Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2015.

Duets (aaliyah album)[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. It may also be worth noting that Aaliyah is not alive. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, Aaliyah doesn't have an album by any of these titles. See also: Aaliyah discography. -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 21 July 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.

Nogomet[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) 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFD#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Soccer is a general topic with no particular affinity for any language, it is a sport that originated in England so its original native language is English, thus no affinity for any non-English language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:17, 22 July 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.

Deaner[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 procedural close. A surname article has been created on top of the redirect. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibly nonsense redirect created by the author of Jeef berky. Could be a connection, although this nickname is not mentioned in the person's article. A hatnote there suggests another target, a development codename of Meclofenoxate. Suggest retargeting there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could make an anthroponymy page at that location, which is somewhat distinct from a dab. See-alsos to Dean and deanery. Would work for me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted such a page below the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since everyone here is in agreement, I'm going to close this as obvious. I can't think of any situation where that surname article wouldn't be the best solution here. If anyone finds any more potential targets, they can be added to the article or the "see also" section, and if there's still a problem with it, it would become WP:AFD or WP:RM's problem. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 22 July 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.

Kellen Heller[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) 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was made by the same user who created Jeef berky. I doubt this is a plausible misspelling of her name. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 21 July 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.

Bog seber[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) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was made by the same user who created Jeef berky. This doesn't look like a plausible misspelling of his name. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 21 July 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.

Abscam Project[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 Abscam. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague. This could refer to American Hustle, Moon Over Miami (script), or the Abscam Operation itself. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - was ABSCAM a "project"? If so, retarget. If not, delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on your definition. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, yeah. I would call it a project, and I guess there aren't any better targets, so retarget to Abscam per 67.70. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 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.

Reading rainbow dude[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) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Is this an actual searched term for LeVar Burton? Linkle (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Reading Rainbow, of which LeVar Burton is presenter, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment in the second discussion. (This redirect is beginning to become one of the most renominated redirects on the English Wikipedia.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - longstanding redirect that gets readers where they want to go and is doing no harm. A user typing "reading rainbow" would get to a different article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC) and again 20:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, it is; it's been discussed before. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it were "man" or "guy" (though guy is also less formal), I'd vote keep. But dude is slang, it should go.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:55, 28 July 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.

Jeef berky[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) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really plausible? This has reversed first letters of the words. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wouldn't think so. This user has created a couple more of those and I've nominated them separately. -- Tavix (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete criterion WP:G3. No rational purpose other than vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as implausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POFRED. Not really a plausible misspelling.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:42, 28 July 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.

Untitled Indian film projects (R-S)[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) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - none of these projects are untitled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 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.

Untitled Second Northern Kings Album[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) 13:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not untitled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This album clearly has a title. It's good to see someone else digging in the "untitled" junkyard. -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 21 July 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.

Untitled Second Pussycat Dolls Album[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) 13:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not untitled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This album clearly has a title. It's good to see someone else digging in the "untitled" junkyard. -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 21 July 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.

