Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 30, 2015.

Latin American Union[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 Latin American Union of News Agencies. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Latin America is NOT the same thing as South America so a redirect of this kind to the Union of South American Nations is incorrect, unhelpful, and confusing. Tavix |  Talk  19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing. We do have various lists of Latin American countries, but none seems close enough for a retarget; I don't think there's a Union of Latin American countries in the way that there is the European Union or the United States, or NAFTA or NATO or whatever, at least what I could find (but this may be blocking that search). I found Prostitution in Honduras at sixth, somewhat oddly. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember hearing about this being a thing, an economic union of specifically Latin American countries, but I don't see an article on it. The closest I've found are Panhispanism, Caribbean Community, Central American Integration System, Association of Caribbean States, and actually quite a few others, but none use the term "Latin American Union". There is (was) a Latin Union but that is (was) global, rather than based in the Americas. I don't think that disambiguation is right here because we can't really be sure that any of these are a conceptual match, and none are title matches. Delete, maybe per WP:REDLINK, more likely because it's just not a thing. Ivanvector (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. Retarget to Latin American Union of News Agencies, the closest partial title match I can find. It also seems to be the name of a player's entity in Cyber Nations but that would be an inappropriate redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 21:58, 30 March 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.

Wikipedia:Golden rule[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  22:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete confusing redirect with extreme prejudice, as it causes major headaches on its target page about using normal shortcut templates. There's now a bogus fourth section for an enumeration of the three redirects in an essay designed to consist of three sections reflecting its three buzzwords (give or take a harmless "see also".) The 2014 redirect target was used to avoid a 2009 cross-namespace redirect target, now causing persistent reverts on its new target. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with retargeting (or deleting) is that this has been around for quite some time, and many conversations have used the shortcut to refer to this particular essay. Retargeting breaks those conversations, and for no good reason. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and certainly something to think about. But if a mainspace article was mentioned in lots of discussions, that wouldn't stop us deleting or redirecting it. Why should this be any different? I haven't actually got a strong opinion on this either way. I'm just pointing it out. Reyk YO! 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The target was User:Ikip/Golden Rule from 2009 to 2014, the current target was introduced out of thin air less than a year ago. Amatulic explains below that the "thin air" actually made sense for AFC, but unlike WP:42 it is not related to the answer to life, the universe, and everything (intentionally without WP.) –Be..anyone (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly agree that an essay full of hand-wringing inclusionist hogwash is an even worse place for this to point to than its current target. Reyk YO! 13:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why there would be confusion with the article Golden Rule and the Wikipedia-space redirect Wikipedia:Golden rule. Many fields and endeavors have their own "golden rule". There is no reason Wikipedia shouldn't. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what the targeted essay is saying. I think it could be done very well without the nonsensical Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference, and probably should be, but we can decide that elsewhere. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy reference is nonsense, (And I heard it when it was first broadcast on Radio 4, I am old, written by Douglas Adams and produced by John Lloyd if I recall correctly, I had a nice box set before they did box sets but a cocaine addict I took in stole them to sell for his habit so I don't have it any more. On the box it said "Don't Panic' in large, friendly letters. He also sold off most of my books, for much less than they were worth, because he got a good deal with me from a second hand book seller for oone set of books which is because I know what I am talking about, The worst thing is on the street he said that he took me for a thousand pounds, rather an exaggeration, but it is alway me with the mop and bucket as we do here at WP. If you don't think I can't clean up a mess then you don't know me, I use my real name I come with clean hands,). We have to kinda somehow take that out and reroute it somehow but I don't know quite how yet. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am old enough to have heard them, but sadly I have not, and anyway the Radio 4 broadcast would be awfully weak by the time it got to where I am. Though my mother does have an old shortwave radio which we used to use to pick up transatlantic broadcasts back in the day, that is before the tubes went on it. She still has the radio though, it's a beautiful old thing. As for changing the name of the essay, that's a move proposal, and one which I think has been proposed before. On my weird long commute home I will think about proposing it again. If you think about it, there really is no justification for an 8km straight-line commute to require a bus and two streetcars, plus sometimes one or two more of each depending on the particular route manager's intelligence, and really should not take an hour and a half on the average day, and as much as twice that if it snows. I mean, come on, snow?! We weren't able to foresee the possibility of snow in Canada? But I suppose you get what you pay CA$2.85 for these days. I probably should just ride my bike. Ivanvector (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I originally created this redirect for one reason: because several WP:AFC reviewer response templates make reference to the "golden rule" and link to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. These canned AFC responses have existed for years. I merely created the shortcut to the term already in wide use in AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Keep. Amatulic makes the point well: If this is useful it should stay. It is not a WP:CNR (which Wikipedians seem to have taken rather a dislike to in the last year or two), nothing wrong with it. If it were confusing etc I should argue otherwise, but User:Ivanvector pointed out above that they are kinda synonyms (my words not Ivan's). I disagree a little, but they are close enough that it is a useful search term. I think we have to be more stringent in WP space than user space, because we can expect editors to be a bit more aware of how it works than general readers, but this does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Golden Rule" in that it's a pretty important rule that we have, and gold is a pretty nice thing, shiny anyway. The Golden Rule of course is something different. I am not suggesting this should target to WP:CIVIL though, per my comments on retargeting above. Ivanvector (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since editors have found it useful. A weird redirect but makes sense in context. --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The number of editors who found it useful in February 2015 was zero, if the "stats" link gets this right. But I'm not going to believe obscure stats unless somebody here confirms that it really means what it says. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Be..anyone: The stats link at the top of this section is malformed in that it constructs a search for the separate words "golden" and "rule". The correct link for February is here: http://stats.grok.se/en/201502/Wikipedia%3AGolden_rule ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Actually quite a lot for a redirect that's relatively new (wrt its current target), and considerably longer than WP:42. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stats link is actually broken in an identical manner (+ not _ joining words) for all mutli-word redirects and needs fixing. See Template talk:Rfd2. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Skyerise. This redirect is the only way I can remember how to get to the page.- MrX 21:44, 3 April 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.

