Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2015.

The Rising (Kanye West 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) 14:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created last year as an upcoming studio album for Kanye West, but that rumor turned out to be false. Tavix | Talk  23:31, 14 May 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.

Amelie Jolie-Pitt[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. Deryck C. 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jolie does not have any children named Amelie or Isla. They were rumors that turned out to be false... It's also not mentioned at her article. Tavix | Talk  22:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this merit a mention? And wouldn't people come here looking for this information? I'd give it a weak keep, and wonder why we haven't mentioned this event, if it's notable enough to include in the Angelina Jolie article. I don't follow celeb gossip and hadn't ever heard either of these names, but it might be nice to have the info for those that do. Wouldn't the hoax itself be worth a mention in the Angelina article? J♯m (talk | contribs) 02:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am taking a slightly different angle here. Even if there were an Amélie Jolie-Pitt, the parents separated (and made a few more quid when they did so) so she has one name or the other, I've never heard her called that as the hyphenated name. I could be wrong though. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no indication that this is an important aspect of Angelina Jolie, or a notable hoax regarding her. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 21 May 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.

Chun Chen[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) 13:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer affiliated with any MLB organization, fails WP:NBASE, so it's best to delete this redirect. Tavix | Talk  22:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it could be retargetted to Jennifer Chen (aka Chen Chun-Chen / Chen Chunchen / Chen Chun Chen ) or Chen (surname) (which indicates "Chun" as an alternate spelling of "Chen") -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:01, 15 May 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.

Teething troubles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 22#Teething troubles

Islamic Stater[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 22#Islamic Stater

Future Winter Olympics[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) 13:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Someone searching for this is looking for information about these specific games, and a redirect isn't helpful because there isn't any information about these Olympics at the Winter Olympic Games (the list ends at 2026). Furthermore, a redirect confuses readers because they see a bluelink and assume that there is an article, but get WP:SURPRISED to find that there is not one. Tavix | Talk  17:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure. It is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, and the R suggests that in its title, but it is certainly predictable when it will happen (title gives a clue). Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It is not really crystal to refer to the Winter Oylmpics that occured fifty years ago, but User:Tavix is right, this is harming a search. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all past 2022. In 1986, the IOC changed the date of the Winter Olympics, effective with the 1994 Winter Olympics. If they were to change it in 2016, it could affect the Olympic date as soon as 2024 (seeing as the host city for the 2026 Games hasn't even been selected yet). Having articles for Games even farther afield than this seems pointless. J♯m (talk | contribs) 00:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a liar, when I said "Games that happened 50 years ago" I looked up and misread that these are all in the future. But User:Jsharpminor is quite right in the particulars. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh apparently I didn't, must of caught meself just in time for once. Apols on both counts anyway. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh apparently I did, well said "fifty" not "50" which is why looking back I couldn't find it. Anyway, I just totally cocked this dicussion up. Mea culpa. Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 15 May 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.

