Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2015.

Che Guevara (photo)/Archive1[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange and absurd redirect. Liam987 talk 21:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Talk:Che Guevara (photo)/Archive1 should point to Talk:Che Guevara (photo)/Archive 1, which itself is problematic since the talk page and its archives are out of sync. I'll see if I can clean this up... --BDD (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That wasn't so bad. I've retargeted Talk:Che Guevara (photo)/Archive1 to Talk:Guerrillero Heroico/Archive 1. I wouldn't mess with these types of links, but the mainspace one is still unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 24 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.

Volunteer Training[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. 19:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. This redirect is in reference to a book, but it is called The Puzzling Puzzles, not "Volunteer Training" as the history of this redirect implies. "Volunteer Training" isn't mentioned in any Lemony Snicket related articles, but it does indirectly refer to a lot of other things (for example, a Google search reveals a lot of non-profits). I'd like to see this deleted because I don't think we can guess what people would actually want when searching for this, so it's best to let the search engine take care of it. Tavix | Talk  14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague with no chance of fixing ... unless the redirect is somehow converted to a brad concept article, but I really don't see that happening (but would love to be proven wrong.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete highly inappropriate target. There's many volunteer training things. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above or Weak Retarget to Volunteering where it is mentioned that training is usually not a requirement. --Lenticel (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, or Weak retarget' per Lenticel (to section Volunteering#Skills-based volunteering, perhaps). I would have thought most if not all formal volunteering schemes require training of some sort, if only in the knowledge of the organisation itself. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to section Volunteering#Skills-based volunteering, per SimonTrew suggestion. Seems to be more relevant to the search term. Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the topic of training is discussed more at Volunteering. In my experience, volunteers almost always need some sort of training, even if it's often quick and cursory. I especially don't like the idea of a section retarget here, because the general topic of training volunteers is not specific to skills-based volunteering. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 31 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.

Michael Jordan (actor)[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. Deryck C. 19:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Michael Jordan also acted in films such as Space Jam, should this redirect be retargetted to the disambiguation page Michael Jordan (disambiguation)? Or should we just stick a hatnote on Michael B. Jordan, basically deeming "Michael B. Jordan" the primary topic for the term "Michael Jordan (actor)"? (For the record, my vote is for weak retarget to Michael Jordan (disambiguation).) Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and hatnote. My first thought was to agree with you, but especially with the new Fantastic Four movie coming up, I think most readers searching for this term will be looking for the target article. It looks like the Michael Jordan only really acted in Space Jam, so I doubt many people would seek him with this phrase. I think our best bet for satisfying readers will be to keep things as they are. What will the hatnote look like, though? "For the Space Jam actor, see Michael Jordan"? He's such a prominent figure we could probably get away without one altogether. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this might need to be revisited depending on if Michael B. Jordan's career takes off even stronger than Michael Jordan's notability, but I'm not sure if that is going to happen, and me claiming that it is and trying to make valid rationale out of that is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Michael Jordan is not an actor. He was a professional basketball player who happened to act in one film. The re-direct target is actually an actor. I don't see the issue with it re-directing there.--Yankees10 17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Which makes the disambiguator "(actor)" a plausible search term for Michael Jordan for someone who may have absolutely no idea who Michael Jordan is outside of Space Jam. In other words, my concerns mirror BDD's, so I've updated my opinion in my nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there really that many people that would not know that he was real life basketball player but remember him as only a person who acted in a single film that aired about 18 and a half years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.29.99 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have any way to accurately confirm that there is or isn't anyone who remembers Michael Jordan solely from Space Jam and not as a professional basketball player? I would think not, so why should we force this assumption on all of our readers? Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The middle name is not enough for disambiguation and he seems to be the most memorable professional actor under that name. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 29 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.

