Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 14, 2016.

User:Military Macho-Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo[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 as WP:U2. No such user; page was created in error during a page move. Just Chilling (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; target page's creator accidentally created this redirect in user space during move from user sandbox to mainspace, see page history. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to soft redirect. If the users wants it deleted they are free to ask for it to be deleted, and they can of course overwrite it at any point. However in the absence of either we have to assume they are happy with the link. As root user pages should almost never redirect outside user space, we should convert it to a soft redirect which avoids the problems of a redirect but retains the link. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems I misread things. Speedy delete per Tavix below. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:G6 as this is a page unambiguously created in error. When it was moved from user space, Djena22 forgot to remove the user prefix. They corrected it the same minute. For the record, there is not a user with this name. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 14 July 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.

The Legendary Bird Pokemon[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 Legendary Bird Trio (a new article moved from draft space). As this article links to the targets that would be on a disambiguation page, and the arguments about this being a never searched-for title not being supported by page view evidence I think this is the outcome that best satisfies the arguments presented below. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term is a bit of an ambiguous term used in the Pokémon. This could refer to at least three subjects in the series. As it stands, the term is not defined in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our friends at Bulbapedia seem to limit it to Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres. If I remember correctly, Lugia is the legendary master of the three Legendary Bird Pokémon, but not a Legendary Bird Pokémon himself, while Ho-Oh is the legendary master of the legendary dogs trio. I guess if it's a list, it would be a list of three. At that point, the difference between a DAB and a list page would be minimal. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add confusion to this, our article Lugia itself contradicts that claim when it comes to defining "legendary bird" in terms of Pokémon. In Lugia#Design and characteristics, the first sentence in the section currently states "Considered a "legendary bird" within the setting of the games...". Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe the "legendary dogs" you are referring to are Raikou, Entei and Suicune. Ho-Oh, as far as I know with my "first-251" knowledge, is a bird that has no direct connection to the "legendary dogs". Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is wrong then. Reliable sources only refer to Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres as The Legendary Birds/Legendary Bird Pokémon ([1], [2], [3]). Ho-Oh is definitely the master of the Legendary Beasts, see the Legendary Beasts article on Bulbapedia. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move draft to mainspace and retarget there. There's now a broad concept article about the three, so this can redirect there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This refers to the recent release of cards for the 20th anniversary announced in April 2016. They are covered by mainstream papers such as Latin Times iDigital Times and Polygon AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be it. This redirect's been around since 2009. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The legendary birds have been around since 1996 when Pokémon Red and Blue were released in Japan. The links above show that events involving the legendary birds still occur, get news coverage from reliable industry sources, and thus should have some kind of landing page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Articuno the first of the three and a "redirects here", and a hatnote to point to the other two in the set. Add the April 2016 news articles for the 20th anniversary to the Promotion and reception sections to all three. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it a notable group in itself, should an article be created as with Team Rocket (anime)? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a draft at Draft:Legendary Bird Trio. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea the best, good work Patar knight. -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss draft article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That would not be a valid disambiguation page as none of the terms are ambiguous. "The Legendary Bird Pokemon" is an arbitrary title that is highly unlikely to ever be searched for or linked to. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The draft isn't just a DAB page but a stub sourced to RS that briefly describes the group. The page view tool would indicate that 4 real people per month are searching this phrase – not that high, but not "highly unlikely to ever be searched for" either. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 25 July 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.

Teacher of philosophy[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 philosophy education. Deryck C. 12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Is there a good target for this? A "teacher of philosophy" is not the same thing as a "doctor of philosophy." I think philosopher is closer, but I still don't think that's good enough as you can be a philosopher without teaching it, and philosophy itself has varying definitions. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. It's not a redirect I would encourage creation of, but now we have it pointing it somewhere relevant (and philosophy education certainly is) is better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 14 July 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:Nickname[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 conform with WP:NICKNAME. Deryck C. 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This antique redirect to the Wikipedia username policy is confusing with our WP:NICKNAME policy that applies to article subjects. I suggest deleting this redirect to clarify search results and links to policy. — JFG talk 08:43, 14 July 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.

Patriarch Grigorije[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. 12:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted. There is no patriarch Grigorije and Grigorije is not a different name for German. There were some Alexandrian patriarchs named Gregorije/Grigorije, but it's about Serbian transliteration of the Greek names. Thus, the article "Patriarch Grigorije" is useless on English Wikipedia.

Explanation courtesy of @Millosh: Slashme (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There was a Patriarch Grigorije of the Eparchy of Zahumlje and Herzegovina but the only information about him there is his dates in post (1855—1860) and I'm not turning up any information in English that could be used to write an article and I don't know whether being Partriarch of this Eparchy is considered enough to make you automatically notable or not. I'm leaning delete, but I'm not quite convinced yet. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 14 July 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.