Melbourne City Wrestling[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 14:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under R10. Pidzz makes a habit of this, creating redirects so he can later edit them as an anonymous IP. I'll be looking for more examples of this when I can but this would be a good start. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Even if correct, that is personal abuse against another contributor. I should advise you not to continue that line. Argue the case, not the person. WP:NPA, and to lay my cards on the table, I am up at WP:ANI for exactly that, and the contributor has been asked to provide evidence, because i argue the case noto the person, I have no quarrel with that editor, just disagreed with him. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't seen what he's been doing with his IP, Simon. It's socking, but as it's an IP there's a grey area that prevents it from being thrown to the appropriate look-see. He should be creating the article and not just sticking in a re-direct. I don't necessarily agree with the point below because I'm pretty sure we can find verifiable evidence of Emma and Buddy Murphy working there. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curse of Fenric: ((edit conflict) with Ivanvector below) Well you have to build a case, then to take to ANI. Someone with a login name who then edits under IP is being a bit duplicitious. Again, I have done so mistakenly not realising I am not logged in, and then go back and sign afterwards leaving the IP signature there so that there is no doubt it's me, either way. (MY IP is fairly stable but does change sometimes). We have other IPS such as 65.94 (I think that changed) who choose, perfectly reasonably, to stick on IP but don't impersonate, I wish 65.94 would get a nick but that is his or her decision not to, and that's fine too. But to have BOTH a nick and THEN edit surreptitiously under IP is not fine, I certainly see your point there. You can't have it both ways. Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, you should create a case at WP:SPI. Checkusers usually won't connect an IP to a registered account, but it sounds as though you have behavioural evidence which is better to build a case on anyway. It is generally considered uncivil to casually toss around accusations of sockpuppetry in random fora unless you intend to do something about it in the correct one. Ivanvector (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's random forums by the way, nice try for he plural but it is fourth conjugation and English so doesn't reall go that way. I think you would have been better not to pipe it, and leave it as WP:FORUMSHOP plain and simple. Si Trew (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fora sounds so much smarter, but thank you for the correctitation. Englishing is was not ever my strongthness. Ivanvector (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're Malcomn. No, Walcomn. Si Trew (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with the SPI, Ivan, is that Pidzz constantly changes his IP and it would take a long time to go through all of them in a period of say two months. TBH I'm not a fan of the WP:DUCK rule because it's basis has a tendency to be subjective - and therefore errors can be made. It's why I prefer the ability of check users to compare IP's to accounts. That's as objective as you can get. But it's not allowed. It doesn't help. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you must have some reason to suspect that the myriad of IPs are actually that user, right? If it's something you can prove, then that could make up an SPI. Another consideration is whether or not there's actually a violation of the multiple accounts policy. There are many legitimate uses for alternate accounts, or editing while logged out. Creating pages as a registered user (because IPs can't) and then logging out to edit is odd (because it eliminates the anonymity) but probably not inherently problematic. Consider whether you should just let it go. Ivanvector (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove it beyond personal feeling. That's the problem with taking it SPI. But no I won't let it go because it is problematic and as you rightly say "odd" on top of that. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from a Wiki expert, but wouldn't it seem that your options, at this point, are basically SPI or drop it? Where else would you take it? Continuing an SPI discussion on the RfD noticeboard hardly seems appropriate. J♯m (talk | contribs) 02:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing you have to do, @Curse of Fenric:, when attempting to solve a problem, is to work out whose problem it is. Now it ain't mine, and it ain't @Ivanvector:'s therefore it is either yours or nobody's. either is fine, I imagine Ivan and i will tidy it up as always, but that is not really our responsibility: you created the article, and you should tidy it up. We will anyway cos it's part of WP:BETTER. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created what? This is about a deletion of a redirect, not an article - and I am bringing it to the attention of this area for a consensus. That's how WP works, right? I can't delete the redirect so I am taking the only option open to me to solve the problem. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think - I'm usually sympathetic to the argument we should redlink to encourage creation, but it's mentioned at the target, and a quick search doesn't reveal enough sources to make much of an article. Am I missing some? I'd need to see them to be convinced redlinking is the right choice. WilyD 09:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - redirects to lists tend not to be of much use, since the list imparts no information to the reader other than that the organization exists. Would prefer WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 7 May 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) 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a classic example of WP:REDLINK and I agree with Ivan's assessment about redirects to lists. Tavix | Talk  17:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep At a glance, it doesn't look like this organization is ever going to have a standalone article. So if anything, we should discourage creation of an article. And while what Ivanvector says is certainly true about some lists, this one also tells readers its founders and founding years, with an external link and a space for more notes. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 21 May 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.

