Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2016.

National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be two similarly named articles, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Hajipur and National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali. It doesn't seem logical to redirect this to one of those. A disambiguation page is more natural, unless there is a parent entity with this name which should have a separate article. Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy dabify No-brainer. The user who moved the Mohali article was right to do so, but should've followed through with this title. I've drafted the dab. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify -- There are a bunch of these articles. --NYKevin 21:10, 6 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.

List of busiest Airport in Latinamerica by passenger traffic[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 both. Deryck C. 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As implausible typos go this one is right up there, needing miscapitalization, singular/plural confusion and a missing space to enter it. I can see no conceivable useful purpose to it.  ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 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.

≟[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 Question mark#Mathematics. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically discussed at its target page. Is there anywhere better to point this? Maybe mathematical proof, since the symbol usually appears in that context? NYKevin 22:00, 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.

Deutsch[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 move disambiguation page over redirect. There is substantial support for both options - keep redirect as is and hatnote target; and move disambig over redirect - and the bold text in front of each editor's comment doesn't obviously indicate which option they prefer! Overall, I find stronger support for the move = disambig option, so I'm closing this as move. I have histmerged Deutsch (disambiguation) and Deutsch as there seemed to have been a cut-and-paste move. Deryck C. 10:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Deutsch" always imply the language? Doesn't it refer anything that is German (compare: Deutsch and deutsch)? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've changed the hatnote to mention Deutsch (disambiguation) at German language. German is also a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Deutsch (disambiguation) over this. I appreciate that's a move request, so that's to say Keep. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When people see or look for the term "Deutsch", they primarily seek the German language, so the present redirection to the language article seems correct. To move it over the dab pagename would seem to imply no primary topic, which does not appear to be correct. In answer to the nom's question, the dab page explains that the people are described by this term with an "e" at the end, as in Deutsche, and shows other non-primary applications of the term.  Be prosperous! Paine  21:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Paine Ellsworth notes, Deutsch is the language and Deutsche is the people. English speakers could plausible mistake the two but a redirect to the language will still give enough of a clue that a reader looking for the article about the people would be able to find it. To me, that means leave the disambiguation page where it is. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: and @Rossami:: I agree that "Deutsch" (note the capitalization) implies the language, but what about "deutsch" (without the caps)? Surely this means there is more than one primary topic? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can furnish an example of the lowercase usage, perhaps, but I cannot find one. Just as English and French (French toast, French fries) and in fact German have no lowercase usages that I know of, neither does Deutsch.  Paine  11:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the MediaWiki software does not allow titles to differentiate on the capitalization of the leading character. "Deutsch" and "deutsch" are treated identically. We can't use that to distinguish here. Rossami (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be a disambiguation page. My nationality/citizenship is "deutsch", and my primary language is "Deutsch"; in German there is no primary topic if lowercase and uppercase are the same page. —Kusma (t·c) 11:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an interesting difference then: As an American, I don't believe anyone would call us "americans" (lowercase), nor would I ever refer to you as a "deutsch" or a "german". To me you are a German who speaks the German language (both uppercase). This appears to possibly be a difference in custom? In any case, I still think that most people in the world who search for "Deutsch" would be seeking the language, which should be the primary topic.  Paine  12:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure. Incoming links are mixed, intended for language, disambiguation, and the connection with "Dutch". When unsure, I think disambiguation is the safest option, preventing incorrect links. —Kusma (t·c) 15:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paine Ellsworth: Nationalities (and other things such as the names of months and days) are lower case in many languages. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC) oops, pinged the wrong person.[reply]
  • Yes, but I think it is less because of the languages and moreso because of the customs of peoples who read and write in those languages. In countries where English is the primary language, it is generally the custom to use uppercase for languages, nationalities and the names of months and days. This is the English Wikipedia, so there is reason to follow suit. Peripherally, just FYI, I was not pinged.  Paine  16:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Deutsch (disambiguation) over the redirect, per Si Trew. (Si, while outright requests for moves shouldn't start here, an RfD can certainly result in one.) I think this follows in the spirit for the recent discussions on "Svenska" and "Nederlands", while recognizing that we currently disambiguate the term "Deutsch" separately from "German". If incoming links are mixed, that especially suggests that disambiguation is the correct approach. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 8 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.

