Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 26, 2015.

Avec gaz[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) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am not sure this is even French, the more natural being French: gazeaux/gaseause or French: gazéifié(e):
(in English) "une boisson avec ou sans gaz". wordreference.com. 6 April 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2015.
We do not have sans gaz, gaseaux, gaseause, gazéifié, gazéifiée, gazeifie or gazeifiee. French Wiktionary (Wiktionnaire) has a definition for 'gaseaux' here, in French. Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. Without prejudice to this discussion I've marked it as {{R from other language|fr}}. French Wikipedia doesn't have any of these titles. Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Whether this is a valid translation or not, carbonation has no particular affinity for French. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 27 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.

Clintogate[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. Si, I think the target article has a pretty good foundation for what you're talking about—see especially the part about William Safire. That's probably a good place to start before trying to start a new article. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an WP:XY situation as this could just as easily refer to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. Also, isn't this misspelled? Shouldn't this be Clintongate? Even though "Emailgate" has been all over the news lately, stats have been around noise level, with only 29 hits in the last 90 days. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 26 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.

Microfunction[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 12:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not discuss the topic. Taku (talk) 21:33, 26 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.

World War VI[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. 12:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions applying labels for various conflicts up to World War V (interesting quote from World War III: "Jed Babbin accepted the view of the Cold War as World War III, adding, 'World War IV is the terror war, and war with China would be World War V.'") There's nothing that I could find regarding a purported World War VI/VII, so this is either nonsense or a WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 26 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.

Shielding lotion[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) -- Tavix (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus at Talk:Barrier cream that this term (coined by a marketing company and not encyclopedic) is not suitable for inclusion in the article on Barrier cream, so this redirect is inappropriate and of no value. RexxS (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, notwithstanding the term having been invented by marketing (which I don't dispute - it clearly was). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How common is the term? If I came across it in the wild, I think I'd assume it was another term for Sunscreen. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it another term for sunscreen, though? Sunblock is a thing. From what I've searched, shielding lotion is barrier cream, even though it's basically a brand name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By consensus, not at target and never will be, so WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The correct name for barrier cream is barrier cream. Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought shielding lotion and barrier cream are the same. There was a recent merge. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is like a brand name and thus should be keep as a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to skinmdnatural.com, "Shielding LotionTM duplicates and enhances your skin’s natural and protective barrier. Just a small application of Skin MD Natural daily protects your skin from damage and delivers hours of soothing moisture, and for those of you who have excessive dry skin can help in relieving itching". This is not a barrier cream in the sense usually meant by that, i.e. to protect against mineral oils penetrating the epidermis. Without prejudice, I've marked the R as {{R from brand name}}, but I stick by it being RFD#D2 confusing (and see WP:TRADEMARK; Shielding Lotion is red). The initial cap on "Lotion" is used here at glovesinabottle.com (it's hard to see as the font is small caps, do a caps sensitive search for it on that page), but again, this is a moisturiser not a barrier cream. Si Trew (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barrier cream can also a moisturizing barrier cream. The definition of a shielding lotion is the same as one of the types of barrier creams. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've created Shielding Lotion as an {{R from brand name}} to barrier cream (and reverted my addition of that rcat from shielding lotion). The case for having that redirect rests on the use-mention distinction, which I think is essentially WP:XY (WP:RFD#D10). We don't have moisturising barrier cream or moisturizing barrier cream. I'm inclined to list the newly-created R for discussion/deletion too, but we might as well see the outcome of this one first. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it "shielding lotion" is not the brand name, but a term for a product which is clearly a barrier cream invented by marketers striving to differentiate it from other barrier creams by calling it some entirely different sort of product. Which it isn't, it's barrier cream. Like if I tried to sell you a "caffeinated coca-infused dairy solution" - it sort of is, but really it's just coffee. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and plausible redirect. sst✈ 14:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after some diligent search I found out that at least in 1960s it was a short for "sun-shielding lotion". Disambig? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Staszek Lem, do you have a recent reliable source for that claim. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just saw google books for 1964-1966 which use the term in this sense. I don't really care that much to do a deeper research. I posted some quotes in Talk:Barrier cream, and that's about all what I can do. (Means "no" :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think a sun-shielding lotion might be a sunscreen. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          @QuackGuru: Yes it was. That's why I was hinting 'disambig'. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there any mention of a sun-shielding lotion at the sunscreen page? QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 29 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.

