Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2016.

Yamashita´s mission[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. Deryck C. 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as an article back in 2006, but was flagged as a copyvio before being redirected. Besides the fact that the copyvio is contained in the edit history, this is an unlikely search term for Yamashita generally. The single sentence on his diplomatic mission to meet with Hitler and Mussolini is all a reader would find, and perhaps all we really need to say. Furthermore, the two items without "diplomatic" are vague, and could just as easily refer to military missions he was given. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I'll note that we also have an existing redirect for General Yamashita. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 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.

Korean eyes[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. Deryck C. 23:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any encyclopedic information to support "Korean eyes" as being a topically appropriate or scientific accurate alternate name or search result for epicanthic fold. Meanwhile there are sources that suggest it's not even present in 25% Koreans. It should also be noted that this a duplicate of another article whereby in the AFD it was commented that a redirect should not be done. I think it's also important to consider the broad topic of the redirect, "Korean eyes". There are many characteristics so there should be a good reason why it redirects to this one particular trait and say not something like brown eyes. Mkdwtalk 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BDD I'd support adding these links to the redirect deletion discussion. Again, I don't see anything that directly points to these "terms" being an appropriate or even accurate redirect to epicanthic fold. Mkdwtalk 19:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm not going to add them myself, for fear of creating a WP:TRAINWRECK out of your nomination, but feel free to do so yourself. Perhaps editors will comment on them anyway and we'll just unanimously find them valid synonyms or not. One can hope for such a clean close. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per informal usage found in the real world, and WP:NOTCENSORED -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for "Slant..." Slanted eyes and Slanty eyes both seem patently derogatory. I'll defer to other editors on the others. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derogatoriness doesn’t matter. If people use these terms, which they do, they are likely search terms. Gorobay (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These are reasonable search terms for the topic discussed at the target. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible search terms; I also support Gorobay's point about keeping derogatory terms if they are very commonly used. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some of these are definitely offensive, but as Gorobay and others have said, we should keep them anyway because they are common search terms, and Wikipedia is not censored. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector and Rubbish computer: I'm not advocating delete on censorship. My main point, especially for Korean eyes is that there is no basis for this to be a redirect to epicanthic fold. If so, why? Not even all Koreans have this fold. And why that over something like brown eyes? Mkdwtalk 19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNEUTRAL.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn This is not about censorship and 'korean eyes' isn't even a derogatory word. It just doesn't have relevance but people are just skimming the conversation. Mkdwtalk 19:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mkdw: Personally, I read your comments. "Korean eyes" in common usage wouldn't allude to eye color; gay in common usage doesn't mean happy. Terms themselves aren't always explicitly derogatory, they become so through the manner in which they are used. Because something could be ambiguous to what it references, doesn't mean it is used in those other ways (though the terms in my comparison above aren't equal in this respect). When people don't respond to your comments, it doesn't mean they didn't take them into consideration.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Godsy: Thank you for your expanded rationale. When people use arguments to avoid such as WP:JUSTAPOLICY it is very difficult to actually talk about the keep or delete rationales. I still do not believe the burden of proof has yet to be established that Korean eyes is a related and valid term to point towards epicanthic fold other than original research and opinions. A search engine test actually shows significantly more content for eye make up tutorials than anything relating to the epicanthic fold. WP:NOTCENSORED is a counter argument to the deletion rationale is not about censorship which no deletion rationale has been provided. Furthermore, it's not a policy which argues notability or inclusion. Merely it shouldn't be deleted for that reason but can be for another reason. Mkdwtalk 23:14, 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.

Byvreter[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. Deryck C. 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Afrikaans is not relevant to this bird. Gorobay (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per WP:RFOREIGN. While the article mentions that species of the bird do migrate to South Africa, it's also common elsewhere, so there really isn't affinity to Afrikaans even though there may be some overlap. Iceberg alert: This nomination sounded familiar so I checked out the creator's creation log from the month this was created and found several hundred similar redirects that could more-or-less follow this result. It's something to keep an eye on as this discussion develops as it could be used as a precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I don't think there's a need to establish precedent to delete any others for which there is no affinity to Afrikaans.

Incidentally according to that search, from 21:28 on 8 September 2012 they are created in alphabetical order of the target; those created before that (from the day before) probably follow a different pattern but I don't see it. Si Trew (talk) 19:50, 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.

Wikimedia Tunisie/MedinaPedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 27#Wikimedia Tunisie/MedinaPedia

آرژانتین[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 Argentinien to Argentines {{R from misspelling|Argentinian}}; no consensus, default to keep for Argentiina, Arghantina without prejudice against speedy individual renomination; delete Argentína on the technical point that the search box is diacritic-insensitive; delete all others. Deryck C. 23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All these redirects were created at the same time by the same user, which is why I'm nominating them together. They all fail WP:RFOREIGN as unrelated foreign language redirects (to potentially save someone the hassle, "Argentina" is spelled the same in Spanish). -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. No particular affinity for most of these. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep some for the following:
      • "Argentinien" as a {{R from typo|Argentinian}} incorrect replacement of "a" with "e" (remove language associations, just make this a typo redirect)
      • "Argentiina" as a {{R from typo|Argentina}} reduplication of letter-"i" (remove language associations, just make this a typo redirect)
      -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retarget Argentinien to Argentines as a plausible typo of Argentinian, delete the rest per WP:FORRED as redirects from foreign languages with no primary affinity to the topic. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. MB298 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to keep for the ones (Argentína, Arghantina, etc.) that are spelled similar, delete ones in Arabic script and such. MB298 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this mean you consider ⟨Argentína⟩ a likely misspelling in English? Typo-prone English-users are likely to remove diacritics, but not to add them. As for “Arghantina”: it’s a Cornish word, not an English misspelling. It is no more likely in English than Argantin or Orgentina or any other similar red link. Gorobay (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I quite frequently inadvertently add diacritics, since I use different layouts, and on the US International keyboard layout the apostrophe acts as a compose key. That being said, the search is agnostic to diacritics anyway. Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 22 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_19&oldid=1037883224"