Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 5, 2016.

Aeropuerto Kennedy[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) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly related to Spanish. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks for the notification. I'm switching to neutral on both, per CoffeeWithMarkets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While many Spanish-speaking individuals do live in the greater New York area, scores of them are still going to go ahead and search using the common name of the airport. Maybe these aren't particularly harmful, as such, but I don't see them as truly helpful either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Agia Filothei, Amarousi[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) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Agia Filothei" is in a picture caption in the gallery section at the foot of the article, but otherwise none of these is at the target, hence Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Created by indefinitely blocked User:Pumpie. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Marousi[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) 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (I don't mean just exactly these terms but the subject of them). There are 87 redirects to this target. These were all created by indefinitely blocked User:Pumpie, a confirmed sockpuppet. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting, the very first SPI (by User:Cplakidas, "Constantine") at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pumpie/Archive#25 February 2011 says among other things "same fixation (highly unusual and IMO a dead giveaway) on creating redirects for every conceivable transliteration of a Greek name". Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. More than half of them are not even valid redirects, as these forms of the names (e.g. "Marousio") don't actually exist in Greek. Pumpie was a very problematic user with zero grasp of Greek. Constantine ✍ 22:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Str wrs[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple typos, not a plausible redirect, unless of course, you hve broken keybord nd need to repir it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Science of Star Wars[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 restore and retarget, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore this revision of Science of Star Wars (a disambiguation page) and retarget The Science of Star Wars there. As seen by the history of edits at this redirect, the usage of the word "The" may not be enough to distinguish the titles of the two subjects listed on the old revision of the disambiguation page. Also, when I look up these terms through third-party search engines, I seem to get mixed results for both subjects The Science of Star Wars (book) and Science of Star Wars (miniseries). If confusion of the usage of the word "The" as a distinguisher seems to be vague, having them redirect to specific title matches per WP:NATURALDIS may actually, in fact, cause more confusion as shown here in my nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC

That's why I put the confusion template. They are not only two distinct topics, but also different titles. Whenever the title of the book is linked it takes them to the distinguisher page, even though the pages linking them mentions that it's a book. This only adds to confusion. As I previously mentioned, it would have been different if they went by the same title, but they don't and the pages linking them mention this. Not only that, but we got brackets added to the titles for clarification, so let's leave it at that.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore dab page -- The is an insufficient distinguisher. A dab page might plausible even point toward Physics and Star Wars, since that's a plausible destination for a "science of Star Wars" search. --EEMIV (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal is exactly the opposite of the best practices identified in the WP:SMALLDETAILS section of our article titles policy. The two articles should be moved back to their base titles (Science of Star Wars and The Science of Star Wars) with clarified mutual hatnotes to guide visitors. - Eureka Lott 00:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That policy was "downgraded" about a year or so ago from a "policy" to a "suggestion". In this case, with my finds listed above, I don't see how the use of "The" is enough to disambiguate the two from each other. Steel1943 (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think of it from a user's perspective. Let's say they enter "Science of Star Wars" into the search box. If the pages are moved back, they land on the miniseries page with a hatnote that reads something like, This page is about the miniseries. For the book, see The Science of Star Wars. This may or may not be the article they were looking for—but it's at least a 50-50 chance—and if it's not, the link is very clear. On the other hand, if the "Science of Star Wars" is a disambiguation page, we're guaranteeing that every user will have to make that extra click. We should be making things easier for visitors, not more difficult. - Eureka Lott 02:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, considering that there are several cases where I have either debated or supported that very perspective in the past. I think two examples that cross my mind regarding examples I have noticed in the past are The Wall vs. Wall and The Guardian vs. Guardian. The reason I don't see the same easily-recognizable clarity with the example I nominated here is from what I see, I'm not convinced that readers themselves know what subject they are looking for if they include "The" in their search of not. That, and in the examples I provided above, the subject of the "with The" article vs. the subject of the "without The" article are not remotely related to each other. This nomination here is different since both subjects are strongly related to one of the root words/phrases of their titles: Star Wars. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, if consensus doesn't support my proposal, I do agree that the disambiguators should be removed from the article titles per WP:PRECISE. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore dab page. Per nom. As noted, the definitive article is not sufficient to distinguish the potential subjects (just because a user/reader adds "the" to the start, it doesn't mean we can assume he/she is looking for the book over any other use). Guliolopez (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barbara and Jenna Bush[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 17#Barbara and Jenna Bush

Airstrip[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 Aerodrome#Airstrip. -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(will combine) I imagine these should all go to the same target, but which? (They were each created by a different editor.) I'd actually favour Aerodrome#Airstrip as it has more info, and is linked from Airport#Terminology, so that's a circular link for the three that link there. Si Trew (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (The first R's section link is ill-formed and doesn't currently work, but Aerodrome#Airstrip does exist under Aerodrome#Types of aerodromes.) Si Trew (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, I fixed that. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I could have done that, but I thought it might be relevant to the discussion that it was not working as intended, so I left it. I suppose I should have changed it after mentioning it. For the record: it did point to Aerodrome#Types of aerodromes#Airstrip (in any case, the section should be "Types of aerodrome" or simply "Types", not "Types of aerodromes"). Thanks for doing it. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aerfort[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) 20:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#D8 per WP:RFOREIGN, no particular affinity to Irish. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

