Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2015.

Wrong-doer[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 Wrong. --BDD (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague. "Wrong" might also refer to breaking legal rules, not just divine rules. There are other redirects similar to this, like Wrongdoing. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no easy way to find Wrongdoers (album) since we can't put a hatnote at Wrongdoers R, which may suggest a reasonable exception for a WP:TWODABS there instead of the R (with a redirect at Wrongdoers (disambiguation)). What a mess. @Mr. Guye:, would it be better to add these to the nom formally? Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Yeah, add them into the nomination formally. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that placing a hatnote to Wrongdoers (album) on the Wrong article is the best solution. Neelix (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced with that, I can see the merit having Wrongdoer and Wrongdoers going to the same place, but WP:SMALLDETAILS (section in WP:TITLE) and WP:PLURALPT allow and even mildly encourage them to differ, as far as I read them. Nothing links to Wrongdoers, so there's no problem with breaking existing (internal) links. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're disagreeing about the what the guidelines say but rather about what a user is most likely to intend when typing "Wrongdoers" into the search bar. I tend to think that users are likelier to be looking for an article about the concept of wrongdoing (the Wrong article) than an article about a Norma Jean album. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the fun of RfD, it is a bit of a guessing game in that way. I would say the opposite: Someone typing that exact term (in plural) is more likely to be looking for the album so-called than a general topic on morality. But who can tell? On balance, redirecting them to the same place and having a hatnote is probably the better option. So struck my exception, above. Si Trew (talk) 04:33, 3 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.

Rep of ire[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. Rarely do I find consensus for the position of a numeric minority, but this time, I do. Keep voters clearly had a stronger argument. "Rep of ire" may be ambiguous in a general sense, but lacking any other topic on Wikipedia it can refer to, combined with evidence that this is a common abbreviation for the Republic of Ireland, the redirect is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation creates ambiguity. "Rep" could abbreviate a lot of things (representative, reputation) and "ire" is a word referring to anger. Is a recipe for a WP:SURPRISE disaster. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the country is "Ireland": "Republic of" is really more there as a DAB term, since Ireland is the geographical island, and I have no doubt long battles were fought over the naming of this (rather than, say, Ireland (state) or Ireland (country), which also exist as redirects to Republic of Ireland). WP:NOTDIC, we don't have abbreviations for everything like this. (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we shouldn't have abbreviations for everything, but we should have abbreviations when they are frequently used and helpful, which I believe this to be. Check out EamonnPKeane's link and you should see what I'm talking about. All of the uses for "rep of ire" I've seen unambiguously refer to the Republic of Ireland in some fashion. Tavix | Talk  15:14, 2 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.

Kyle Jenkins (Y&R)[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, without prejudice with respect to other redirects to the same article. Deryck C. 08:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fails the standard naming conventions for television characters livelikemusic my talk page! 12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Per this search, I am unable to immediately find any other redirects or titles that utilize the disambiguator "(Y&R)". Also, since Y&R is a disambiguation page, this disambiguator could be seen as ambiguous. However, I am "weak keep" since no other topics on the disambiguation page have and connection to a subject by the name of "Kyle Jenkins", as far as I can tell, meaning that the redirect itself is not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one, to me, just screams laziness. In my opinion, if it's going to be bracketed, it may as well have the full name of the show or not exist at all.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term "Y&R" is ambiguous. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Dimadick: Y&R may be ambiguous, but combined with "Kyle Jenkins", it doesn't appear to be. Cebr1979: you say laziness, I say save the time of the reader. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CONCISE. @BDD:, why do you think having the reader type out the "(Y&R)" unnecessarily saves them time, when the target manages to be unambiguous without it? If anything, surely if using a search drop-down they then have to make the choice between what appear to be two topics but in fact is just one (depending on which search tool is used, some filter out redirects, I believe). There's no internal link in reader-facing space, and stats are well within bot noise level (20 in the last 90 days, excluding the peak when this discussion started). Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Kyle Jenkins" is hardly an uncommon name, and it's not unreasonable for a reader to expect disambiguation to be necessary. From there, "Y&R" certainly saves time compared to "The Young and the Restless". Remember, the question is not whether this should be the title of the article—just whether it's a plausible search term and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to have "(Y&R)" for any other characters though. Were it to be deleted, the name without it would be unambiguous. As it stands, "Kyle Jenkins" looks ambiguous depending on how one searches, but isn't: the redirect is laying false scent by making it look as if there is more than one topic about Kyle Jenkins. Because of that, I think it is confusing. Y&R itself is a DAB, so the disambiguator is apparently ambiguous! Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Steel1943 already pointed out about the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 2 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.

Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address[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 between retargeting and deleting, default to delete. Deryck C. 08:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one sentence about Van Buren's inaugural address at the target page, so this redirect is highly misleading. It was created with the full text of the address, but that belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. (It's there, in case you were wondering.) BDD (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and redirect to Inauguration of Martin Van Buren. It is little more than a stub but seems more relevant to the search term than the bio article. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subpage redirect in the article namespace with no incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget (as nom) per Dimadick. The syntax makes this an unlikely search term, and the address isn't mentioned at the target article. But the Wikisource link is there, and at some point, the address itself should be discussed there too. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Inauguration of Martin Van Buren. The suggested retarget has a link to the Wikisource page and, though an unlikely search term in this format, having this appear in the search drop-down when someone enters Martin Van Buren looks very helpful to readers enabling them to find the information they are seeking. Just Chilling (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. As Steel1943 alluded to, this was created as a WP:SUBPAGE. This redirect is no longer useful because its intended purpose has been disabled and I don't find it a likely search term at all. I also find it interesting that the prose of Inauguration of Martin Van Buren doesn't mention his inaugural address, a reader could get confused into thinking that the article has information about the inaugural address when the only mention of it is in an external link. While I agree with most of Just Chilling's rationale, I differ in that I don't think it's necessary to use this redirect to do so, noting that Martin Van Buren 1837 presidential inauguration appears before this redirect in that dropdown menu and any combination of "Martin Van Buren" and "Inaugural address" brings up Inauguration of Martin Van Buren as one of the top results in the search engine. Tavix | Talk  18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His inaugural address surely is public domain and can be included there? Not only for its age but also the general rule in the US that anything done in the name of a State, or the United States, is public domain. So we can quote it. But I still don't think you can beat the Gettysburg PowerPoint presentation. Si Trew (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, yes, we could include the whole thing, but as a matter of policy, we won't. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 4 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.

Anthony Vincent[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 move draft article over a redirect. At a glance, the diplomat certainly appears notable. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Target contains no information on Anthony Vincent. Incoming links refer to a Canadian diplomat with no obvious connection to YouTube. Tassedethe (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. We do have Anthony Peter Strascina → Tony Vincent, birth name (and I've marked as such), but I don't know if he has ever been known as Anthony Vincent; Anthony Strascina is red. Si Trew (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Updated after Lenticel had replied immediately below Si Trew (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Since the target article doesn't discuss this youtube artist. I don't know if the guy's notable enough for an article yet although there are some articles on the net about his viral videos. --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Tassedethe is right, I don't know "incoming links" is quite the right term but a search with My Favourite Search Engine for "Anthony Vincent" fills in the search box for me with "anthony vincent canadian ambassador". I think I shall create a Draft:Anthony Vincent if I can get enough RS, and submit it to you) for your consideration. Excuse me for updating inline but I don't think it affects Lenticel's comment in any way. Si Trew (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wife intervening. I got distracted by my wife. I made a stub Draft:Anthony Vincent as a stub for the ambassador. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 2 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.

Wikipedia:ADMASQ[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. Whether ADMASK or ADMASQ becomes more common, both seem unambiguous and legitimate shortcuts for the target. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love this redirect (which I just learned of) however it occurs to me that WP:ADMASK might be an even clearer way to spell it, with the benefit that "mask" is a real word, and related to the root meaning that is at the heart of masquerade. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects are cheap, so why not both? I just created WP:ADMASK.--ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. How would you feel about me substituting WP:ADMASK as one of the three listed aliases on the target page? Or is that something I should I should take up on the talk page, there? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done so. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Without prejudice, I've marked the R as {{R to section}} and added the section here in the nom for clarity. (Twinkle doesn't include the section when listing, unfortunately: we must have a bug report on this?) @Shawn in Montreal: can this close now? Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of these WP: redirects are not marked. That is a Herculean task to fix them if I ever saw it. But {{R from shortcut}} is betteralso applicable, I shall go back and fix, gotta start somewhere. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it best to continue the discussion in one place, and I have suggested that be this forum, at Wikipedia Talk:Spam#WP:ADMASK instead of WP:ADMASQ. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 2 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.

Thepoliticsexpert[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 closed as WP:R2. Just Chilling (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from articlespace to usepage Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 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.

Red Sux[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) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what happens to WP:RFD#White Sux. - This should follow the outcome of that. Hits well below bot noise level (4 in the last 30 days). Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_31&oldid=1142587116"