Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2016.

Hamsteria[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. 20:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This cross-namespace redirect, from the mainspace to a hoax article that is being preserved in the Wikipedia namespace, should be deleted. Cross-namespace redirects from the mainspace should be avoided in general, and we certainly should not have redirects to hoax articles coming from the mainspace. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an example of a cross-namespace redirect that is actually harmful (unlike many that get nominated here) as there is a serious risk of confusing a fake article with a real article. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and Thryduulf.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:42, 10 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.

Value Shitty[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:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory nickname for the store; not mentioned in target, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. When I first saw this title, I thought this may be the name of some sort of store in South Park, but I was mistaken. Steel1943 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Derogatory Ueutyi (talk) 04:47, 10 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.

Islamic Republic of Persia[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. 20:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search. The target article does not contain any such phrase. Invented by author - in real world, no entity by such name ever existed or was to exist. Google returns a single reliable hit, likely someone's mistake. Redirect is implausible and useless because any sane person would first go to Persia or Iran. Unfortunately, the original creator has added several dozens of such implausible redirects (the majority of his/her edit history is creating redirects), many of which are now being speedied. kashmiri TALK 12:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google shows 217,000 results for that exact phrase. Sounds like a good redirect to me... Rehman 12:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please never accept the first Google number as authoritative! Just click "Next" on the results page and you will be given the real number of results: 32 (THIRTY-TWO). Out of which the vast majority are irrelevant (fantasy tales, forums, etc.). So, result can only be Delete. kashmiri TALK 00:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used a different search engine and found many fewer sources - and about half of them were false positives. But there were still enough to demonstrate that this was not merely an invention of the original creator. I don't see any probability of confusion with this redirect and the valid hits are enough to substantiate it. Keep. Rossami (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Iran is also known as Persia (Persia redirects to Iran) and the current republic is officially the Islamic Republic of Iran. There has never been a different Islamic republic in the area known as Persia. Perfectly plausible and perfectly harmless. Kashmiri, your CSD log for this month shows you're on a bit of a spree of speedying redirects, and your success rate is somewhere just below 50%. In particular, I can't imagine why you would think that Doctor Pepper Arena (Dr Pepper Arena), Ben and Jerrys (Ben & Jerry's), bromhydric acid (hydrobromic acid) or chicken tikka marsala (chicken tikka masala) were implausible typos to the point of obvious deletion. Consider taking a break from this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for advice on breaks, Ivanvector. I do not agree that "marsala" is a plausible typo for masala. Why not also "marsarla", "marsalah", "masallah", etc.? We should keep sane and avoid adding junk to Wikipedia as it severely degrades Search experience. I am also surprised that you must have missed the fact that all the redirects I RxD'ed had been created by a single editor whose nearly all contributions to WP have been adding innumerable and mostly implausible redirects - like Muttonhead Quail Movement redirecting to Muttahida Qaumi Movement. A 50% deletion rate already at RxD is not only fair but also gives a testimony to the quality of that editor's work. Consider working on your WP research skills. kashmiri TALK 00:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but my research skills are alright. I did see that you've been on a crusade of exclusively tagging one user's contributions for speedy deletion for the flimsiest of rationales. You've hit on some because you happened to be right, but having found a few questionable contributions by one user doesn't automatically mean that all of that user's contributions are then speediable. Even Neelix did not get that treatment, and we made huge exceptions to deal with that mess; this is not even close. As I noted, many of their contributions are perfectly reasonable redirects. And not just me, many of the admins declining your R3 tags have said the same thing. Marsala is a plausible mishearing of masala, particularly for speakers of non-rhotic English dialects, and possibly confusing with chicken marsala, a similarly-named but distinct dish. I also see that a couple days ago the user offered to discuss their redirects with you when they noticed you were mass-speedying all of their contribs, and you responded with a quite incorrect interpretation of the purpose of redirects. Redirects are not required to be notable topics. We very frequently have redirects from things associated with a notable topic, so that users searching for a non-notable thing can find some information about what they're looking for. The song titles of the Eurovision competition are perfect examples of this. And why not "marsalah" or "masallah" if they help users find the information they're looking for? None of this degrades search, our search engine is smart enough to mostly disregard redirects, except for exact matches. Try it! See search results for "chicken tikka masala" - the "marsala" redirect isn't in the list. It won't be in the list unless you type "chicken tikka marsala" exactly, and then it only shows up as a redirect to the proper topic. What part of that is degrading search experience? They didn't create chickpea titmouse macaroni, that would be R3 implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat what I wrote above. But please go back to that user's contributions and doublecheck whether I tagged "all" of them – I recall leaving quite a lot of his/her contributions intact, considering them constructive and valuable. See, else I would reported him/her at ANI. Yes I tagged most (but not all!) of the song titles per WP:SONG – feel free to see the notability guidelines there. The reverts by HW had little to do with policy and more with the history of our interaction, which however is OT here. As to search engine, I had in mind that little box in right upper corner which shows all the redirects. kashmiri TALK 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami and per Ivanvector's comments on this redirect. Note also that "The Islamic Republic of Iran" exists as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment (keep is OK, but I wouldn't create it). I sympathise with User:Kashmiri's concerns. A redirect from a extended sentence to part of that sentence is something the search engine (plus the reader's brain - they do have one) should handle without the need of a redirect. Also we should not bundle a bunch a synonyms to make a redirect, a silly example would be "Connected Lands of America" redirect to "United States of America". But this one seams acceptable, as explained by others above. - Nabla (talk) 10:05, 16 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.