What's grosser than sweat on Olivia Newton John?[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 delete. I'm circumventing this discussion. The reason I specified for the deletion log is: Not only does this have no encyclopedic relevance but it's verging on a BLP violation. Just being a redirect that sets up an 80s joke isn't grounds for that, but when a living person is involved it's a different story.  — Scott • talk 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this further it's one of a series of prank redirects created by an editor who left in 2009. This was vandalism that had gone undetected since 2007.  — Scott • talk 11:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - disparages the target, although Come On Eileen is not a living person. WP:RFD#D3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, now the mote is cast out of my eye. I always thought she was "Common Eileen", who'd do anything. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:R#D8 and arguably D3 as well. (I am also relieved to note we do not have this trying to pass itself off as an {{R from typo}}). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:13, 27 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.

Diversity is an old, old wooden ship[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) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. I know I've seen the film four times and I don't remember this quote from the movie Liz Read! Talk! 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - nonsense. Ron Burgundy nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Not mentioned at the target. These are an example of recurring vandalism according to a long-lived thread over at Talk:Diversity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'delete wp is not a wikiquote. The phrase is not a plausible title of any subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:10, 27 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.

Satan as a horned and hoofed goat-like monster[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) 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term Liz Read! Talk! 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to The Devil (Tarot card) which describes a deck which uses this basic imagery (not Satan, but a similar topic) for its Devil card. It's a drawing of Baphomet, but it doesn't say anywhere that Baphomet was actually a representation of Satan or a devil at all. This actually seems to get a fair number of hits. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete'. wp is not a wikiquote. The phrase is a definition, not a plausible title of any subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym. The two er... gentlemen seems to be quite different based on the literature about them. --Lenticel (talk) 05:35, 5 November 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.

Disney inspirations[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) 16:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target doesn't address "Disney inspirations" and I'm not sure if there's a suitable target that does address this in an encyclopedic manner. -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 26 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.

Travis Bowe[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) 16:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again a case where a guy was redirected to one thing he's worked on but has since gone on to do other stuff (and thus be mentioned on Wikipedia, see Dr. C and the Women) so the redirect is no longer very accurate. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:53, 26 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:Founder[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 Wikipedia:User access levels#Founder as an avalanche (the opposite of a WP:SNOWBALL). (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a cross-namespace redirect to mainspace. I would think that retargeting this to either Wikipedia:User access levels#Founder or User:Jimbo Wales would be more appropriate. sst✈ 08:31, 26 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.

Autobotika[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. 12:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this redirect, I wish to have this redirect deleted. Firstly, it does not have the diacritics of its correct name Autobótika which is mentioned in this article. Secondly, it is not mentioned in depth in its target. Thirdly, this redirect is a magnet for editors to insert misinformation to articles relating to GamerGate (although these have been reverted). I previously requested to G7 this redirect but it was contested by another editor. sst✈ 07:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Useful redirect. Autobotika is mostly known through their work with TFYC, so it's a likely search term for those looking for TFYC related stuff. Also redirects don't need to have correct diacriticsBrustopher (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep {{R from diacritics}}. The developer Autobótika is only briefly mentioned, but that's where it is. Although note that Autobótika doesn't exist. Also, according to the history, the redirect has never been vandalized, so I don't know what that's about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, at target if only very briefly. I don't think {{R from title without diacritics}} is appropriate when the target has a completely different title from the redirect. It seems to me that the English search engine is agnostic to diacritical marks so no need to create Autobótika, although it is a bit odd to have one without the other. (I am not sure if other languages' search engines – or rather presumably some configuration of the search engine – have different rules, for languages where the marks have greater significance.) Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 28 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.

