one. It is whether this one is anything other than harmful. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 8 January 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) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not harmful. Si Trew, the only difference between the correct romanization and the incorrect romanization is but a single letter. Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: indeeed, which is why I said Keep. Do you think my remarks sounded otherwise, somehow? (I am not being sarcastic.) Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: Whoops sorry, I didn't think you were the one who said that Keep comment, I only saw your comment after Jytim's. The way you phrased your second comment seemed pro-delete and I only attributed that one to you. Again, sorry. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 13 January 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.

Interquel[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) 15:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert blah, blah, blah... 11:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Delete. Appears to violate WP:NEO; which isn't helped by the fact that the respective target sections are not only unsourced, but neither term shows up in Webster's Dictionary: [2] [3][reply]

  • keep at least for now. The redirect gets a lot of hits (440 last month for example), and it takes people using it to relevant content. If the target section is removed (which needs to be discussed at the article talk page, not here) then the redirect can be reevaluated. However, it doesn't matter if a redirect is a neologism or not, all that matters is whether it is plausible and there is somewhere relevant to point it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these are redirects that are used in the wild (ie. outside of Wikipedia) in the entertainment press. They're not article titles, so they are valid search terms. And the target is the valid target for information about the terms (they are types of sequels) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point people are missing is that the information in the target sections is all unsourced (and for the record, I didn't add the {{neologism}} tags to either section). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which people are missing the point? It was only listed 18 hours ago. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point you are missing is that redirects follow content. While the content exists these are good redirects, regardless of the accuracy or sourcedness or any other characteristic of the content. If you think the content should be removed then get consensus for that at the article talk page. If the content is removed then the redirects will probably cease to be useful and be deleted (they might instead be retargeted if there is relevant content elsewhere, or converted to a soft redirect to Wiktionary if there is something there but not here; but that is for a future discussion). For what its worth, wikt:interquel as durably archived uses going back to 1994, including a New York Times use from 1996, so I'm not sure that the neologism tag is accurate not that it is unsourceable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much as it pains me, the topics are explained and stated as neologisms. WP is not the Oxford English Dictionary, but we do no good to delete these terms. I was thinking Interval (theatre) (or US Interval (theater)) etc, the gap between acts at a play when one can enjoy oneself: But that's not at Interval (disambiguation), the nearest there I think being "In cricket, the breaks in between play", and that's confusing enough to pipe in a DAB. (WP:DABPIPE?) Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interval (play) is, unfortunately, the name of a play, and not the description of it, which is at Entr'acte. Intermission does in 1st sentence of lede say Br. Eng. "interval". Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For if not, I assume this is a euphemism for Writer's block. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 13 January 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_January_12&oldid=1037877508"