Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 30, 2015.

Jones v. Bush[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a month. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first version of this page indicates this is a court case challenging "Cheney's state of residency" [sic]. These sorts of silly lawsuits are not uncommon in American politics, and there's no such lawsuit discussed at the target article (or elsewhere on Wikipedia). I found this one especially confusing since election articles typically have redirects like Obama vs. Romney, with the names of the candidates. BDD (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it Jones who had the Bush? She was a sucker for punishment. Shall I stop with the puns now? Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (in answer to the second question).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was prematurely redirected; it's a notable court case for the reason that it's essentially the only litigation on the Twelfth Amendment requirement for electors to vote on at least one candidate not a resident of the same state as themselves. As the single article revision is of too low quality to stand on its own, it's better to have a redlink in order to encourage creation. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Residency is perfectly proper US English whereas I would say Residence. It hurts my ears, but then take His Excellency not His Excellence. (Perhaps Bill Gates should be called His Microsoft Excelency). That's just one of those things. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there isn't any opposition to deletion nor alternative action suggested here, I'm not sure why it was relisted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:37, 11 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.

Jumbo jet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Jumbo jet

Wikipedia:WPC[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. Though many WikiProjects could use the acronym "WPC", the target of this redirect is longstanding; consensus is to retain the current target without disambiguating (at the minimum: no consensus to disambiguate). (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it make the most sense for this to be a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council? The Council page is viewed more than the Countries' page, and the Council is the go to for information about all WikiProjects. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a shortcut from the "Wikipedia:" namespace that has several incoming links and has existed for almost a decade. The hatnote at the top of the target will have to suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternately, very weak disambiguate. This shortcut was a redirect towards Wikipedia:WikiProject California when it was first created, but then about a week later was changed to target its current target. Then, three years later, for about a month and a half, it was a redirect towards Wikipedia:WikiProject Council (the nominator's proposed retargetting option.) I say "very weak" though since for only about two months of the nominated redirect's 10 year, 2 month existence did it target anything other than its current target, so the likelihood of bad incoming links is low and the hatnote really should suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate It's a shortcut, but if there are other high profile contenders for it, disambiguation would also work. (same for the others of the same format, being single letters attached to WP or single letters on their own) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate due to there being several plausible options. Rubbish computer 08:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides California and Countries, it could also refer to the WikiProjects for C/C++, Calendars, Calvinism, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Canberra, Cannabis... this list is going to take me way too long to get through. We'd be looking at a rather large dab here. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, shortcuts to Wikipedia space can be and is usually ambiguous. That's why we have so few Wikipedia space disambiguations. If there's other meanings for a shortcut, it should be included in the hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per the precedent set virtually since its inception in 2005. Also weak disambiguate, as I do think a DAB page would really be the best option here, but I know it'd be a bit of a long list (although using sections in the DAB page, like we would any other large DAB page, would make it easiest to navigate). However, the fact that this redirect has stood this way for so long has swayed me to stick with the 'keep' decision first. Might be an interesting side project to take up this winter though, to make such a DAB page. JaykeBird (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nominator's comment) After reading the above reasoning I think disambiguation might be the best way to go... Kharkiv07 (T) 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify since there are at least three identified potential targets --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote to the other plausible search terms, as this is useful as a shortcut. --Rubbish computer 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguation per Tavix. There are simply too many WikiProjects that could plausibly be referred to as "WPC"; a disambiguation page would be wildly unwieldy. I see the upside to keeping as well as deleting, so I won't take a position on that question thus far, but disambiguating here seems like bureaucratic nonsense. In addition to the eight WikiProjects I named above, there's also Capitalism, Cardiff, Caribbean, Catalonia, Categories, Catholicism, Cats, Caucasia, Caves. That gets us through Ca... --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not disambiguate, has been like this for years, no need to interfere with this shortcut. A disambiguation is likely going to be annoying and not very useful. —Kusma (t·c) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the horse isn't dead yet, I'll continue to flog it. This redirect could also refer to the WikiProjects for Celts, Cephalopods, Ceramics, Cetaceans, Chad, Chakwal, Chandigarh, Charlotte, Chemicals, Chemistry, Chennai, Cheshire, Chess, Chhattisgarh, Chicago, Chile, China, Chitral, Christianity, Chronology, Cincinnati, Circus, Cities, Cleveland, Climate, Climbing... --BDD (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - WP:RFD#K5, WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hatnote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council will solve the possible ambiguity without any of the possibly serious problems of abruptly changing a decade-old shortcut. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nothing wrong with the status quo, WP:COUNCIL already has shortcuts, and DAB hatnote is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:26, 6 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.

Fifth Avenue (LIRR station)[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) 15:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should be deleted because they are misleading. This particular station was never called Fifth Avenue. It was always called Fifth Street. "Street" and "Avenue" are two very different terms. We don't have a Nostrand Street redirecting to Nostrand Avenue (LIRR station) or Merillon Street redirecting to Merillon Avenue (LIRR station) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.246 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 September 2015

  • Delete per nom [I don't know who nominated this, but it wasn't me.] --Rubbish computer 00:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag as {{R from incorrect name}} because avenue and street can be confused, particularly for those who don't live in the Big Apple -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:35, 30 September 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.