Nfl[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 NFL (disambiguation). Happy Super Bowl Sunday to my fellow Americans! (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for #Mls, below. Not used in the target article, suggest retarget to NFL (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 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.

Canadian river[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the redirects for Alaskan river, Alaskan rivers and similar being up for discussion (here on the 28th and here today) perhaps this is a good way to test the water (or waters).

This redirects, as {{R from other capitalization}}, to Canadian River, a particular river (in New Mexico). Whereas Canadian rivers redirects to List of rivers in Canada.

It doesn't have any incoming links in mainspace. I can't tell the stats, because the stats tool combines it with that for the target, but that was 3,268 in the last 90 days. This seems a lot of views for a relatively minor river: in comparison, the redirect at Nile River got about 5,000, and Thames River and Seine River got a little over 1,100 each; Red River and Red river (again, combined) got 3,524.

Now, I would have thought that "river", lowercase, refers to rivers in general, and "River", initial cap, to a particular river. In which case this should be retargeted to List of rivers of Canada with a hatnote there to Canadian River. Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was not aware of the Canadian River/river, but I would expect to find info about 1 river at either of these titles. If I want a list of rivers I'll type rivers. Example: Mississippi river should give THE river, not a list of rivers in the state. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think if we establish what to do with "river" versus "rivers" for these three pairs, it's then fair to apply that consensus speedily to the other 47 (times 2) or so. I think most style guides would advise writing "a Mississippi river" (generally) but "the Mississippi River" (specifically). London river is red, but London River is a film (which doesn't say mention any river at all). Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 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.

Alaskan rivers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Alaskan rivers

Mls[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 MLS (disambiguation). Deryck C. 11:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Mls" always imply the league commonly known as "MLS"? Wouldn't it be better to redirect it to MLS (disambiguation)? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Geek. Not used in the target, except in one reference to this article in the Chicago Tribune], which headline also uses "Nfl" as the National Football League. The article itself uses "MLS" and "NFL" exclusively, in the running text. Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab. Because MediaWiki always parses the first character as upper case and people are often unsure about the cases and plural forms of SI units, "mls" for "milliliters" is a highly plausible search term (as a quick skim through Google on mls milliliters confirms). ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab. I personally thought multiple listing service would have been the preferred usage for this, but dabbing is better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MLS (disambiguation) per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 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.

Reintroduced[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. I'm going to add this item to the other discussion, which is still ongoing. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29#Re-introductory. This one got missed, it seems. I've boldly retargeted it to the moved target at Reintroduction of a species, for now. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)I moved it back. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep? - I'm not sure what the nomination is saying now. I support keeping this target pointing to the article on species reintroduction, wherever it ends up. Yes it's a general term but it has one very specific and very prominent usage that we have an article about, and which other articles have been using this redirect to link to. If there's an appropriate dab then a hatnote would be appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a closely related word. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:28, 2 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.

Servil[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. 11:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. No incoming links in mainspace, not at target. Hits are below noise level (132 in 90 days, about 1.5/day), although on six days it got 4–7 hits/day. I've marked this as {{R from misspelling}}, but actually I got here (or rather to the target) by mistyping "Servile", which I was boldly retargeting to the DAB at Servitude. Since either target seems likely, I think it is better off deleted. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 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.

For the love of Christ[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 do as Godsy suggested; WP:NPASR. Deryck C. 21:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. This was created during the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Chrissakes (my comment at 14:57 on 4 September that "For Christ' Sake and. For the love of Christ are red"; these were created at 18:01; For Christ' Sake was retargeted by creator soon after). See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_30#Christsakes. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 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.

Intimacy[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. Please comment on the RM at Talk:Intimacy (disambiguation) if desired. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move Intimacy (disambiguation) over this. I've started an RM discussion there referring back to here.

Considering that we have discussions of other things pointing at Intimate relationship (see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_30#Dearling), it's probably best to centralise the discussion here at RfD; others may think that this should be retargeted rather than overwritten with the DAB.
Its current status as a redirect is the result of a page merge. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 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.

