Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 4, 2016.

Not Sure[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. I think the consensus is fairly sure. Deryck C. 23:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though a character in this movie does get named "Not Sure", I think this redirect is likely to WP:ASTONISH. This is a standard option analogous to none of the above in opinion polls, and just a generally common phrase not strongly associated enough with Idiocracy for this to make sense. Unsure is red. BDD (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the right thing to point it at is so Delete Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's something called this (the character), and if the redirect is deleted it won't be easy to find. If there are other uses, add a hatnote or make a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure - I think keep, probably, per Peter James. The caps give it away. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Not sure is red, so someone searching for "Not sure" without caps will be taken through this anyway. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To make things even more interesting, I'd like to mention that Not Sure If goes to Futurama, which could very well be brought up as something for discussion as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. Here it is: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 26#Not Sure If. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY; there's a DAB page for creative titles at Indecision, but it could go to uncertainty. don't know and dont know are red, too. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Peter James. The character is mentioned at the target article, and both words are capitalized deviating it from standard usage. Weak because "Not Sure" may be capitalized in the context BDD points out.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incorrect (joke) name for a character in a minor movie. The character is findable via the movie title if someone wants him. This sort of thing belongs on Wikia, not here. Jeh (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SURPRISE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:11, 5 March 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 Ambassadors of Iceland to Latvia[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, default to keep. Expansion into actual lists is highly encouraged as it will solve the underlying issue. Deryck C. 23:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]

These redirects are misleading as they imply a full list of ambassadors of Iceland to <country>, but the only such ambassador listed at the target is the current one. Compare, for example, List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to France to see what such a list looks like. To prevent confusion, these redirects should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nobody is going to type these as article names. Looks like they were all created by the same editor in a flurry of puffery. Jeh (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of these are valid search terms. MB298 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we auto-create a complete set of permutations of "List of (country)'s ambassadors to (other country)" redirects while we're at it? Jeh (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give them any ideas! -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that just because something is a "valid search term" doesn't mean it's likely that anybody is going to type it. If anything this proliferation will (I believe) make it less likely that the auto-completion feature in the search box will find an article that's actually there. Jeh (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's one thing to have redirects that are factually incorrect and/or worded in an inflammatory way but still are helpful, but these are deliberately misleading in a way that is fundamentally unhelpful to the reader. Proper list articles in these cases could exist and maybe should exist, but they don't, even though the redirects imply otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. If the person who created all of these wants to create them as proper list articles, I hope they will do so. Jeh (talk) 21:20, 12 March 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.

'paedia[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 "-pedia" as nobody wants to keep it as is; keep "Paedia"; no consensus between delete and keep (which is the same as retargeting to existing target) for the other two, default to keep. Deryck C. 16:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 23#Pedia (→ Pedion). Odd that these go to different places. Interestingly, -paedia is red, but the autosearch jumps through 'paedia. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to encyclopedia since that what they are all referring to. (all the *pedia websites are some form of encyclopedia, such as a Wookiepedia, a Star Wars Encyclopedia) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep paedia. please notice the article paideia about the Greek word, for which "paedia" might well be a common misspelling for, hence the redirect. Paul August ☎ 10:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with this one czar 04:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but Paedia, which is a plausible misspelling of an actual word. But redirects are not for hipsters' abbreviations. This isn't the Urban Dictionary. Jeh (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (I didn't !vote last round). The last referenced noms fell at the first hurdle; I stand by my delete, not out of a winner's pride, but out of the logical consequence from those going, these should. Neutral in paedia as User:Paul August's comments, because paedia and pedia are not cognate but the a is removed in Webster's american spelling, and The World is Not The United States and her Emprical Spelling, wotever Webster sez. Si Trew (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Czar, what are you agreeing to, the keep, or the retarget all? Does Ägreed with this one mean that you have come to some private conclusion between you and another, in a tsarist manner that the rest of us plebs may know empirically? Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have consulted with my council, which has advised to keep the paedia and retarget the rest. (I think we are in agreement.) Some also advised to retarget the rest of the 'pedia but I doubt such things will concern them in the gulag. czar 13:54, 8 March 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.

Wepon[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) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon typo/misspelling. Was tagged R3, but was removed under the belief that it is common, though I don't recall ever seeing it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I'm the one who tagged it R3) Google search finds 426K of "wepon" vs 247M "weapon", a rate of less than 0.2% (two parts in a thousand) for this particular typo. I'd call that "implausible". We've done fine without this redirect for a long time. It was created among a flurry of other NOTHERE edits by a new editor who has since been blocked temporarily. It should be reverted along with the rest of that person's edits. Jeh (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep {{R from typo}} ; with 1/2 million search results, it is pretty common in an absolute sense -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For another perspective... That's 426K hits out of the 40+ billion pages indexed by Google. Rates matter, absolute numbers not so much. Jeh (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relative measure, not an absolute measure. The larger the sample size, the more that mispellings will appear, the more useful they become, because in absolute numbers, the number of people increases, making it more useful due to the larger size of the proportionally smaller population of mispellers -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a pointless redirect created by a user who looks to me like a vandal testing the limits of what can go undetected. I certainly don't see a need for it. Redirects for common misspellings make sense but having lots of redirects for implausible ones, like this, would just create a huge and unmaintainable namespace of nonsense. Let this name remain available and unused for some North London Grime artist to adopt as his moniker. Wepon will be up on stage, supporting Namespace Of Nonsense, before you can get your earplugs in. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - supposedly a tool for "killing zombie goasts [sic], final bosses, and combines" in some weird Half-Life fanfic. Wikipedia is not for things made up by some kid. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible, though I should note that Wepons used by John Dillinger targets Weapons used by John Dillinger (the original creator of that article apparently made a spelling error in the title). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. *grin* Jeh (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems to be the romaji of "Weapon". Delete since weapons aren't exclusively Japanese --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Weapon"? You mean ウェポン? Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 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_March_4&oldid=1037903410"