Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2016.

Uncovering[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) 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. An uncovering isn't necessarily an "apocalypse", making these redirects confusing. We have dabs at Uncover and Uncovered, but every Wikipedia entry in both dabs are proper nouns and not verbs, so none of these entries would make sense as "uncovering." I believe the same to be true of "uncovers" so I've added that as well. -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "Uncovers" to Uncover as plural. (ie. How many Uncovers did you sell this week? ) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the others, as I can't think of a use for them. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. WTF? Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Also, there are currently no subjects listed on Uncover, a disambiguation page, that could be referred to as "uncovers": All subjects on the page are titles of media. Steel1943 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. A Neelix hallmark is making implausible formations out of quite distantly related concepts, such as this. The "uncovers" as plural of the song/EP example is quite obscure to the point that I don't think it's plausible; WP:RFD#K5 doesn't apply since Neelix clearly didn't have any sense of what "useful" means. Since in this context "uncovering" and "uncovers" are both apparently intended to be modifications of the verb "uncover", and nothing on the dab can be used in such a context, I say delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as vague. Apocalypse means "to unveil" not "to uncover". Very weak Retarget as antonym for covering and cover dabs --Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 15 January 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.

Stereotypes of West and Central Asians[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 redirects and encourage article creation. Deryck C. 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new essay, Wikipedia:In the United States, to address this sort of perennial problem. Either these redirects should be deleted, an article should be written on the subject, or the target article should be moved to a broader title (probably one of these titles). --BDD (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For these, I Oppose moving the US articles. We should stubbify a worldwide article at each location instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those redirect titles do not describe a discrete topic. The target is incoherent enough as it is, even when you limit it just to American stereotypes. No content could be written about supranational or worldwide stereotypes of these two extremely broad geographic groups without falling afoul of Wp:SYNTHESIS, whether you write that content as its own stub under one of these titles or as a subsection of another article. Russian stereotypes of Armenians & Georgians and South Korean stereotypes of Mongolians & Kazakhs have not the slightest thing to do with each other and no reliable source tries to claim that they do. Stuffing them onto the same Wikipedia page would be a mistake, but conversely if you put them on separate Wikipedia pages then we have an Wp:XY problem as a single redirect can't send the reader to two places. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We also have Stereotypes of East Asians → Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States.
There is a DAB at Stereotypes of Asians but most of the other permutations (e.g. Stereotypes of Central Asians, Stereotypes of West Asians, Stereotypes of Western Asians, Stereotypes of North Asians and so on) are red. Si Trew (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, East Asians and White Americans are on my to-do list, but there are many redirects to both of them. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 January 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.

David Mountjoy[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) 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this when someone made this into an advert. I reverted it, then realized that the target doesn't contain the title, nor an obvious connection to it. I say we delete it. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there doesn't seem to be any connection between this person and the Soviet weapon, nor any other notable persons by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 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.

Nuffield Professor of Economics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 20#Nuffield Professor of Economics

Clothing drive[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) 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE! While a clothing drive can be considered an example of a charity, it's not something that's discussed, much less mentioned at that article. There's Drive (charity), but we'd have a similar problem there (you'd learn about a drive, but not specifically about a clothing drive.) We could restore the former article, but it's basically a WP:DICDEF... And, of course, there's always deletion, perhaps per WP:REDLINK. What should we do with this? -- Tavix (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as incorrect, misleading. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The best page in the realm of charity (besides drive (charity)) would seem to be donation (i.e. because this description is present there "a donation may take various forms, including cash offering, services, new or used goods including clothing, toys, food, and vehicles"), but this specific term isn't mentioned, nor is the concept of a charitable drive.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:40, 17 January 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.

Agressive leaders in Germany and japan[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) 22:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless an appropriate target can be found. Gorobay (talk) 03:33, 13 January 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.

Fingers[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 Finger. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this instead redirect to Finger? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd expect it to go there, so retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: per WP:DPAGE, When a combined disambiguation page is used, redirects to it... should be set up from all the terms involved. Finger (disambiguation) is a combined disambiguation page since it lists corresponding singular and plural forms of the word "finger", including "fingers". On that basis, should Fingers stay as a redirect to Finger (disambiguation)? /wiae ★ /tlk 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, per User:Wiae, especially since the dab page has numerous instances (10 so far) of the plural. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to finger per Tavix. Wins both by long-term significance/educational value (anatomy of 7 billion people and assorted other primates vs. some pop culture & sports topics and a candy bar) and page views (finger got 9,000 views last month, Rollie Fingers got 2,400, and none of the other Fingers on the dab page broke a thousand). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 20:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix --Lenticel (talk) 05:03, 15 January 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_January_13&oldid=1037883217"