Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2016.

Bomb Trains[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) 20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm failing to see a neutral connection between the redirect and the target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the connection is Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, and it's an incredibly POV one. This should be speediable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Leaning on Delete My search says that it is a pejorative for trains that transport oil. However, I can only see a few articles that call said trains as such. Even those who do call them as such has weasel worded statements like "Some call them bomb trains". --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm surprised train bombing is red, seeing that we have articles on several such incidents. The closest I could find is List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems. -- Tavix (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not about munitions trains, which are bomb trains, and used for military logistics to move weaponry to the front; nor is this about the military practice of attacking trains. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice would be to delete per nom. My second choice would be to redirect to armoured train because a reader may be looking for an article about the Soviet trains that transported ICBMs. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary NPOV violation. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly as vandalism. The creator's contribution history does not inspire confidence. Rossami (talk) 04:39, 25 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.

Mysterious monument under Sea of Galilee[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 procedural close. Both the redirect and target article have been speedy deleted under WP:G5. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silly name, and that it's a monument is hardly an established fact. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - one source did call it a monument (not "monumental" but actually a monument) but "mysterious" is WP:PEACOCKy and not a very likely search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the closing administrator-- I did not make up this redirect. There were sources which used this line:
  • Delete way too promotional and tabloid-like. Also as vague synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marvel Hero's sources. Plausible enough if it's being called this by reliable sources. It's not old enough for stats. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since it doesn't have a formal name, we should be more lenient with the redirects. Since this is a sourced name for it (albeit, slighly clickbait-ish), the redirect(s) should be kept. Procedural note, there are a few similar redirects that were created at the same time. If closed as delete, someone should take a look at the others. -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the other redirects, for interest. Not adding them to this discussion at this time, but someone else can if they want. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be cautious about using such a term. It makes sense that various sources would call it a "mysterious monument" in headlines, since that appears to be an accurate descriptive phrase for it. Does that necessarily mean people would search for it that way? I'm skeptical. Often, newspaper articles are just as good as scholarly sources for Wikipedia's purposes, but in this case, I'd feel more comfortable with some sources of the latter type to demonstrate that these are plausible search terms even if you're not a headline writer. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically for similar reasons as this discussion: between the concerns about whether it's a plausible search term due to the sensationalism (here caused by the adjective "mysterious") and the grammatical error "under Sea" rather than "under the Sea", I'd say this falls under Wp:R#D8. OTOH I'm open to having my mind changed & would be curious to hear more reasoning from those who !voted "delete" there and "keep" here. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I wouldn't have any objection to Monument under the Sea of Galilee, since the target actually mentions "monument". POV redirects are fine if they refer to a sourced POV which is actually discussed in an article; WP:R#D3 only covers abusive redirects like BLP violations. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination starts with Silly name. I have sources for the Silly name and the same sources referring the structure as monument. It's a simple redirect, still coming under so much scrutiny. Marvel Hero (talk) 05:37, 21 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.

Happy Birthday (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 retarget to Happy Birthday to You. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Happy Birthday to You, "the most recognized song in the English language", which is commonly referred to simply as "Happy Birthday". (And happy birthday to you, Dr. King.) BDD (talk) 18:11, 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.

Military History Journal[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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a misleading redirect. The Military History Journal has ISSN 0026-4016, and is not The Journal of Military History ISSN 0899-3718. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:31, 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 26#ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (song)

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (disambiguation)[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) 19:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_5#ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ was closed with no consensus to disambiguate, it wouldn't make sense for Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (disambiguation) to exist, especially since nothing at Alphabet (disambiguation) is known as "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz." This could be a good time to either develop disambiguation ideas or confirm the other result. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For disambiguation purposes, "abcdefghijklmnopqurstuvwxyz" does not equal "alphabet". The current situation is like saying that "Whiskey Foxtrot" equals "WF". Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anarchyte 09:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't have a variety of topics known by this name which require disambiguation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete asap - why would abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz need to be disambiguated? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm drafted a disambiguation page under the RfD template. I think there's some value in having a disambiguation page of some sort, although I'm fine either way with delete vs disambig. Deryck C. 18:26, 19 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.

Marie Françoise Sophie[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 all not already speedied. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Francoise Gay. It's another Neelix exercise in creating random permutations of "Marie Françoise Sophie Gay" without checking to see if they are used. -- Tavix (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete like all the other times he did this. Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this person isn't commonly known by any of these names. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.
I'm tempted to start an essay WP:RPERMS or some such, suggesting why creating many possible permutations of a redirect are harmful. Essentially, even if unambiguous, the results of a partial match search suggest to a reader that we have more articles than we actually have, which is a WP:SURPRISE. For example, if I type "Marie Francoise G" in the search drop-down I get a list with both the version without the cedilla and the one with it: how am I to know that they are (or are not) the same topic?
It seems to me that WP's search, and perhaps its autocomplete, filter out some redirects to the same target, but even so, which ones does it choose from the candidate set? I doubt it bases its choice on the rcat. In any case, as a reader I should not have to guess the filtering algorithm.
On diacritics permutations in particular, these days there is little need for them. It used to be standard to create {{R from title without diacritics}} since the search engine was sensitive to them, but I don't do it now (for example, I didn't create Agoston Gellert when I translated Ágoston Gellért recently). The advice to create {{R from title without diacritics}}, in WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS, should probably be changed, but I don't want to wander into that minefield; for the purpose of search it doesn't matter that readers may not be able to type letters with diacritics, but I suppose there are valid uses that don't involve typing (unspecified there). Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that selective redirect behaviour in the search box too, and half-drafted a proposal about it a week or so ago, but then deleted it. I was thinking that it would be beneficial to be able to tag redirects as [in]eligible for search results (in a similar fashion as {{R unprintworthy}}) so that we could control which redirects appear in search results, but I ran out of time to finish it, then thought better of the whole thing. But now I'm thinking about it again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to work with you on it. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 19 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.

Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help - transcreative verse with codification of interpolations - BS Murthy[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) 13:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly implausible, as well as misleading. No mentions of a "treatise of self-help, "BS Murthy," etc. -- Tavix (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't have any idea why someone thought this obviously promotional creation would be better off as a redirect, and not speedy deleted, but maybe the speedy criteria were less developed in 2006. Anyway this is entirely useless as a redirect, and purports to be in the nonexistent "Bhagvad-Gita" namespace. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, this does seem less common today. I tend to vacillate between cursing the editors who simply turned bad articles into bad redirects and realizing that they were typically just non-admins trying to effectively delete pages. There may have been some short-term benefits to this, but ultimately it's just kicking the can down the road. And we're the highway cleanup patrol. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 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.

Category:Pacific Gas & Electric songs[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 deleted, G7, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page correctly moved to page Category:Pacific Gas & Electric (band) songs. This page is no longer needed. LongLiveMusic (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per criterion G7 (tagged). This redirect was created by the nominator as a result of a page move of a category that they created a few hours ago. The "category redirect" is currently an empty category. Seems rather uncontroversial. Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_18&oldid=1146030147"