Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2016.

Aaron Arnett[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) 21:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:HOCKEY has come to a consensus that redirects of this type are not helpful. There have been several discussions on these in the past, the biggest of which are at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#NHL team draft pick redirects and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 3#More NHL draft picks. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 3 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.

Women in Serbia[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 to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 14:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What would such a disambiguation page look like? Which of those topics would be referred to as "Women in Serbia"? --BDD (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. We have some wonderfully developed articles on other "Women in <country>" and there's no reason women in Serbia are any different. See Category:Women by country for some examples. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Women in Romania, Women in the United Kingdom, Women in Burkina Faso, Women in Cameroon, Women in Guinea, Women in Malawi, Women in Mozambique, Women in Rwanda, Women in Zambia, Women in Zimbabwe also redirect to a category. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unhelpful XNR to a category. Pppery (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is wp:XNR? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[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.

School bombing[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. "School Bombings" sounds like something there should be a list of. "School Bombing" sounds more like an act or a verb. Morfusmax (talk) 19:08, 3 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.

Pictophilia[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 List of paraphilias. Deryck C. 23:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. The concepts associated with the redirect and target article page names are entirely distinct. The former involves sexual arousal from pictures/images while the latter refers to a form of addiction that involves pornographic images and videos. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: pictophilia was an unsourced article immediately prior to being made a redirect (special:permalink/51156286), however the article text was composed of a single sentence which appears to inaccurately define this form of paraphilia, based upon the term "pictophilia". A pubmed search for "Pictophilia" produces 0 results, so the content in the permalinked revision appears to be an invented concept (i.e., it's WP:OR). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of paraphilias - Porn addiction is alot more than just images so redirecting to that is rather bizzare, Seems better to retarget it to List of paraphilias. –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Davey2010. If this is done its entry in the list should be unlinked as it will become an unhelpful circular redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of paraphilias - this concept appears to be sourced in that article, although I haven't actually read through the references to WP:V-check this. I'll do this sometime later this week; if the entry fails WP:V, I'll renominate the redirect for deletion, but for now it seems reasonable to retarget the redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 10 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.

Hooking Up (2013 film)[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) 20:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there isn't a 2013 film of this name. The only entry I can find at IMDb is a 2009 film. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is another one in development; the screenplay won an award in 2013, so it may actually end up getting made. It's gotten a steady volley of hits: an average of 1/day over the last year, until suddenly last month it went up to more than 30/day. The current target isn't right, though; I can find nothing about Liotta connected to this project, or any cast. And I can't find any reference to it at all on Wikipedia. There may be a lot of searchers, but I don't think there are any finders. — Gorthian (talk) 20:47, 5 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.

Atlantis 7 (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10#Atlantis 7 (film)

Cardboard children scam[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) 20:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any information about a "cardboard children scam" at the target, and I'm not seeing a good location where information can be added. There used to be an article at this title until it was redirected in 2008. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the old content I can say that the scam (involving children holding cardboard signs) was rather different than I first imagined (cardboard cut-outs of children)... Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree! I was thinking the same thing... -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is only one of hundreds of ways to enable pickpocketing, so doesn't merit an article of its own (though there is at least one source). I was going to suggest retargeting to Pickpocketing, but that article doesn't address anything later than the 18th century(!). There's an excellent article at Wikivoyage, but the cardboard thing isn't mentioned specifically, just that a street child flashing something in your face could be a deliberate distraction. It's gotten a smattering of hits, especially about a year ago, but I don't think this redirect serves its purpose. (And "cardboard children"? They totally exist.) — Gorthian (talk) 00:26, 6 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.

Russian Ocean[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) 20:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing "Russian Ocean" as a valid alternative name, and it's not mentioned at the target article. My search is dominated by a 2012 story about a Russian think tank that wants to rename the ocean the 'Russian Ocean' source. I'm hesitant on whether that's enough to justify the redirect. I'm afraid it could be seen as confusing, Russia also has access to the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. JerrySa1 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like it was a short-lived thing. There's nothing about the rename effort after 2012. The redirect has had a smattering of hits, but with no mention of the phrase at the target, it's not much use and, as you say, it's confusing. — Gorthian (talk) 21:36, 5 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.

Suman Shetty[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is quite confusing between Shetty (Bunts) and Setty; they are different in usage. The redirect makes no sense and meets the WP:RFD#DELETE criteria for deletion. PageImp (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep looking at google hits there is quite a lot of hits for the same person under both names - indeed Google translate gives "Suman Shetty" as the English translation/transcription when given Telugu: సుమన్ శెట్టి making it a very likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PageImp: I see that you've reverted my addition of a link from Shetty to Setty. I don't feel strongly either way about this redirect, but Thryduulf's finding would suggest that Shetty is an acceptable alternative transcription of the name Setty, so it'd be useful to help the reader find such information. As for this redirect, since I'm commented already I may as well pick a side. Weak keep. Deryck C. 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have re-added the see also link as it provides a clear benefit to readers per my above comment and the reasons given by Deryck. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 5 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.

Persian Quran[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 List of translations of the Quran#Persian. -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have this redirect deleted as it is confusing and incorrect. The Islamic Quran is not a substituted term for the Shahnameh since the texts present a different traditions and belief systems (Islam and Zoroastrianism). To redirect from "Persian Quran" to the Persian Shahnameh would only cause significant confusion. This might be a more appropriate page to link, as Abu Hafs Umar an-Nasafi translated the Islamic Quran into the Persian language in the 12th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarrenBaron (talk • contribs) 14:08, 27 July 2016

comment If retargetted then I think List of translations of the Quran#Persian is probably the best target, but I'm uncertain at the moment if retargetting is best. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment List of translation is the most acceptable to me. I wasn't using my brain when I requested that delete. --BarrenBaron (talk) 14:01, 3 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.

Pedanticalness[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 deleted by JohnCD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obscure word form. This form is so rare that not even Wiktionary has an entry for it (wikt:pedanticalness). -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 3 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_3&oldid=1138580853"