Ephraim I[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) 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "Ephraim I" mentioned in the target, and a websearch turns up a "Dr. Ephraim I." Compassionate727 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an ordinal, most common for Patriarch's names. The "I" in "Dr. Ephraim I." is clearly an initial and therefore not an ordinal. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe Ephraim is alternately spelled Ephrem and (I'm supposing) Aphrem. The other Ephraim/Ephrem/Aphrems I find in Patriarch of Antioch and Wikipedia include Ignatius Ephrem II Rahmani, Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum and Ignatius Aphrem II. I'd say Keep per WP:CHEAP unless someone could plausibly confuse Ephraim I for, say, Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum, or even the Biblical Ephraim. Someone more familiar with the subject than me would have to weigh in on whether there are additional first Ephraim's by various spellings to turn Ephraim I into a DAB. Note to nominator: not seeing a redirect name in the target article is not a reason to delete, and the fact that another name exists on the internet is not in itself reason to create a DAB page: assuming a Dr. "Ephraim I" exists by that name, we needn't make any changes until that person has an article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Ephraim I" could be a retronym if he were considered a predecessor of an Ephraim II who was Patriarch of Antioch. It's hard to say, since the position has been recognized by many different churches throughout history, and currently five people hold the title. The only other Ephraim/Ephrem in any of those lines is Ignatius Ephrem II Rahmani, who was Patriarch in the last century. Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum doesn't seem to consider his name as matching Ephraim of Antioch's, nor does Ignatius Aphrem II. In terms of other Orthodox Church bishops, he comes before both Saint Ephraim II of Pereyaslav and Ephraim II of Georgia, and while neither are within the same line of succession (or even the same church) there are no other Ephraims in their lines either, suggesting that they both recognized Ephraim of Antioch as a predecessor. Since Patriarch of Antioch is a very high post in the eastern churches, this makes some sense, as the line of Patriarchs of Antioch is traced back to Saint Peter. Further, since there don't seem to be any other people that "Ephraim I" could refer to (who we have an article about) this is harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 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:3P[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 Template:Third-party ({{third-party}}). Though I just supported the retarget, this seems non-controversial. What this was redirected to has changed form over time. This should address the nominators concerns, and doesn't seem to go against the spirit of the remaining keep rationale. The new target is synonymous. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very confusing. Why would 3P go to primary sources? For "third party"? Who would ever know that p is for "party"? "3P" to me implies something along the lines of WP:3P or something related to an item in 3P. What may be helpful to one can be quite confusing to most everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created months ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
  6. If {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} are acceptable names for templates, my redirects are also acceptable as they are. If not, my two redirects should be renamed. Per @Thryduulf:, "we also have the {{hat}} (not about hats), {{temp}} (not about temporary workers), {{link}} (not about chains, golf courses, an American singer, etc), {{user}} (not about drug, computer or telecommunication system users), {{admin}} (not about administrators), {{ill}} (not about illness), {{top}} (not about spinning tops or clothing), {{bottom}} (not about buttocks or the seabed), {{columns}} (not about architecture), {{reliable sources}} (not about publications, {{cleanup}} (not about cleaning), {{fiction}} (not about fiction), {{copyedit}} (not about copyediting), {{tone}} (not about literature, linguistics or music), {{neutrality}} (not about international relations), and many others".
--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jax0677. Useful to some. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there is a {{third-party}} tag for "needs third-party sources" now. {{Primary}} used to contain the phrasing "primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject", but the template was later split. Using "3P" for {{primary}} is quite nonsensical at this point. —Keφr 17:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Third-party. Seems a simple enough abbreviation. I'm not sure what a WP:3P template would look like, but if there ever were one, this might be worth revisiting. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those are better arguments. Retarget to Template:third-party per Kephir & BDD, pending correction of any existing transclusions. (I haven't checked) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 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.

Fallacy of græy[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 Argument to moderation. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two should probably point to the same location. —Keφr 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, LessWrong is pushing this as the continuum fallacy, but they seem to acknowledge themselves that they made up the connection. Should it be removed from argument to moderation? That is a different fallacy, pushed as the fallacy of gray by other blogs. There are about equal ghits for both uses (not many in either case). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have people actually using "fallacy of gra/ey" for argument to moderation, then by all means redirect it there :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should compromise and create a disambiguation page. —Keφr 17:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think it was worth it. The continuum fallacy usage is only by one blog and hasn't been picked up by anyone else - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Argument to moderation. "Gray fallacy" mentioned at that target. That along with the two words being an alternate spelling of one another push me to that. That aside, if they're kept, they should direct to the same place regardless of the target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:50, 28 July 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.

Gabelle (homonymy)[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. I'm going to include Windigo (homonymy) in this too. I think there's little to no chance of its outcome being any different. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 4#Batiscan (homonymy). Since that was deleted, the other redirects with the "(homonymy)" suffix should also be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I missed that discussion, and I generally agree both with the outcome and that it should apply here, however I don't see that anyone considered these are old {{R from page move}}ses, and since there seems to be a translation issue, we should make sure these aren't interlinked from the other Wikipedias. That doesn't need to influence this discussion; I'll see if I can take care of it now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: what I said above does not seem to be an issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I made this nomination, there was one more page that had the "(homonymy)" suffix: Windigo (homonymy). It was a disambiguation-like list that was just now redirected to Windigo (disambiguation) after discussion at the dab talk page. It could be too late to add it to this nomination, but I'll leave that up to the closing admin. (If not, I'll nominate it separately). -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my comment above was an argument for deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 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.

Taj Arabia[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) 13:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name isn't mentioned in target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:53, 21 July 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_July_21&oldid=1037879744"