Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2016.

Charles Bakaly III[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) 16:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per a short discussion on my talk page, Charles Bakaly III is a lawyer famous from the Monica Lewinsky era and has nothing to do with Animal House, which is a movie from the 1970s. There never should have been a redirect created. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as a probable BLP violation. Redirecting someone's name to a topic that suggests they are an animal or chaos is not right. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the second one and read Charles Barkley. A possible misspelling? But, delete the one with III 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiyarbepsy (talk • contribs)
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.

Template:MetaCat[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. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was obviously created to mimick commons:Template:MetaCat. The redirect target {{container category}} is however not identical and doesn't take any parameters, so the redirect is misleading. PanchoS (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it doesn't matter what it is used for on Commons, this is not Commons, it is en.wiki. A container category contains categories, so is "meta"-categorization. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:25, 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.

Maculation[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 Macula (disambiguation) and add Wiktionary box. Synthesizing the opinions given below, this seems to be the best course of action. Deryck C. 23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a retarget. It seems that in botany it's commonly used as a term for leaf patterns. It needs a better target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up macula or maculation in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
However, the only article in which it is used is Gonatista phryganoides, in which it is a link in a quote. Links in quotes are discouraged (WP:LINKSTYLE #4, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked..."). I'd be inclined to remove that, but even if the link is desirable in the quote, it could be replaced with either a pipe to the DAB or a link to Wiktionary, rather than go via this otherwise-redundant (and ambiguous) redirect. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History: I created the redirect two years ago while working on Zantedeschia, where maculation of the leaves is an important characteristic. As often happens around here, when something changes it affects many other pages. My original redirect was to Maculatum, which then read: Maculatum, stained or spotted in Latin, may refer to leaf patterning. That seems to have become a disambiguation page, so naturally someone later changed the link in Zantedeschia to a direct link to leaf patterning, which looks like it got changed so the link did not work (I just fixed that). The target (which includes an illustration) now reads: maculate: stained, spotted, compare immaculate. The question now is whether there is really any other legitimate usage for "maculation" other than leaf patterning. There probably is in that it is a general term for flecking or spotting, applicable to both animals or plants. But I am not sure that justifies a page and the wiktionary maculation: (Shakespearian) The act of spotting; a spot; a blemish. See immaculate. - does not quite capture it. I suppose the wiktionary definition could be amended, to suit the purpose, but when taking about leaves the appropriate target would be leaf patterning. There is a more general question here as to whether linking to a dab page that contains a definition is legitimate. So maybe Maculation should simply be an article page, admittedly a stub, which includes links to leaf patterning, but could also discuss macular, maculate, and immaculate rather than be disambiguation. of course when discussing leaves, a direct link to leaf patterning is also legitimate, but the chances are someone is going to describe something as maculate or showing maculation and wanting to link it, so a target would be useful, with maculate, macular and immaculate redirecting to maculation, and a See also to wiktionary. Hope that makes sense. Be happy to execute this if there is concensus. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:24, 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.

Strong-smelling[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. No consensus, but no one wants it kept as is. No prejudice against recreation with a different target, though probably best to wait a bit before doing so. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from a common English phrase to a Latin equivalent, only used in species names. However, there is consensus, reached in several places, that these Latin phrases should redirect to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. This leaves an English phrase redirect to a list of Latin words, which makes no sense. I suggest delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's going to be retargeted somewhere, it needs to be odor, since that's where all the "strong-smelling" synonyms go. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget per Tavix, but it's not actually used anywhere. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:23, 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.

Wikipedia:DATA[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 Wikipedia:Wikidata and add appropriate hatnotes. Deryck C. 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion retargeted Wikipedia:PERSON from persondata to WP:BIO, I retargeted this one to Wikipedia:Wikidata. Redrose64 reverted me. I propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Wikidata. Wikidata is hugely important these days, and persondata is deprecated. I also propose retargeting the lowercase variant, which points to a semi-active WikiProject. Failing that, I think these should at least point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It's quite simple: WP:DATA, which had existed for over eight years, was repurposed a few weeks ago without discussion, so I reverted. A discussion that names WP:PERSON and nothing else cannot then be used as an excuse to retarget any other redirect, even if it took you to the same place. The fact that {{persondata}} is deprecated should have nothing to do with it - quite the opposite, as the summaries of a number of edits where persondata was removed used the WP:DATA shortcut, those edit summaries will not just point to the wrong explanation, they'll be downright misleading since Wikidata was not involved. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikidata per nom. At this point, the shortcut "WP:DATA" targeting Wikipedia:Wikidata instead of Wikipedia:Persondata just seems to make sense on multiple levels. For one, I actually believe that the association between "data" and "Wikidata" in terms of Wikimedia-wide importance just make sense. I can see this being quite helpful if someone clicks on the "Languages" or "Edit languages" links usually on the left side of the screen, then try to figure out why they went to a different project called "Wikidata". Also, in regards to the current connections of the redirects to Wikipedia:Persondata and Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases: For the first nominated redirect, Wikipedia:DATA, this redirect has less than 50 incoming links, so those could be corrected rather quickly, and for Wikipedia:Data, this redirect has no incoming links other than the ones created as a result of this RFD discussion. So, I say retargetbthem as proposed, then add a hatnote to the top of Wikipedia:Wikidata stating that these two redirects target here, then refer the reader to the two pages these redirects currently target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update links with bot and retarget to Wikidata Retargeting is absolutely appropriate, but I suggest we run a bot to update all the links first. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate make WP:DATA an index of the various uses -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikidata and hatnote, as the most useful target. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to WP:Wikidata. Eman235/talk 07:57, 3 February 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.

