Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2016.

Thinkin Out Loud[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 article over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the title is ambiguous it should be redirected to Thinking Out Loud or Thinking Out Loud (disambiguation) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • move article over the redirect and add a hatnote to the disambiguation page. This is the only article with the title "Thinkin Out Loud" (no g, we don't have one with the g replaced by an apostrophe either) so it should go to the main title. There is an album track called "Thinkin Out Loud" and two called "Thinkin' Out Loud" on that page but none have their own article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this get a treatment like Dreaming Out Loud and Dreamin' Out Loud? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse redirect and add a hatnote per Thryduulf.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:58, 29 August 2016 (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.

Angus Independents Representatives[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 any specific retargetting suggestions for specific redirects, this is really the only logical way this can be closed since we've agreed that the current target isn't helpful for our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me here, because this is a mess. First off, none of these are mentioned at the target article. Because it's so broad, it may never be appropriate to mention most of these. Second, many of these are more minor parties than independents. Some were created to create links from election pages, but this is absurd; we wouldn't redirect the names of non-notable companies to Company, for example. Leaving these blue links to a page that doesn't discuss the party or alliance will only WP:ASTONISH.

Finally, in the spirit of WP:POLOUTCOMES, I was able to salvage some similar redirects by retargeting them to the party's only election, if there was one. Those remaining are either mentioned on multiple pages or none. It may be appropriate to retarget some to a "Politics of" the locality, if they're mentioned there. Otherwise, I'd like to see these deleted. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is a List of political parties in the United Kingdom article that would be appropriate to redirect some these if they are mentioned there (I haven't checked). Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: I note that you haven't tagged all the nominated redirects, you must do that (or get an AWB user to do it on your behalf if you wish) and you should inform those with a significant contribution to the any of the redirects (creation or retargetting in practice). Any not tagged will be procedurally kept regardless of the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I spent so much time putting this together, I forgot there was still more to do after pasting the huge block of other items. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Thryduulf: AFAIA, there is no guideline that redirects that aren't tagged will be procedurally kept, however, I do understand that they must be tagged. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's not written down, but I've never seen untagged redirects result in anything other than procedural keep or relisting after being tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen that with nominations that are just "anything like X", but not where specific ones are given and just not tagged. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the redirects are used to show the party name but get a link to the independent politician article and its sub-articles for getting the party colour in the various election generation templates e.g. {{Election Summary Party}}, {{Election box candidate with party link}} etc. Keith D (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would piped links (using {{!}} if needed) achieve the same result? Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are they truly independents if they're part of a party that's just not a major one? Please think carefully before doing anything like this. If a reader sees the name of a party linked, he or she will logically conclude that we have some coverage of said party, which can be found by following the link. Don't just do this for aesthetics. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate regional political group listings. Independent politician should be for the most notable examples, not a laundry list of political groups and people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK. Misleading readers over content is not preferable to figuring out some other technical solution for the templates per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:02, 28 August 2016 (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.

1 Liga (Slovakia)[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 defaulting to keep. As suggested below, I have added a hatnote to the target article (pointing to the new disambiguation page 1. Liga), which others are welcome to improve. WJBscribe (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because of typo (missing dot). Maiō T. (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a very likely typo, very likely search term (particularly for people who don't know how it is styled) and finally it's a standard {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Slovak Super Liga could be a compromise solution. Same style as I. liga → Slovak Super Liga. Maiō T. (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well a quick google suggests that "1. Liga" is very ambiguous with Polish, Austrian and Czech leagues (in that order) being most prominent. "1. Liga" Slovakia returns Slovak 1. Liga, an ice hockey league, as the primary topic. The Slovak Super Liga doesn't seem to be referred to prominently as "1. Liga". Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look the more messy it gets:

