Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2015.

List of caliphs of ISIS[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. Basically we have a split of opinion for the more general problem: for "List of (a set with only 1 member)", some argue that they should redirect to the article on that 1 set member, and others argue that it isn't a list and should be deleted. Deryck C. 16:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an awfully silly redirect as there is no such "List of caliphs of ISIL" at the target. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would be the only entry in such a list so it'd be be a bit pointless to create one. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as potentially useful. I can see some blissfully ignorant soul who doesn't realize that he's the only one searching for a list of them. Also, at some point in the future, if ISIL isn't destroyed first, there may be more than one at which point a list will need to be made (hopefully it doesn't survive that long!). At any rate, no reason to delete. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So when there is a "List of Caliphates of ISIL", it should then be recreated. It's confusing at the moment because it implies a list when there isn't one. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And when there is a "List of caliphs of ISIL" it can be created as a list. At the moment, there is only one, hence it is best served as a redirect. My point stands, that I can see people who don't know anything about the topic looking for a list of them and the redirect serves to inform them that there is only one and who that person is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the redirect implies a list and to redirect someone somewhere that's not a list will leave our readers confused and/or disappointed. A redlink would signify that there's not a list and then search results would point someone to al-Baghdadi if that's truly what someone is looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the lists you mention are actually lists. This is just a redirect to a person. In addition, we don't know if it'll have to be recreated in the future; see WP:CRYSTAL. You're implying that there is going to be more than one "Caliph of ISIL" and you can't make that assumption. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there has only been on caliph for Da'esh, it is viable to redirect the listname to the biography. However, we could also retarget the redirects to the section of the Da'esh article where the leadership is mentioned. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No such list, made-up state. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear BDD, all states are made-up. They don't exist before they are made-up. --181.164.97.184 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the point is that no state actors recognize an ISIS caliphate. Even if they did, we don't have a list of its leaders. Even if we did, it would only have one "caliph". It's no more helpful than listing List of Presidents of the Republic of Molossia to Kevin Baugh. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Molossia is not all over the world news every day. --181.164.97.184 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 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.

Netherton & Worth Boxer Cars[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) 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, and the subject could be worth an article by itself. Delete per WP:REDLINK. QueenCake (talk) 20:15, 19 October 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.

Criticism of psychology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Criticism of psychology

Hyde event[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Hyde event

Piggate scandal[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) sst✈ 08:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting deletion of an "alternate title" discussed on the Piggate talk page, with only the single editor who created this redirect supporting it as a plausible search. Note that this proposes a title which promotes a POV where the article does not refer to the unsupported anecdote as a "scandal" itself, and is specifically lacking any remote consensus on the talk page of the actual article. Note also that anyone typing in "piggate" will see the actual article before adding a single letter more, and "piggate scandal" is thus an implausible Wikipedia search term. Collect (talk) 15:12, 19 October 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:Wikipedias in other languages[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 keeping and changing to disambiguation. Default to keep. Deryck C. 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently moved the Wikipedia page (an essay) that was at the title of this redirect to its new title; I did this since the title of the redirect does not match the scope of the page. The target page is about differences between this Wikipedia and other Wikipedias; it's not a list of Wikipedias in other languages. On this Wikipedia, the page that lists other Wikipedias is in the article space: List of Wikipedias. So, because of this, the redirect directing to its current target could be considered misleading. Right now, in lieu of suggesting that List of Wikipedias be moved to the "Wikipedia:" namespace, in regards to this redirect, I would say delete since its target article doesn't explain the specific request as stated in the title of this redirect, or weak retarget to List of Wikipedias since that would be the most helpful target (but "weak" since that would in turn make this redirect a WP:CNR, which could be seen as misleading or unhelpful in itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to its vagueness and there appearing to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 12:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a standard {{R from move}}. The target existed at this location from creation in 2007 until yesterday, has incomming links and gets over 50 hits a month most months. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a bit early to gauge this title's usefulness via page views (since yes, it was just moved yesterday), but in this case, to use this title's "incoming links" as rationale to keep is a bit bogus. To explain, here's a breakdown of the 9 incoming links to this redirect: 2 are related to this nomination (a result of this discussion being open), 1 is a result of me stating on the previous RFD day that I think there is an issue with the target page previously being at the redirect's title, 3 are in the "User:" namespace utilized in ways that do not require that the title remain (2 are there due to an editor creating some sort of list of a couple of categories in 2008 with probably a hundred examples which they have not maintained, and 1 is of an editor putting a huge list of what seems to be random links in a sandbox page and hasn't edited since 2013), 2 are on WikiProject archives (where there are red links present), and 1 is of the essay creator announcing on the Village pump in 2007 that they created the essay. The last three can be piped if need be so the archives don't lose their history, but in my mind, the links are still intentional so it is not completely necessary; if any of those three need to be fixed, it would be the creator's mention at the village pump. That, and ... If this term is still being searched, wouldn't it make more sense to direct readers to a page that actually contains the information they are looking for if they are searching the title, referencing my "weak retarget to List of Wikipedias" vote above? Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify or soft redirect, with a brief explanation that the essay was located there initially, and linking to the actual list of Wikipedias. Alakzi (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as disambiguation, pointing both to the new - and yes, it is a much better - title; and to the list of wikipedias wherever it may be now or in the future - Nabla (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, the hatnote at the target solves all of the (very mild) problems one could have with this redirect. Making an unnecessary disambiguation page is less good, but still a lot better than deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 19:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Nabla: I note that "keep" and "disambiguate" are two mutually exclusive options. Deryck C. 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:53, 19 October 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.

KoKoSoVo[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) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what connection (if any) there is with this redirect and Kosovo. My search results brought up a lot of hits about coconuts, causing me to believe this is a WP:RFOREIGN of coconut. In any case, it'd be confusing since this term isn't described anywhere. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - implausible typo, implausible capitalization (this is not CamelCase), implausible foreign language redirect ("Kokosovo" is Slovenian for coconut, but coconut is not especially Slovenian). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like nonsense to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, plainly ridiculous. sst✈ 15:24, 25 October 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.

The truth of 2012[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) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POV. This is vague and doesn't correlate with the content of the article. It seems more like conspiracy theorist lingo than something encyclopedic. -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 19 October 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.

Mormon Cult[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 27#Mormon Cult

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (simple and kind version 1.0)[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) 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created as a fork of the original WP:IAR back in 2007, and didn't last very long as it was redirected within a day. As a redirect though, this makes no sense as the current version of WP:IAR isn't "version 1.0" (there have been several edits made since the original) and it being "simple and kind" is a WP:POV. -- Tavix (talk) 00:52, 19 October 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_October_19&oldid=1037881447"