T and A Television[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) 16:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was CSD'd because this redirect is term with no use in the real world coined by the redirect creator. See search results. [2] but reverted by an editor claiming overuse of G6 - perhaps unaware of the ANi authorized use of G6 Housekeeping on Neelix redirects. The 6 hits include this discussion, the redirect page itself, "wasn't, and a television show ", "The logo forms the letter "T" and a television... ".

Wikipedia should not be the originator of new terms not found in RS. If no one is using a term out on the internet there is no reason to think it will be used here or be helpful to someone searching. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:37, 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.

Wikipedia:PIPING[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 Wikipedia:Piped link and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense for these shortcuts to go to different places. I would prefer them both at Wikipedia:Piped link. As the general page of information over "piping," it makes more sense. The specific application concerning disambiguations can still use WP:DABPIPE. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. We're moving toward MOS:WHATEVER and WP:MOSWHATEVER shortcuts for MoS sections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:14, 29 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.

Caro, mundus, et diabolus[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. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was CSD'd but reverted by another editor claiming it is in the original language. These are the correct Latin words but in the wrong order because they say - The flesh , the world and the devil. The target is the English version of a specific Latin phrase that has a specific order. It turns out that this search string has never been used in the English web, and less then 10 times in Latin. If no one except the person who built 86 redirects to the target in one sitting ever thought of this, it is therefore extremely unlikely to help anyone find anything and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:CHEAP. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap and errors in the order of such a phrase are entirely plausible. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the cheap argument - deletion of redirects is cheap too. There is no harm done in chopping a bad redirect. If someone ever finds a need for it they can recreate it in seconds. Look at the search results [3] and then explain how you expect this to help someone (the main reason for a redirect) Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since someone other than Neelix apparently finds it useful, WP:RFD#K5 applies. Plausible error, probably. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 26 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.

Japanese forces[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) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague redirect terms. There are many forces in Japan, economic, political, social ....delete as vague. If someone types this in search are better to give them choices or get them to be more precise, not send them to a military article automatically. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not helpful. I would rather expect Japan Self-Defense Forces as the target, but there are other "forces" that could be meant. —Kusma (t·c) 12:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is unhelpful as it is unclear what forces, what the search could relate to that this could mean. It's too non specific and adds no help to the user or value to the site. 🍺 Antiqueight chat 15:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally get what you were going for here, but this is just too broad and likely covers other topics. Curro2 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, these terms are way too broad. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to vagueness --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 31 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.

Cumbag[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) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, but this is vulgar nonsense. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense, unless someone wants to build that out into an article (but I sure hope not) Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to scumbag? Or delete; shouldn't point here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I did not know this, but this has no connection to scumbag. The redirect refers to a female that is only useful as a repository of male ejaculate. It is a far more degrading term then the target. Vulgar is a good word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 January 2016‎
@Legacypac: Actually, it seems like it does since the term "scumbag" seems to have either previously or still refers to a condom. I'll explain a bit in my comment below. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an equivalent term, not appropriate as a redirect. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Condom. Apparently, the term "cumbag" is similar to "scumbag" and "scumbag" historically means "condom". With this line of thinking, connecting the term "cumbag" with "condom" seems to make sense, especially since if the compound word "cumbag" is broken down into two words, it basically explains the function of a condom. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well, a lot of people will read 'cumbag' and think 'condom'... or 'sex toy loaded with juices to fire at you'... or 'sex toy made to collect juices'... while many also will think of a 'sexually active submissive male'... others an 'actively submissive transgender, non-binary person'... and some, indeed, will think of 'an actively submissive female'... seriously, this just can't work as a redirect. There are, well, quite a large variety of people/things/etc in this world that male genitals get shoved inside of. Such is life. The redirect ought to simply be junked. It can go to too many different targets, and it's a gigantic stretch (condom-related pun not intended) to consider the term even helpful really in the first place. Delete. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:46, 30 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.

Inauguration of Hillary Clinton[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, WP:G3 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect may have been created as a hoax. In any event, this is misleading. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hoax or wishful thinking, and the creator is an indef'd Sock with a history of messing around with an AfD. CSD'd Legacypac (talk) 11:25, 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.