and none of them have hatnotes to the other. I've not even looked at 2 / II / ii / Liga / liga / etc. This all needs sorting out but it's going to take more thinking to work out what should go where. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Thryduulf: It seems the only way, how to solve this problem is renaming all 1-Liga articles with a country name and a type of sport
      for example: 1. Liga (Ice hockey, Slovakia) or 1. Liga (Latvia, Football) or 1. Liga (Basketball, Poland) ...
      and moving all those 1-Liga redirects to the Liga dab page. Maiō T. (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily. It depends on what primary topics exist, what disambiguation is necessary and what standard disambiguation formats exist - it needs actual thought not just a knee-jerk reaction. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few words about the I liga: This is the official title for both football and basketball leagues in Poland. So, disambiguation in this case is necessary. A good example is Swiss 1. Liga dab page. Maiō T. (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1 and 2 are not likely to be mixed-up. GiantSnowman 07:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GiantSnowman: Normally that is probably true, but in this case it is a plausible redirect as 1. Liga is a former name of the current 2. Liga. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it so simple, though? If I came across the page for 2. Liga, I might logically conclude that the next step up is 1. Liga. There's the hockey league to consider too. Perhaps we need to expand the dab Liga, where 1. Liga redirects, to include both Slovak leagues, of course with one designated as a previous name. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone notice the mess of X Liga thing. May I add Liga I and Liga II into the discussion. I generally prefer to add country and possibly Football in the article name (such as Czech First League which the football league had a long tradition of sponsorship name, but to confuse to just call Liga). 1.SNL (Slovenia) was unique (N for football L for Liga), but 1.Liga / Prva Liga is not, redirect the rest to Liga. Matthew_hk tc 16:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the discussion of Serie A and Serie A (basketball), 1 Liga (Slovakia) should or should not map to the football article depends on which one is more common and popular as a sports. Matthew_hk tc 16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just created this disambiguation page: 1. Liga. Maiō T. (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. So keep this redirect per my earliest comment but add a hatnote pointing to the dab page. Retarget 1 Liga and I Liga to the dab page. Everything else that is not an article already redirects there, and I'll create the redirects from the redlinks. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice work there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Slovak Super Liga, since it's currently the top league in Slovakia. I'm assuming the dab issue has been taken care of... -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the status quo to work, the target article should really explain that the league was formerly known as 1. Liga. Then we could just add a {{distinguish}} hatnote to Slovak Super Liga. Simply retargeting there seems to prioritize an incorrect name over a legitimate former one, which seems iffy to me. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 1. Liga (Slovakia) disambiguation, because on Slovak Wikipedia, there are plenty of 1.-Liga articles, e.g. 1. Liga curling, 1. Liga water polo, futsal, handball ... ... and maybe one day they will be on English Wikipedia, too. Maiō T. (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2016 (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.

Victorian children[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 were strong arguments that there should be an article on the subject, so hopefully this will encourage someone to create the article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question the value of this as a redirect. The target article has a section on child labo(u)r, but surely there's more to say about children in the Victorian era. There's actually a whole website on the topic, though at a glance, I'm not sure how credible it is. This redirect started as an article. Hard to say if any of it could be salvaged to start a new one. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the history of Victorian schooling is an equally big thing to child labour and that's just off the top of my head without even looking at the article or sources. I think there is very likely material on children's fashion and games as well. Not a formal recommendation yet, but my first instinct is that we should have an article about this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there some other children in (culture) articles that could be used as an example? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few: Childhood in Scotland in the Middle Ages, Childhood in early modern Scotland, History of childhood, Childhood in medieval England, and Islam and children. Most articles are much narrower, addressing a specific subgroup or aspect. — Gorthian (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2016 (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.

Act I: Eternal Sunshine (the pledge)[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 no one finds this redirect acceptable as is. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R from misspelling, technically, but the subject is an unreleased album, and this redir only links to user talk pages - AFAIK, this page was created because at some point, the correctly spelled title was deleted because the album was unreleased (as it has been for several years at this point). MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Act I: Eternal Sunshine (The Pledge). A redirect that's only half-capitalized is not going to help anyone. It should either be "Eternal sunshine (the pledge)" or "Eternal Sunshine (The Pledge)". He's got a whole section in his biography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 23 August 2016 (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.

한채영- Han Chae Yeong[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) 17:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
*한채영- Han Chae Yeong → Han Chae-young  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I previously nominated this. The rationale is the same, no one will search for a combination of a foreign term + English. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree that the search term is not plausible.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very few articles ever do this combo. Film titles, yes, but not people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 23 August 2016 (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.

User:YodaDing[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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make into a soft redirect - the user obviously wants their userpage to link to redirect to the Dog article, but a hard redirect from a main userpage is harmful (subpages are completely different) as it could lead people to leave messages for them at talk:Dog. The way to balance these is to make the page a soft redirect, which maintains the link the user wants but removes all the harm associated with a hard redirect. This is what has been done in several previous examples, and I have suggested adding it to WP:XNR (see WT:XNR#User: to article redirects and the subsequent section). Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf. It's unlikely that the user will be a productive future editor given their contribution history, but we should give them the benefit of the doubt and not just delete their user page. A soft redirect would be harmless and shouldn't be costly since the target article is unlikely to be moved. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:05, 28 August 2016 (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.

Goyang-i[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for romanized Korean. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Goyang-i as it's essentially unused and per WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Goyangi it it does get some uses (albeit not many) and there is a children's book Goyangi Means Cat which features very prominently in search results, I don't know if it's notable though. Not enough on it's own to make me want to keep at the moment, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the children's book is notable, an article can be created for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:33, 23 August 2016 (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.

Hardwired... to Self-Destruct[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 wrong forum see Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM) if a redirect is in the way of a desired page move. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove redirect so that the article proper can be moved to this name (was accidentally moved to a different title). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:01, 19 August 2016 (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/2016_August_19&oldid=1138580841"