Dagnabbit[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. Rough consensus below is that this word isn't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, so it would be difficult to find an appropriate target for the redirect. Deryck C. 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Regardless of the result of this discussion, the edit history of Dagnabbit shows that this page was previously some sort of article for a character in the Forgotten Realms series. I think the edit history of that may be able to be safely deleted since I was unable to find material on Wikipedia regarding this subject besides the content of the edit history, so it may not be necessary to keep considering that doing so may be a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of him at List of Forgotten Realms characters, which seems the most likely place. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 70.51.202.113. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No trace of this variant at Damnation, and the two-word versions seem especially unlikely search terms. --BDD (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of any content about this minced oath, soft redirect to wikt:dagnabbit. —Kusma (t·c) 20:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' it, with respect to User:Kusma we are WP:NOTDIC. We haven't doggonit for example. Wasn't it just one of those invented words by Mel Blanc for Yosemite Sam, there is no proper etymology for this. I'm not in favour of a soft R to wiktionary cos the entry there does not explain the word or etymology at all, so that is just running around the houses. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only is hashing out a proper targeting difficult, but, as mentioned above, what's the likelihood of this being searched anyways in the first place? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would depend on if you're a religious Christian or not, if you are, you may quite rightly use at least the first formation, to find the topic you wish to explore without going to hell first. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT; we do not need redirs from every known minced oath – not to Minced oath and not to what they're mincing. If someone wants to make a List of minced oaths with reliable sources (e.g. slang dictionaries), and if even that doesn't seem too WP:DICDEF, then make/keep redirs to entries appearing in that list. Sounds like Wiktionary material to me, regardless. It's hard to see how something truly encyclopedic could be made of such a list. Even etymological, historical, and usage information fleshing out each mincing in detail would basically be dictionarian, not encyclopedic, work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POFRED We have redirects from alternate names and alternate spellings to the spelling used on Wikipedia, why would this be different? This is an alternate form of "goddamn" and thus why wouldn't it redirect like other variants? What purpose is there to discriminating against these variant forms, instead of treating them like all other variant forms, and redirecting to the spelling used on Wikipedia? (they should not redirect to "minced oath" since that would be WP:NOTDIC) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:09, 7 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.

To anarchize[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. There is clear consensus not to keep the redirect as is, but a 3-way split of opinions between anarchy, anarchism, and deletion. Closing as no consensus, default to delete. Deryck C. 21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this is supposed to be referring to. BDD (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Anarchy. This seems to be its infinitive verb form --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anarchy since we've had people advocating to anarchize things for over a century before the concept of internet trolling was even invented. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anarchism. I'm alright with anarchy as well, but the former is seems to describe actually "Anarchizing", as opposed the latter which seems to describe more the word itself.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOUN. I did some checking on common verbs:
to be → Copula (linguistics)
to do → Time management (I have an opinion about that.)
To play red.
to live a Chinese book.
to die red.
To join red.
To leave red.
To say red.
To really, really, say very hard otherwise I will start crying red.
To hear red.
To see red.
To smell red.
To touch red.
WP:NOUN , WP:NOTDIC and "to" as the infinitive in English is just one of those things. Most foreign language dictionaries if you have concordances use the infinitive form, but no English dictionary lists the whole lot under "T" for "To" (nor Tea for Two for that matter.) Copula (linguistics) makes a fist of it, but To do is ridiculous. It was Descartes, wasn't it, who said to do is to be. And Rosseau said to be is to do. Frank Sinatra said do be do be do...

Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Si Trew. Also, users do not need to be spoon fed, if you can look for "To anarchize" you can also look for the simpler and more common anarchy/anarchism (if the search page haven't already anyway). Not that redirecting is all that bad, but why have this...? - Nabla (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Presactly, @Nabla:, in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed, and we'll end up with a state of Anarchy, er apparently we already have. Our job is to kinda index and organize things so that people can find what they probably want to find, and this hinders. My only worry would be with archaeism but we can sort that out with a hatnote if it is not already. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was used and semi-explained here, in an article that was subsequently turned into a redirect. If we keep the redirect, it is easier to find this history than if we delete it, but I am not sure that is worth it. —Kusma (t·c) 13:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to anarchy, to preserve the edit history in case it's needed in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 8 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.

Résistance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7#Résistance

Counter strike negev[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) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the Negev did indeed appear in the video game Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, the redirect itself is very much useless as the Wikipedia page about Negev had exactly zero coverage about Counter-Strike information, and most likely wouldn't have any in the foreseeable future. Wuzh (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance and I don't think so but just in case, that we should take it via Counter? Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we should surely list ricochet at the DAB for Counterstrike? Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit weird cos all the entries at the DAB are for Counter-strike with the hyphen. I don't know how to clean this up properly. (I was alwasys taught, I before E except in weird). Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 1 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_September_30&oldid=1037881119"