George M. Buck[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) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
corrected target page and notified creator — Gorthian (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with two incoming links, to a DAB page with no useful information Propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the target is not a DAB page
  • Delete no information at the target, misleading at worst, and unhelpful at best. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The target is a DAB page. There are clues in the disambiguator, and in the {{hndis}} on the page itself. Narky Blert (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

People of the Year Awards[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) 20:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several "easteregg" redirects created (inappropriately IMO under WP:R3 and/or WP:R#DELETE) which direct readers to pages only very loosely related to the subjects. Only one of the target articles make mention of the people/subjects that are redirected. And in that single case (as seemingly with the others), we see that it is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. In short, none of these subjects were or are notable for an article, and yet we seem to have created (inappropriate) redirects anyway. Bluntly, just because someone is listed in List of People of the Year Award winners, it doesn't mean that they need an article (or one of these awkward redirects). Guliolopez (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Department of Education and Science under Margaret Thatcher[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. This is without prejudice to recreation should anyone feel it does have value. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G7. I created this redirect months ago, but its an unlikely search term and has no incoming links. --Nevé–selbert 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jon Adams[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 John Adams (disambiguation) (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Tom Adams (politician) was known formally as Jon Adams, a primary topic here is dubious. --Nevé–selbert 10:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to John Adams (disambiguation) per the nomination, which lists both men. We do have Jonathan Adams (disambiguation) but none of the articles listed on that page indicate that their subjects are/were known as "Jon". Google results for "Jon Adams" suggest the primary topic is a Southampton-based artist that we do not have an article about (I haven't looked to see if we should). Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Thryduulf. Makes more sense with the different target. I can understand someone mistakenly typing in Jon rather than John. Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to Retarget to Jonathan Adams (disambiguation) as Jon "is a shortened form of the common given name of Jonathan", and I would think slightly less likely as a misspelling or alternative spelling of John (although no doubt that's common enough). I wonder if we should promote the two disambiguation pages from the respective "See also" sections to hatnotes? Si Trew (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that does make etymological sense it is less helpful to readers on this occasion as none of the people listed at the Jonathan dab page are/were known as "Jon" but at least two listed at the John dab do/did go by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 'John Adams (disambiguation)' as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

United States Presidential trivia[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) 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTRIVIA. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain This redirect is the result of a merge. The former article's contents were merged into the main presidential article. The redirect must be retained for attribution history for copyright purposes. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but move edit history elsewhere per ONUnicorn's comment that the edit history needs to be retained. Yes, the edit history needs to be retained per WP:CWW, but that doesn't mean it had to be hosted at a title that is unhelpful as a redirect search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the 2007 comment at Talk:United States Presidential trivia#Untitled by User:Jerry lavoie saying "Do not recreate the article or change the redirect" (things change in nine years, I don't think we should feel bound by it). Add the history in a new section at Talk:President of the United States, which is surprisingly short (i.e. it won't be particularly obscure to put it there). Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, I know that there's history here. I still support deletion. We can sort things out with the edit history as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Donal Wales[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) Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Implausible search term from partial title match. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this went through RFD last year. At that time Carrite made the following comment (I didn't "ping" him, since I don't want the appearance of canvassing): "Jimmy Wales indicates on his talk page that he has published a paper as J. Donal Wales, making this a plausible redirect. See LINK." I quote, since I could not say it better myself. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per onel5969 and the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussion. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tiranё[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) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "ё" is U+0451 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER IO, not U+00EB : LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH DIAERESIS, so we have an odd mix of alphabets. Albanian alphabet starts "The modern Albanian alphabet is a Latin alphabet". See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_4#Tiranio, where Eubot has then made a {{R from title without diacritics}} from it. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This particular one is not bot-created. The "flattening" to Tiranio was, from this. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See also Ë#Albanian. Quite clearly the Albanian alphabet uses the Latin letter, not the similar-looking Cyrillic letter, to which Ë has a {{confused}} hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's hard to believe that it was not created by a bot, you know, I just automatically assumed that. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mixed script redirects are rarely useful and I can see no indication that this is an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mini-mouse[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, noting that Mini mouse was deleted at AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(not sure), we have Mini mouse but I don't see that dab conforming to our standards and also there is no mention of the term at the target, but I don't see the dab as helpful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ukelele (software)[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) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if I understand User:Champion's argument. I take it that Ukelele is not a synonym for anything; it's the name of a piece of software for customizing keyboards. At one time there was a short article on the software. After various merges and moves, that content became a single sentence at Computer keyboard#Layout changing software, plus a reference to the support page for the software. It seems marginally notable, but unlikely to support an entire article. I guess I would recommend keeping the redirect iff that bit remains in the article. Cnilep (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:REDLINK per Cnilep's identification of the subject of the redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, since the Ukelele software subject is not the same subject as a computer keyboard (the former is software and the latter is hardware), the connection could be seen as misleading, regardless if the subject is mentioned in the target article or not. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Top Gear Prime[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) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. I know The Grand Tour is presented and produced by the same team that did Top Gear, and it is on Amazon Prime, but I had never heard anyone refer to the show as Top Gear Prime. –Grondemar 04:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before the name was announced this moniker was indeed being used in a number of circles as a stand-in and it worked better than the then current name of the article. Sturmovik (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best this is confusing. One would assume that the name refers to a version of the Top Gear programme, not The Grand Tour. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Walter Elias "Walt" Disney[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 keep per WP:BANREVERT. Seems this is going nowhere anyway. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. I don't think anyone would type the full name, with the short name in the middle, and the quotes as well. NaturalAbundance (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_December_5&oldid=1088109771"