Steve Sanderson[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) 21:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destination page doesn't even mention Steve Sanderson. -- intgr [talk] 10:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. He was apparently the CEO of the organization back in 2005 when the redirect was created. He was not sufficiently notable for a standalone page so the stub was converted to a redirect to the target article. I can't find any other "Steve Sanderson" that would be a better target for this title so leaving it as part of the history does no harm. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's harmful for a reader to search for something and be redirected somewhere that doesn't give them any information on what they are searching for. The redirect can always be restored if information is added about him, but he's a minor figure so I'm not sure if that's worth it. -- Tavix (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. If he's not notable enough to be more or less permanently discussed there, this is a moving target. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 1 February 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.

Jewish Palestine[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 Mandatory Palestine. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current target is a little misleading and may violate WP:RNEUTRAL. Is there a more appropriate target that we can find? Maybe Israeli settlement? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft keep:That is not a good retarget, deals with specific towns. I don't see a problem with this redirect or its target. See [1] for example. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be surprised if many pre-1948 sources used the phrase "Jewish Palestine" to refer to a Jewish State that would exist in Mandatory Palestine, but in contemporary parlance, I think it is more likely that readers will be searching for information about portions of the State of Palestine that are inhabited by Jewish settlers. Of course, I can also see the value in keeping the current target for readers who come across pre-1948 sources and want to know more about the "Jewish Palestine" described in those sources. In any case, I nominated this to see how the community felt about this redirect, and I simply want to hear what people think will be most helpful for readers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First thing I checked was if this was an alternate name for Mandatory Palestine and that MP would be a little better target. Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1919/07/a-jewish-palestine/303393/
Delete I would think Mandatory Palestine is a much more accurate target for this redirect. Curro2 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a retarget to Mandatory Palestine, not a fan of sending the reader to a dab. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 26 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.

Canadian dance company[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) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects looks like they point to THE dance company of Canada. It is misleading, an unlikely search string, and there are plenty of other redirects to the target to help the searcher. This is like the Frog of Asia ones [4] . Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 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.

Chagrin (emotion)[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) 16:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is at best a distant connection between the redirects and the target here. Suggestions for retargeting? Maybe build out Chagrine (emotion)? Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just delete, this is insufficiently congruous. Curro2 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Chagrin is not the same as suffering. No objection if someone wants to build out the (emotion) title as an article. Also no objection to soft-redirects to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rossami. I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is necessary due to the link being present at the dab. -- Tavix (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - It seems like the best option is to just flush them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:53, 31 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.

East people[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) 16:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a surprise to search for these words and get an obscure old Korean political group. The terms are far too generic for that. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 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.

Jiggle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 3#Jiggle

Voices Carry (album) (redirect)[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) 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit redundant if there is only one album, and I am nominating Voices Carry (song) for this as well, as both of them have redundant titles and are not currently linked to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no one will search for that. Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I assume this was created to test page view stats for a possible primary topic claim. Better to ask George if he's still using it for that. If he is, we may as well keep it. If not, we can delete it per G7. Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will refrain from voting on this for now. I would like to see a consensus instead. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin, you said you're nominating Voices Carry (song)? For what, for deletion? If so, you'll have to use AfD, since it's not a redirect, though at a glance, that's unlikely to succeed. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I'm almost positive he meant Voices Carry (song) (redirect). I've added it to the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that, as I completely missed that one. Hopefully George can throw some light on that page, but I nominated it as I did not see anything of that note in the edit summary. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was inspired by Dohn joe's method of tracking statistics on Doctor Zhivago. That's why I did that. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These were used at Voices Carry (disambiguation) until just before the nomination when Ktr101 unpiped these redirects. There's two months worth of data on grok, which should be plenty of time in case that primary claim case still needs to be made (the stats are kept even if a redirect is deleted). BTW: it was used to track how many people click through to the song and album articles via the disambiguation page. A redirect that isn't a plausible search term is needed in order to do this. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These special redirects are useful as noted above, but if George feels they have served their purpose, the results are archived at stats.grok.se, and can now be deleted. Either way, they aren't hurting anything. Dohn joe (talk) 18:10, 26 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.

FFWSB[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. The majority consensus is that Wikipedia shouldn't be creating new abbreviations like this. Deryck C. 23:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that anyone calls the show this. A Google search doesn't come up with anything to do with Bee and a Twitter hashtag search seems to be about a sports team. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its a shortcut. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can make up shortcuts for our own pages, but we don't make up shortcuts for reality. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? it doesn't hurt anything and its a convince for regular editors. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would make it a prohibited neologism. And while we have very loose standards for redirects, that's over the line. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources using a term for something, and should never be the place where a term is coined like this. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and because we are not publishers of original thought --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Logical, unambiguous acronym. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wp:R#D8 obscure synonym, and the existence of the redirect is likely to lead to Wp:R#D2 confusion (e.g. that other things which many people actually call FFWSB are associated with the target; we've made similar conclusions at RFD several times, regardless of whether the "other things" are notable or not.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 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.

Antivoting[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) 16:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of Neelix redirects similar to this one basically assert that 'anti-voting' is the same as not voting. Lots of people, me included, have not voted on occasion but are not against voting. Is there a better target for this concept (see long nav box in target as a start) or can the target be expended to cover the concept of people against voting? Maybe it covers this enough, but I'm not convinced. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_25&oldid=1138580983"