Tonight's the Night (1934 film)[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) 14:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not an incorrect name for the target, despite being tagged as such. The sources say nothing about the film being released in 1934. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dazed and confused. Can you explain a little more? You assert it is not an incorrect name, and then seemingly confirm the opposite – that it is an incorrect name – by stating that "sources say nothing about the film being released in 1934". Yes, that's true, and why I moved it upon request to "...(1932)", and made the title with the incorrect parenthetical year "(1934)" into the redirect under discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likely a typo and they meant to say not a correct name.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the nomination also says that it is not X, "despite being tagged as such". The redirect is tagged as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, so reading it as a typo for "correct" makes no sense. @GeoffreyT2000: Could you clarify the meaning of your nomination? Thanks. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stats show it still gets an average of 1 hit a day, so this would likely break off-Wiki links of some sort. It's already tagged as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we've demonstrated that nobody else refers to this film as from 1934. We shouldn't perpetuate misinformation by keeping redirects that are wrong. Deryck C. 12:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is tagged as an incorrect redirect and the article contains the correct information, so I don't see why the existence of this is perpetuating misinformation - anyone following it is educated that the film is from 1932 not 1934. If it wasn't getting used, then yes I'd go with deletion, but that is not the case so my recommendation is that we continue to educate the people looking for this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 22 July 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 climate change deniers‎‎[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. 12:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target avoids saying climate change denier because that requires a lot more to show than that they oppose the scientific consensus and it would in some case be a violation of WP:BLP because of defaming. Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - seems to me that there's a big gap in the redirect because being a climate change denier doesn't imply that one is a scientist. Favouring delete, in that case. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If somebody want to see a list of climate change deniers, she will at least be directed to a list that includes some of them (vis. scientists). Also, if the redirect is deleted, somebody, possibly me, will immediately be tempted to create such a list. Of course, it would include the scientists. But some journalists, politicians, and others would need to be mentioned.--Toploftical (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike article titles redirects do not have to be strictly correct. The test is 'does the redirect take the reader to information that is likely to be relevant to their search?'. In this case I know the answer to be 'yes' because, some months ago, I actually used this redirect to find this article that I would have found hard to find otherwise. This leads me to WP:RFD#K5 and, conversely, I see no policy-compliant reason to delete. I would add that WP:RNEUTRAL is also relevant. Just Chilling (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had intended to vote delete because a few of those listed in the "Scientists opposing..." article are not deniers and it would be unfair to them. But Just Chilling's arguments are persuasive, especially their pointers to WP:RFD#K5 and WP:RNEUTRAL. (Interestingly, WP:RNEUTRAL gives an example directly related to climate change.) As there is no policy-compliant argument for deletion I am voting keep. If the redirect is kept we should probably add the "R from non-neutral name" tag mentioned at WP:RNEUTRAL. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I guess RNEUTRAL does seem to cover the situation. Thanks. I probably would have just used that tag if I'd known about it. I guess I better leave the question here now for a community decision because of the possible BLP based problem as they tend to be taken more seriously. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for starting this discussion. I opposed the PROD for this redirect in order to get discussion. I cannot recall similar situations or discussions, and deciding how to resolve BLP vs linking related articles seems rather important. The language is loaded and ArbCom enforcement applies. A far better solution would seem to be to have a proper article rather than a redirect, with a more appropriate title. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth noting that WP:PROD cannot be used with redirects, so whether you agreed with the rationale or not you were right to remove the template. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Just Chilling. There are no BLP problems with this redirect per WP:RNEUTRAL as we are not saying that the people on the list are climate change deniers, we're directing people who use a non-neutral search term to a nutral article (or list in this case) at a neutral title that is of a directly related scope - although not identical as it doesn't include non-scientists and does some include scientists who have not been called climate change deniers. The scope of the list is made very explicitly and carefully clear in the introduction, which strengthens the arguments for applying WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above arguments, especially re:WP:RNEUTRAL. In any case creating a list of all people labelled as climate change deniers would likely be a BLP disaster, so this is the best thing we have. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the arguments above, especially because the title of the target article is so unwieldy and hard to search for otherwise. — Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Climate_change_denial#Lobbying, which, while not a list per se, at least presents a broader collection of climate change deniers than the current target. Note that climate change denial has the current target in the See Also. Morfusmax (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep along with List of climate change skeptics and List of global warming deniers. Although it hasn't been searched recently until the RFD, it is a plausible search term. Redirecting to a non-list would be more confusing than debating whether it is a list of scientists or folks in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are no BLP problems in it, but very useful redirect to people searching for it. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 17:47, 16 July 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_July_14&oldid=1088109676"