Kyle Abbott (character)[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) 15:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fails the standard naming conventions for television characters livelikemusic my talk page! 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...And also {{R from alternative name}} (different surname.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never liked the "*insert Y&R character name* (character)" page names. A character's name followed by "(The Young and the Restless)" just makes more sense. There was a consensus talk about this once, though, where it was decided to change them from "(The Young and the Restless)" to the more generic (in my opinion, too generic) form of "(character)." Beats me where it happened, however, and, I have no interest in looking for it so, I completely support getting rid of any and all "(character)" re-directs and officially returning to the more sensible (and correct) form of "(The Young and the Restless)."Cebr1979 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so ... how does that prove its lack of usefulness? Redirects' purpose are to be useful. Your argument is with the title of the actual article, not the redirect. The disambiguator in the redirect is not ambiguous, and is a plausible search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a plausible search term. Anyone searching for "Kyle Abbott" and wanting to find a character from "The Young and the Restless" would either search for "Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless)" or simply "Kyle Abbott" and then be taken to this page where they would see "For The Young and the Restless character, see..." and click on that. "Kyle Abbott (character)" is just too generic. It in no way explains what a person will find when they get there.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion also assumes that every reader who uses Wikipedia knows what The Young and the Restless is, which is obviously not the case. This redirect helps those who may want to look up the fictional character since they heard about him, but don't know from where. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find one source anywhere that talks about the Kyle Abbott character without mentioning The Young and the Restless, I will stop thinking that point of yours makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lol - Who in their right mind would have a conversation about the character of Kyle Abbott by saying, "Hey! There's this cool character I know about named Kyle Abbott but, I'm not gonna tell you what show he's on..."
If you want the re-direct to stay, fine! Then you want it to stay. I don't. So I came here to voice my reasons for such in a discussion. I honestly have no idea why you started this whole "we're having an argument and only one of us can be right thing." I was invited to share my opinion and I've done so. You clearly don't like it, but... there it is anyhow. Tootaloo! hahahaCebr1979 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when it comes to redirects, "generic" = "ambiguity", and since there is no other notable "Kyle Abbott (character)" currently on Wikipedia, there is no ambiguity with the "(character)" disambiguator, meaning that it's targeting the proper and most useful article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with what Steel1943 said --MrKing84 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to send the reader to what they're looking for. When it becomes ambiguous, a disambig page can be made. Nomination statement doesn't seem to suggest any reason for deletion. WilyD 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid search term and no ambiguity present. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 29 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.

Kyle Jenkins (The Young and the Restless)[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) 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect does not need to exist, as the main article Kyle Jenkins does not need to be disambiguate. livelikemusic my talk page! 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not needed but, wouldn't be bothered if it stayed either. I'm totally impartial on this one.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to send the reader to what they're looking for. Nomination statement doesn't include any reasons you'd want to delete the redirect. WilyD 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really necessary for disambiguation, but this seems to be a valid search term. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 29 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.

Kyle Jenkins (Y&R)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 31#Kyle Jenkins (Y&R)

Istiklal mar 351 305[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) 15:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this meant to mean? Google search for this only returns WP mirror. it certainly isn't mojibake, but must be some other kind of encoding issue. - TheChampionMan1234 11:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to mark-up issues. Gorobay could correct me if I'm wrong (or explain better), but it looks like the numbers on the end have to do with Unicode. Tavix | Talk  14:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is caused by a non-Unicode-aware canonicalization of ⟨İstiklâl Marşı⟩. Lowercasing produces ⟨istiklâl marşı⟩, which would be represented in Latin-1-encoded HTML as istiklâl marşı. Replacing punctuation with spaces and stripping diacritics produces istiklal mar 351 305, the redirect title. Gorobay (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt anyone will search for the anthem under that term. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 29 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.

Smithsonian conspiracy[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) 15:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inaccurate and/or vague. The Wright brothers had a feud with the Smithsonian Institution, but it would be inaccurate to call it a "conspiracy." The article doesn't use this language to describe the feud. Furthermore, "Smithsonian conspiracy" could refer to a number of different things, this isn't directly related to the Wright brothers. Tavix | Talk  05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The original text which the redirect replaced was luridly inaccurate. It all boils down to a questionable attempt at demonstrating the plausibility of the Langley Aerodrome as a pre-Wright flying machine, but calling it an conspiracy is a huge stretch. I've been familiar with this for years and have never heard referred to as the Smithsonian conspiracy. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This seems to be a conspiracy theory not mentioned in the target article. Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 29 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.

Can You Spare An Angel[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate redirect. Carrie Underwood does not have a song named "Can You Spare An Angel" or any other connection to that title. Tavix | Talk  05:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this seems to be part of the lyrics of the song made by Chris Rice --Lenticel (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of the term leads to lyrics of a song by Chris Rice. Nothing to with Underwood and there is no Wiki article for this song. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 29 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.

Famala Gu[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) 15:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO. There are way too many typos for this to be plausible as a search term. Tavix | Talk  05:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides Wikipedia and sites mirroring its content, there seems to be no use of this term. Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 29 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.

2032 Summer 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) 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 14#Future Winter Olympics just closed as delete, and I realized that there might be redirects of the same type at Summer Olympic Games. Sure enough there is, but at least it's as bad as the winter. Delete for the same reasons as before: "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 2028). 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  04:22, 23 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_23&oldid=1138580612"