PPUVC[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 by Versageek and The JPS, respectively. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created. Nothing currently links to it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator and as WP:R#D8 obscure synonym. No evidence of real-world usage in this sense, or in any other sense that would be appropriate for a redirect. I see a dissertation that uses it to mean "priority pre-updating with victim cache" (not covered in Wikipedia) and a few anti-vaccination folks using it as a typo for for Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (usually PCV, way too far away to be worth an {{R from typo}}), and that's it aside from database IDs and webpages listing every possible combination of five letters 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that this shortcut has already been dealt with, but I still would like some clarification. I was pinged in a clarification to Checkingfax, but didn't learn if there was a formal rule about it. Customs are not binding, but rules are.
    My question: Are shortcuts allowed in mainspace, or only in userspace and Wikipedia namespace (our behind the scenes business which is not part of the encyclopedia itself). If not, there needs to be a formal rule about it somewhere, probably in MoS. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 14:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not shortcuts in that sense, that would be silly. WP:SHORTCUT specifically advises against using them in article space. If there was some reason to do it, we would add a {{redirect}} hatnote, but just indicating "this is an editor shorthand that links here" is meaningless for readers and just adds unnecessary clutter. We do keep redirects from common abbreviations and shorthand when they're in common use; see Category:Redirects from initialisms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, thanks for that wikilink. What wording there forbids this practice? This was the first time I've ever seen it done, and I questioned it on Checkingfax's talk page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BullRangifer: second sentence, They are commonly used on community pages and talk pages rather than in articles themselves. (emphasis added) I suppose that language could use strengthening. I can't imagine any valid use for this in article space. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that, and I agree it needs strengthening. It should be explicitly forbidden to use such shortcuts in articles. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just deleted all the existing transclusions of Template:Shortcut in main space (about 8, they were all errors except this one) and modified the guideline. Let's see if it sticks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally off-topic BullRangifer, but why should convenience shortcuts that help readers find their way back to an article be forbidden in article space? The consensus has allowed this practice for years. Shortcuts are allowed for any article. Having one editor change this long standing consensus today seems a bit heavy handed. This particular shortcut was not prefaced with an WP:. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One extant use (yours, discounting the few others that were clearly errors) does not seem to me to suggest the longstanding consensus you refer to. In fact, the longstanding consensus seems to be the opposite, since until today, nobody has used them ever. But in case you think that this should be tested, I did earlier today post a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 26 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.

Eilean[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. 12:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The history says the word is Scottish Gaelic. -- Tavix (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Eilean Donan (for me, the first Google result). sst✈ 07:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Eileen -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting anywhere (unless we get evidence someone is named "Eilean"). A retarget will hamper search results for islands that contain the word "Eilean," and we have several examples here. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting to above suggestions per Tavix. Deletion is the best option I've heard at this point. Searchers for "Eilean" probably either (a) want to know why it appears in so many placenames, or (b) remember half a placename and want the other half. Celtic toponymy sounds like a good place to write about (a), but editors haven't actually written anything about Eilean there yet. Also, retargeting there interferes with (b) (unless we add a {{for}} hatnote to Special:Search/intitle:Eilean, something I've never seen before). Finally, in either case (a) or (b) it's unhelpful to pick an island at random and redirect the searcher there (Île Saint-Louis is a pretty famous Île but no one would seriously suggest we should point Île there) and {{R from typo}}s are more frustrating than helpful when the alleged "typo" is an actual prefix of article titles. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points, also appears to have no suitable target. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Rubbish computer. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. sst✈ 14:18, 27 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:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and philosophy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 7#Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and philosophy

Steven Krueger[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. 10:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disapprove with redirects from people's name to just one their works. Besides, he isn't referred to on the target page. JDDJS (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I will with this @Tokyogirl79: who although not the creator seems to have some involvement in this (see Talk:Steven Krueger). There is also a kinda draft bio at Talk:Steven krueger with the lowercase k, but Steven krueger also redirects to the same target (add to nom?) so it looks like the page was converted into a redirect without redirecting the talk page.
In 2010 it came up at Wikipedia:Suspected_copyright_violations/2010-06-30 but was dismissed as a false positive. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 26 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:DZORO[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. 10:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as shortcuts that are left over from a deleted process. Basically, there used to be a delsort for Zoroastrianism (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zoroastrianism) but it wasn't viable because it wasn't ever used. It was then redirected to the delsort for Religion. That page has since been deleted (see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014_January_23#Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zoroastrianism) but the shortcuts remain. -- Tavix (talk) 01:43, 26 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.

