Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 8, 2015.

Redamancy[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 Unrequited love. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of this word, but Wiktionary has redamancy has a definition. It's not mentioned at the target article, or anywhere, as far as I can tell. We have an article on Unrequited love, so {{R from antonym}} could be an option. But it's rare enough a word that it's very unlikely such a redirect would help anyone, and it could easily confuse someone. BDD (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks good. I'm fine with that, so we can just retarget by unanimous consent. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 12 June 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.

愛[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 refine to Love#Chinese and other Sinic Cultures. Deryck C. 10:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; there's no inherent connection between the universal idea of love and either Chinese and Japanese. BDD (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete thre is no significant connection between the general concept of love and those two countries. Also anyone capable of racing the English Wikipedia would know what the term love is meaning that there will likely be no one that would need to type the redirect in to find the article they want. In, short there is no benefit.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. love is a general topic not restricted to East Asia. No particular affinity for any language. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for, no reason has been suggested for deletion (nor can I imagine any). WilyD 08:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep commonly used symbols or words from other languages can be redirects. This is useful to English readers who would otherwise have no clue about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Redirects from foreign languages tend not to be useful unless the subject has a foreign-language-specific context, and love does not. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to it being mentioned and discussed in the article. I wouldn't mind the target being refined to Love#Chinese and other Sinic cultures. Tavix | Talk  14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to section per Tavix. Better solution. Ivanvector (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good find. The actual character is discussed there? I say keep too. IP? Can we call this unanimous? --BDD (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it's heading towards WP:SNOW. I guess we won't get another one of your "withdrawn and refined" puns then...? Tavix | Talk  14:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; those are both connected to the language(s). Retarget there instead. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 14 June 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.

Chemical substance (data page)[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 the first, move the others to talk page subpages. As noted in the discussion, this is not the only way to satisfy attribution requirements, but it seems simplest in this case. I'm open to alternatives if you want to discuss them or implement them yourself. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a page named PAGENAME (data page) acts as a secondary page to the pagename. For example: Ammonia, Ammonia (data page). For this, when such a data page exists, it is automatically linked from infoboxes {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}}. But when the page is actually a Redirect (such as these three nominations), the linking becomes circular (the subpage link redirects to the article link). To prevent this unneeded and unhelpful self-link, I propose to delete the redirect pages. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Beyond the technical issue with the circular link, these (data page) articles were merged into their targets and so with no incoming links, these are implausible alternate names for the target article. Rkitko (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the last two per WP:MAD they were both merged into their target articles. Though the pagenames are useless, so they should probably be moved to become history attribution pages, so Morphine (data page) becomes talk:Morphine/data page and Yttrium(III) oxide (data page) becomes talk:Yttrium(III) oxide/data page (they would remain redirects); Delete the first one, since that's just maintenance cleanup, attribution history was histmerged already. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the Effect On Readers trumps the Keep History argument, so that's deletion. However, a Move into a slightly different name would would satisfy both arguments: e.g. Morphine (data page) → Morphine/data page. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the pages would actually be illegal, as attribution was part of the requirements for the original writers. There may be other ways to attribute the original writers, say via an edit summary on the parent article though. But unless this is done then I will have to vote keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting pages is illegal? -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: Read the lead section of WP:MAD. I don't think illegal is the right term for it, but it would be a violation of Wikipedia's license agreement to delete the attribution of a page when it has been merged to another article. That being said, since these are problematic redirects, there are several ways we can remedy the situation, anything from renaming the redirect, to copying the attribution to the talk page of the merged article. Read the rest of WP:MAD to figure out which solution you think is best for these redirects. Tavix | Talk  15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read it before, because Graeme Bartlett replied to my suggestion to move (which would solve the issue already, as I argued), and because we actually do delete pages by the dozen so 'illegal' reads weird.
That said, I quote from WP:MAD: Redirects are cheap, however, and unless the article title is confusing or objectionable ... - I invoke. It is not up to me to describe how to handle (although I did make a suggestion), it is for the closing admin who must know about this, working on an RfD page. Deletion is not impossible beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I misunderstood you. I actually meant that reply for Graeme Bartlett. My apologies. Tavix | Talk  16:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I leave this side topic about attribution & history. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify, they would remain redirects where the history attribution page is located (in talkspace), the mainspace pages ( "X (data page)" ) would no longer exist. However, moving them to mainspace subpages would be bad because of WP:SUBPAGE, thus my suggestion to move them into talkspace, per recommendations at WP:MAD -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's Move without leaving a redirect of course. I wonder though whether one could have talkpages & subpages kept while parent (subject) page is deleted. (eh, "first two"=typo?). -DePiep 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be moved without leaving a redirect. Otherwise the problem wouldn't be solved... Also, I fixed that typo. Tavix | Talk  16:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read the "Deletion" nomination to mean: Delete the current Redirect page, while somehow maintaining its history. A Any RfD-closing admin can solve that, or start a separate problem-to-solve talk after closing. -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin would be able to complete the necessary WP:HISTMERGE to maintain the contributions and I would certainly be happy to do so if the outcome is deletion. Rkitko (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Have you seen the history of the articles. They contain "nothing". This was merged into morphine, and this was merged into Yttrium(III) oxide. Christian75 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without WP:MAD Christian75 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not quite the same as nothing, it tells me that we need to give credit to Devon Fyson for Morphine, and Weihao.chiu~enwiki for Yttrium(III) oxide. But it would be good to get rid of these pages if we can. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I do not agree. I think its either creative or original and are not protected by copyright (its a list of data). See e.g. [1] Christian75 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. I unwatch this page. What an irrelevant mud, as was explained before here, you could and should have read (for example, Rkitko at 16:36). Any closing admin can contact me, before or after closing. DePiep (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt you read what I wrote. I do not agree that its necessary to merge the history because of copyright violation because of its lack of originality and creativity. Christian75 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chris75, I was actually responding to Graeme Bartlett who re-introduces that non-issue. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Confusing and useless as page names. If there's a history then merge them to the core target fully and then get rid of the pages. They have no use whatsoever. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:17, 14 June 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.

