Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 27, 2016.

Vĭénna[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) 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, implausible redirect. If anything, it would be expected to point to Vienna, not Vienne, but nobody is going to use the page with these diacritics. One of dozens of uselss redirects created by now indef-blocked User:Chickensire; this one could be worse than useless by actually misleading people. Huon (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect is literally the only hit for this sequence of characters Google can find. It looks like a dictionary pronunciation respelling, but if so it gives an incorrect pronunciation of both the current target and Vienna (at least in English and the native languages). Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very confusing and not used. — Gorthian (talk) 03:36, 1 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.

Collected Essays[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) 09:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not the only collection of essays in existence Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we have an article about the practice of collecting essays for publication in book form then this should be retargetted there, I can't find one but I'm not confident that I've not missed something. If there isn't such an article then a disambiguation page would be preferable as there are many examples of publications with this title. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a series that goes by the subtitle as the common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dab page wouldn't work; the target is the only title we have an article on that has this phrase in it. But "collected essays" is extremely vague and unhelpful; if there's to be an article written on the overall topic, this needs to be a red link. — Gorthian (talk) 03:41, 1 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.

Gizycka[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) 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was the woman's last name in 1939 when she entered the spy business, she was rarely known by this surname. There is a Polish town named Biała Giżycka and a Polish county named Giżycko County, and one of these might be a better target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a case for disambiguation. Biała Giżycka looks like a WP:PTM but could be included in a See also. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even with partial title matches, there aren't enough examples to make a dab. — Gorthian (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of the suggested targets are good for these redirects, and these particular forms of the name are not mentioned at the current target. I know nothing about Polish and whether or not "Gizycka" is a feminine version, but the name "Gizycki" is what's discussed in the article. There have been few hits over the last year, with no way of knowing if they found what they wanted. — Gorthian (talk) 19:09, 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.

Teacher learner[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) 15:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a legit term or complete nonsense. Neelix redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a made-up inaccurate redirect. "Teacher learner" in common parlance refers to the fact that teaching a subject is one of the best ways to learn it, and that teaching actually involves learning as much as it involves "teaching". Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Learning by teaching if this is a legitimate term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Softlavender. It doesn't appear that learning by teaching is relevant either. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 6 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.

Reagan assassination[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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1981 attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan failed and thus was not an assassination, contrary to what this redirect alludes to. --Neve–selbert 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. This is a very well used redirect, with an average of 1-2 hits every day (and up to 35 hits on the days around the anniversary). Redirects do not have to be strictly accurate - the target article makes the outcome immediately clear removing any misapprehensions the searcher may be under. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's not be pedantic. Herostratus (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it seems to fit in with WP:RFD#KEEP. I don't even remember making this 10 years ago (or what I was thinking), but it doesn't seem to be hurting anything, and per the above, it seems to help remind 1-2 people each day that Reagan was never actually assassinated. Seems a good price to pay for the 64 bytes of hard drive space the redirect takes up. :p --Aristeo (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Conspiracy theories aside, I doubt many readers believe Reagan was assassinated. Even if they do, this should quickly set them aright. It also seems plausible that readers using this term are in fact looking for the attempt, and are just using a shorthand. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep likely search query. "assassination" doesn't necessary have to mean that it wad successful.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:28, 31 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.

Dhammakaya ordination[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) 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete Dhammakaya ordination, since there is no such concept. Originally someone put a quote here from a book of Luang Por Dattajivo, a Buddhist monk, about ordaining. Since Luang Por Dattajivo is from a Buddhist temple called Wat Phra Dhammakaya, the user called the page "Dhammakaya ordination". However, Wat Phra Dhammakaya doesn't have its own type of ordination, but simply follows the ordination traditions of all Buddhist temples in Thailand. I propose to remove this page, since it is only confusing and there already is a page about Wat Phra Dhammakaya. We might move the quote to Wikiquote to preserve the original intention of the first user who made the page, though in the current version of the page, the quote has already been deleted. If for whatever reason the page is kept, it should not redirect to Upasampada, which is about ordination in general, but rather to the page of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If Wat Phra Dhammakaya doesn't have its own ordination method, it wouldn't make sense to redirect there. What little research I've managed to do backs up your statement that this doesn't exist. — Gorthian (talk) 05:11, 1 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.

Maltster[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 Malting process. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, a maltster is "the person who produces malt from barley which is used in the production of beer". Is there currently a good section target? I didn't see one offhand at malt or malting process; malting process#kilning uses the term but doesn't define it. If not: The term is used in quite a lot of sources, but is there a good one that defines it (I found this source interesting)? Secondly, where is the best place for said information to be inserted? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about defining words, that's Witkionary's job (cf wikt:maltster). The term should be and is used at Malting process, so I think retargetting there is best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brewer redirects to brewing, so that seems reasonable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:32, 27 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.

Matt O'Ree[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 Bon Jovi#Band members. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A round-robin redirect. 333-blue 05:52, 27 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.

Fake You Out (song)[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. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by an editor who did not know that Fake You Out already existed, and was already a redirect because the song is not notable. The page should never have been created. The search term is not likely because the correct title exists. If it were a likely term, one would have been created a year ago when the song was released. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, feel free to use G7 if you desire, as I was the creator of the redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly normal and perfectly harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. If someone thinks there is another use of "Fake You Out" that might have an entry on Wikipedia then this is exactly the sort of title they would search for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Even if erroneously created, it's in line with thousands of other redirects; there's no reason to delete it. — Gorthian (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:52, 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.

Fake You Out (Twenty One Pilots song)[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. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by an editor who did not know that Fake You Out already existed, and was already a redirect because the song is not notable. The page should never have been created. The search term is not likely because the correct title exists. If it were a likely term, one would have been created a year ago when the song was released. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. There is also a song (possibly a cover) of this name by a band called LPS, so it is not an implausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an unlikely, but still plausible, search term. — Gorthian (talk) 18:46, 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.

Wikipedia:IAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Wikipedia:IAP

Draft:William Ransom (Bill) Campbell[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 per WP:CSD#G7. The nominator is the person who both wrote the draft and moved it to the correct title. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion because Draft:William Ransom (Bill) Campbell redirects to Draft:Dallas Carroll Abee Sr. and they are not the same article. George M Smart (talk) 14:04, 27 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_27&oldid=1143743048"