Portar Rico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 7#Portar Rico

Classification of Products by Activity[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. Despite this RFD being open for over 6 weeks we have no consensus and I don't think that keeping it open will achieve consensus. This redirect does not prevent an article being written and I see nothing to indicate that a page will be created soon. Indeed, additional material would initially be better added to the target so as to expand a very short page. Further, I am mindful of WP:RFD#HARMFUL and no convincing harm has been demonstrated. On the other side of the coin this looks an implausible search topic that is not mentioned in the page. On balance, therefore, we have no consensus. I will leave it to interested editors to add such 'R from' tags as they judge appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. This redirect leads to a general page of product classifications which prevents the creation of an article on this classification. ALE! (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really care much one way or the other, but it's not necessary to delete the redirect in order to create an article. Even better, create a WP:DRAFT article and request it be moved over the redirect. If this is just a hypothetical possibility that an article might be created some day, then I oppose deletion of the redirect. Better to send readers to a page with some basic information on the topic. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - the redirect is not blocking page creation. Write over it. Until we have content to replace it, the redirect is serving its purpose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, out of procedure: this is linked as the first entry at the DAB at Product classification, so it is essentially a self reference. (That DAB entry has four blue links!) The only other place it is linked in article space is the DAB at CPA (as the last entry), and I can't think of the policy but I thought it was strongly discouraged for a DAB entry to go via an R, so that should have gone to the target anyway – no point changing it while this is under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SimonTrew@, no, there's nothing wrong about using a redirect like this. The term exists, it is not made up. The target of the redirect is currently the only article with content pertaining to the term. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To have a DAB point back to itself is wrong. The other DAB is marginally better in that it points to another DAB via the redirect. It's not the worst mess I have encountered, but we can untangle it. Four blue links on the link for this entry at the target is just absurd. Which of the four are we disambiguating to? But that's beyond RfD and I'd like to get consensus here before I change that, even though I am tempted to do so WP:BOLDly, I think that would hinder our discussion trying to hit a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew@, I don't understand much of your comment. How does a dab point back to itself? If you mean the link on the article at Product classification, there is no need for that link to be there and can be removed. And I don't understand what you mean by Four blue links on the link for this entry at the target. Point is to help readers looking for "Classification of Products by Activity" find relevant content. If someone wants to create an article that'd be just fine, but I fail to see how deleting this redirect helps readers. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here's the thing. The target article is an article, even if it may function as a dab; a circular link on a dab is obviously inappropriate, but that's not the case here. Going forward, we can probably agree on two things: (1) this redirect could help readers who come across the phrase, by informing them that it's a product classification scheme; and (2) this redirect is unhelpful if you come across it from the Product classification article—i.e., the circular link isn't helping anybody. How we proceed remains an open question. Since the other entries in that list have their own articles, it might be good to emphasize that this one doesn't. On the other hand, as I mentioned, this redirect can be helpful. We could simply remove the circular link from the target article, but it would eventually need to go back once we have an article at this title. I don't think either course of action is exactly wrong here. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't put it very clearly, BDD put it better. The four blue links at the DAB for Product classification are, for this entry (copy-pasted)
Now I disagree with BDD that to my eyes the target is is a DAB, and just because it is marked as a business stub instead of a DAB don't make it so. WP:DUCK, quack quack, it's a DAB; and I would WP:BOLDly reclassify it were it not under discussion here (I don't like to pull the rug from under others' feet). I agree about the not-quite-circular link and thank BDD for putting it better than I did.
So can we agree it is a DAB and mark it as such. Then the last entry, which is a WP:DABPIPE to Central Product Classification, can be unpiped to make it clearer. I don't see how anyone should know what CPC means unless they already have special knowledge, considering that both CPC and CPA are DABs.
I have probably confused things further but in summary, the target is a DAB, should be marked as such, then we can unravel the mess and we can probably keep this R as {{Redirect to disambiguation page}}. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it makes sense to tag it as a disambiguation page, because eventually, it should describe the idea of product classification, in addition to listing various schemes thereof. It's only functioning as a dab right now because it's incomplete, and deeming it a disambiguation page would cut off further expansion. Plus, none of those linked topics would really be referred to simply as "Product classification". --BDD (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BDD that the target is not a dab and should not be tagged as such. older ≠ wiser 15:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, sure, WP:NODEADLINE but also WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and the information we have at the moment makes it a DAB. @BDD:, are there stricter rules for overwriting a DAB with article content than there are for overwriting a redirect with article content? I am not aware why someone could not do that. However, for once the word "methodology" could be used correctly so that the art/science of product classification could happily sit at Product classification (methodology). That being said, I don't have particularly strong views on this: I agree it's rather incomplete even as a DAB. For example Universal Product Code would seem a resonable referent from the target. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew@, there is no way Product classification can be construed as a legitimate disambiguation page. It presents several systems of classification, none of which are actually ambiguous with the term "Product classification". older ≠ wiser 13:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any such rules. For the most part, replacing a disambiguation page with an article would be seen as an improvement. Of course, you'd want to either retain the dab's functionality or displace it to a (disambiguation) title, mindful of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'd expect a reader using this search term to know about the general idea of product classification, and being the only circular link on the target article definitely introduces the possibility of confusion. Delete per WP:REDLINK. This isn't outright harmful, but I think deletion will be good on balance. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete taking all of the above into consideration. Note to closer:. If deleted, we should adjust its entry at the DAB at CPA, perhaps referring to Product classification, i.e. it's current target, as the blue link. Or would that just shift the problem? Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would adjust CPA accordingly, yes, per WP:DABMENTION. --BDD (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 26 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_26&oldid=1146029568"