Wikipedia:Prashant Jadhav[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 speedily deleted by User:Boing! said Zebedee as WP:G2 test page. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect remaining after moving new user's attempt to create an article in the wrong space. Unfortunately I find no speedy deletion criteria for either this redirect or the originally created page. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Test sounds about right to me. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 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.

Nederlands[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 both to Dutch. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Nederlands" as ambiguous as "Nederland"? Doesn't "Nederlands" sometime mean the same as "Nederlandse"? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Nederlandse" and "Nederlands" are both just the dative/accusative/adjective form (i.e. "Dutch"; "of the Netherlands", I guess in different genders); Nederlandse taal is "Dutch language" literally.
Netherlands (disambiguation) has more links (and perhaps a bit too much for a DAB?) to the geography of the Netherlands, politics, historical uses, and so on. On the DAB at Nederland, all but one entry is for things that could never be called "Nederlands" (e.g. a place in Texas).
nl:Nederlandse is a redirect to nl:Nederland, i.e. what we have at Netherlands.
But that does make it a little harder to find the DAB for things called Nederland, although Nederland (disambiguation) ( → Nederland) is in the "See Also" section. Perhaps we could put a hatnote to make that more prominent. Si Trew (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: In Dutch, Nederlands can be either a noun, meaning the Dutch language (as in "Ik spreek Nederlands"/"I speak Dutch") or an adjective in combination with an indefinite article+neutral noun (as in "een Nederlands huis"/"a Dutch house"). Nederlandse as a noun means a Dutch female, while as an adjective it should accompany nouns that do not fall under the description given for Nederlands. By the way, cases like dative/accusative have died out long ago, save for some proverbial expressions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Drmies for clarification; I believe some nuances are being missed in the above recommendations. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Well, it's not simple, and "dative/accusative/adjective" doesn't capture it. "Nederlands/e" is always an adjective (and case is mostly non-existent). In "de Nederlandse taal", "the Dutch language", it's clearly an adjective; whether or not an adjective has an -e or not is determined by a. whether it's preceded by a definite article (or other determinative) b. whether the following noun is neuter or not. Case doesn't come into it; declension does, as in German--see German_declension#Attributive_adjectives. Now, if one says, "zij spreekt Nederlands", "she speaks Dutch", we have what is called a fused modifier-head construction (scroll down to p.99). So when HyperGaruda says "it's a noun", they're sort of right in the sense that the adjective is used as a noun would be--but it's still an adjective. To put it another way, its category is still that of adjective, but its function is that of the head of a nominal (Huddleston and Pullum are adamant about their terminology--so not "nominative").

      So, one way of looking at this is that both words are adjectives, of course--but redirects should be about validity as a search term. Since both can point to language as well as nationality/ethnicity/whatever (thus, both to Dutch people and Dutch language and, sure, also to Netherlands), maybe Netherlands (disambiguation) is the better option. Thanks Softlavender, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: a bit of digressing here, but... Perhaps I've used the wrong example. What about "de uitspraak van het Nederlands" ("the pronunciation of Dutch")? Still not a noun? - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you! Very clever! You outsmarted me! Yes, it's hard to call that not a noun. One wonders how that came about: I am sure there is some historical reason for that, also considering that (I think) all those words are neuter. Good point! And for clarity's sake, "Nederlandse" cannot play that role. Further clarification/muddying: "Hij is Nederlands" means "He's Dutch"; "zij is Nederlands" means "she is Dutch"; "zij is Nederlandse" also means "she is Dutch", but probably pointing specifically at nationality. Thanks HyperGaruda. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't do, if it's {{R from other language}}. Si Trew (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dutch would be indeed a better target. It includes all meanings discussed so far, as opposed to Netherlands (disambiguation). - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with HyperGaruda, above: Dutch, for both. Thanks HyperGaruda, Drmies (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, you make me blush, but I'd thank SimonTrew for bringing up the option ;) - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Dutch. I agree, it's simpler and better since it's what my linguistics teacher would call a "free ride", in that it has much the same set of multiple meanings in both languages. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31&oldid=1142587031"