Topkek[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. 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topkek is (1) a brand of muffin and (2) internet slang for laughing. It should redirect to an article on one of those, but there is currently no appropriate target. It’s an unlikely typo for “Topeka”, especially as it already means something else. Gorobay (talk) 19:32, 9 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:Narasingha Malla Deb[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 delete per WP:CSD#G6. See longer comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wrong Article namespace Bongan® →TalkToMe← 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete The article was moved to this title by mistake when moving out of draft space to article space and was here for approximately only 1 minute in November 2014 (moving a page to Wikipedia: space when intending to move to the article namespace was (and maybe still is) a very common mistake for reasons I don't know have ever been established). WP:CSD#G6 allows for the deletion of pages obviously by mistake, including those created in the wrong namespace. Although not explicit, discussion at CSD talk confirms the spirit of the criterion allows the deletion of redirects left behind when fixing page moves to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 10 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.

Chomps[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 Chomp (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for "Chomps" brings up nothing about Sonic Underground, so why assume that Wikipedia readers searching for this will be looking for that. Proud User (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Sonic Underground characters#Chomps where there is a section about this character. The redirect's history shows that this article has changed titles several times, so there are quite possibly more redirects that need retargetting back here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: Your comment gave me the idea to move the edit attribution to a more likely title, so I did. I moved the edit history to a new redirect titled Chomps (Sonic), then retagged the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • so there are quite possibly more redirects that need retargetting back here According to [1], the only other redirects pointing to Sonic Underground are for the main characters (who are actually mentioned in that article). There's no other redirects besides Chomps (Sonic) to the list of characterse [2]. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chomp (disambiguation). The base title chomp is about a game which can't be referred to in the plural, but there are multiple items on the dab page which could either be singular/plural or are called Chomps. The cartoon character is already Wp:DABMENTIONed there; I don't see how a minor character from a decade-and-a-half-old TV show which only ran for one season (and who shares his name with an ordinary English word) qualifies as the Wp:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chomp (disambiguation). There is no way that the Sonic character has more notability than the plural form of the Mario enemy, at the least. Steel1943 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think of them as Link's friend. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Yeah, I was basically invincible with that until I was forced to "turn him in" before the third dungeon. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 10 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.

seamlessness[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. There's little appetite to delete. Seamless is a disambiguation page with a link to wikt:seamlessness so the soft redirect option is covered as well. Deryck C. 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. No articles link to "seamlessness"; it redirects to a disambiguation page which does not include anything that corresponds. There is no article on the condition of being without seams. MB (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • note This was originally placed on Jan 6 for some reason. I have moved it here and blanked the original. Primefac (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original version of this page was nothing more than a dictionary definition. It was difficult to maintain and was turned into a redirect in 2010. Converting a prohibited dic-def page into a redirect is an established way of dealing with such pages. Keep but not necessarily as-is. I could also see an argument for turning it into a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect to wikt:seamlessness. A seemingly unambiguous dictionary definition.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noun-form redirects to adjective-form -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_9&oldid=1037882989"