3D laptop[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, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D laptop doesn't mean Acer Aspire (there's only one model which has 3D capability). Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a liar, the target that I said is not a DAB. It appeared so to me because the contents box was so stacked with small apologies. It was rightly reverted, I can't trace by whom as it's not in my Contributions, but thanks all the same for doing so: my mistake. It's not i the history at Stereo display, unless I missed. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Ridiculous redirect and possibly promotion even. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:21, 14 June 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.

SuperStar (Czech TV series)[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 withdraw and apply WP:BOLD. Upon further reflection, I think this retarget proposal is less controversial than I originally thought, and thus not suitable for RfD. Since retargeting is more or less an editorial decision, further discussion regarding this can probably take place at Talk:SuperStar (Czech and Slovak TV series). Very respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

These two redirects were part of a set accepted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects very recently. I noted before the request was accepted that according to the SuperStar (Czech and Slovak TV series) article, the show is a result of a merger between two prior shows called Česko hledá SuperStar ("The Czech Republic Seeks the Superstar") and Slovensko hľadá SuperStar ("Slovakia is searching for a SuperStar").

In other words, there used to be a Czech-specific show called SuperStar and a Slovak-specific show called SuperStar, and one can see how these two redirects might be confusing for readers searching for these former shows. I would be much more comfortable if SuperStar (Czech TV series) was retargeted to Česko hledá SuperStar, and SuperStar (Slovak TV series) to Slovensko hľadá SuperStar. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget SuperStar (Czech TV series) to Česko hledá SuperStar and SuperStar (Slovak TV series) to Slovensko hľadá SuperStar, because, like Mz7 said, that would make it less confusing to readers. SONIC678 (Let’s hang out) 01:30, 8 June 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_June_8&oldid=1142587160"