Percheron (rocket)[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. Readers would be better served by another article instead of a circular link, but it may be that we don't have that much to say about the Percheron rocket. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Conestoga was a completely different rocket - Percheon was purchased by them once, but abandoned.. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Percheron as {{R from typo}}. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's mentioned at the target, but no prejudice against writing a separate article on this rocket. See this book source. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should just like to point out this was listed in the title sec as Percheon, not Percheron. I may be an idiot but I am not a total idiot. If that is a typo on the listing (which I guess it is), I think all bets are void, and we have to start again. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the discussion links go to the right place then I think it's fine. Assuming templates were used then they should, but I'll check. Ivanvector (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't, but they do now. Ivanvector (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's covered in the article. Of course we can make a spinoff article in the future. --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 2 April 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.

People's republic of poland[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) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:REDUNDANT. Wikipedia already has the page People's Republic of Poland which redirects to the page Polish People's Republic. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions, bad English. Poeticbent talk 13:17, 30 March 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.

Nsw-bity[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 Withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Could have been joke or vandalism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • joke or vandalism"? Did you even search for the name in the page linked? I do not remember why I created the redirect, but it is the standard transcription of the name of one of the pharaoh's "throne names". There is, by now, a dedicated section in another article for this, so the redirect should now point to Ancient_Egyptian_royal_titulary#Throne_name_.28praenomen.29, but I frankly see no reason to delete it. It is an extremely plausible search term, because people tend to search for technical terms they do not understand, and if you read Egyptological literature, and you come across the term nsw-bity, you are likely to search for it. This is presumably exactly what happened to me, then I would have seen Wikipedia didn't know the term, then I would have spent 20 minutes on google books, then I would have inserted the information in an existing article and created the redirect so it could be found by future searches. "joke or vandalism" indeed. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, glad there's a good technical reason. It was used in exactly one place. Happy to withdraw the nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 30 March 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.

আমেরিকান সামোয়া[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: American Samoa does not have a notable Bengali population (that I could find). Tavix |  Talk  00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. No strong affiliation with South Asia. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. This term isn't the native name of the area as well.--Lenticel (talk) 23:56, 31 March 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_March_30&oldid=1138580491"