Dubai Town[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 deleted by Beeblebrox as part of a mass deletion of pages created by Freidnless lnoner. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  17:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freidnless lnoner appears to be a sneaky vandal who creates a lot of garbage for his amusement. Among that garbage is a long list of nonsense redirects. I checked several, including "Dubai Town", on stats.grok.se and found they got few or no hits, but I haven't checked all of them. Sammy1339 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not tag all 33 redirects for deletion manually on the individual pages because doing so would have been excessively tedious. Could someone with better tools handle that? --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see four distinct groups of redirects here, so I'm going to give a separate rationale for each of the groups (if someone wants to be bold and separate them this way, I wouldn't be opposed to it).
  • Weak delete Dubai Town → Dubai. The history section of the article mentions Dubai as a "town" for much of its existence so it makes sense. I'm a little leery about the capital T in town and we also don't have Dubai town. It just seems like the name of a football club to me...
  • Keep Retarget the Al-Khor redirects. This is the correct demonym (and plural version) for the city. The only sources I found were alternative spellings of the Horites so I think it would be best to retarget there.
  • Delete the Lusail redirects. This is a planned city and (as far as I can tell) there aren't people living there yet. I can't find any WP:RS saying what the demonym is, but I feel that at this point it's all speculation and should be deleted.
  • Delete the Palestinian redirects. It looks like this user is getting Palestinians mixed up with Philistines. I don't see any of them that are plausible enough for a retarget, so these are all junk redirects. (Possible exception on Philistini becuase it's one letter off (i → e)). Tavix | Talk  17:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Are you sure "Khorite" is the correct demonym for Al-Khor? The same vandal who created these redirects added that to the Al-Khor page, and stats.grok.se shows no hits for "khorite" prior to his intervention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right on this one. I saw a few hits, but I think they were circular references. I should've investigated more! I can't find any reliable sources using the term to refer to Al-Khor. Tavix | Talk  18:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But Chorite is a mix of zinc and lead, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have that, but we do have Chlorite, which is a completely different thing. Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "-ite" at the end, in chemical terms, means that it has an [[[Oxygen]] in it somewhere. I may have spoiled someone's above (probably Tavix) by accident, if I have then I apologise in advance. I don't think I have, but could have done. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I know it might not be much but I came across some of these spellings in postings on telechat. Even though such redirects might never come into widespread usage, the possibility an informal wanderer might come along leaves sufficient reason for me to allow such redirects to exist. Plus these are some of the fastest growing regions in the world. The suffixes are English. The secondary languages in all these places above are English too. Hence it is not far-fetched to have demonyms attached as such, even if prematurely prior to widespread usage. As for the redirects to Palestine, the ph sound is identical to how it is pronounced natively by Palestinians. Although I can find no google books hits, I can find hits on google user. Thats good enough for me. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They all look like obscure synonyms and/or implausible search terms to me. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete all quite obscure, but please do not group unrelated nominations. - TheChampionMan1234 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Batch nominations can be called for, but this would've been better in batches based on the target articles. Some of them likely would be deleted by now. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I batched them together because I perceived them all as drivel of the same type and didn't think any would be controversial. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 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:Country data Shanghai[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 deleted by Chrislk02. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  13:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong redirect. --MStargazer (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Shanghai is not a country is it? I mean, it was rented by the British for 150 years from China, but it has never been a country. Might as well have Template:Calais just because Elizabeth I said "When I die and you open my heart you will find Calais inscribed", or [[Template::Dover]], or Template:Ickleford or whatever. Bloody awful town anyway. Nice people though. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Its logo says it is a municipality. So I've taken the target to WP:CSD, with little hope of success, and cross-reffed back to here. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well blow me down, the target is now red via CSD (thanks whoever did that) so the R can go too. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 14 May 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.

"Enrica Lexie incident" or "Enrica Lexie case" are the ones which are widely used in technical literature[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 deleted - WP:R3. Just Chilling (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The product of a move without consensus (since reverted), this is a highly improbable search term/phrase and confusing to readers when it appears in search results. Dwpaul Talk 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Who would ever search this way? Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 14 May 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_May_14&oldid=1138580555"