Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2016.

The Barcelona Traction Case[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 case page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) I am pretty sure on these that we can take it straight to as a retarget to Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd, my tiny doubt is because there is a hatnote there for a {{main}} in the section (this is not R to section) that people would expect to get at Barcelona Traction first. Unlikely in my view but a nagging doubt, they probably want the legal case. I have taken a lot of ones that don't meet WP:COMPANY to CSD, tagged a lot of others as fine {{R from other punctuation}} and {{R from long name}} and so on, I just am doubting myself now because I imagine they were created not because of the power provider but because of the legal case. Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. It made sense to redirect to Barcelona Traction in 2010 but now that the case article is separate as of 2014, it can be redirected there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and per page move history, and per WP:SNOW. Clearly, there used to be a section in the company article about the international law case, and in my opinion two separate articles are not warranted since the company is only notable for the case, but that's a different discussion. When Wikidea spun the case off into a separate article in 2014, they simply neglected to check the incoming links. We can just fix that oversight now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. Thanks for calling it on me nagging doubt. We can do that. Fine by me. Technically this is not withdrawn by nominator because we've decided to retarget it, but good call and essentially WP:SNOW fine by me, let's not stand on ceremony. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 25 May 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.

Ἐπίθετον[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) 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relationship between Greek cultures and an epithet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true (well Greek cultures had epithets otherwise we would not have Sappho or Aristophanes and so on) but so did pretty much about every other culture there's no particular relationship, it's just a word), but this is in the lede in the etymology. I'd say Weak keep' I can't see any harm in in it. Si Trew (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here’s my interpretation of WP:FORRED. This is an English-language encyclopedia, so other-language redirects exist to help English-speakers. (It doesn’t help anyone if they can read the redirect but not the target). Some things (e.g. cities, books, films) have a close relationship to their native languages, such that English-speakers can reasonably be expected to use them in English, or to copy and paste them from a mixed-language list (common for lists of people or language names). Neither of those exceptions applies to etymons: an English-speaker will generally encounter them in etymology sections, which make clear what the English equivalent is, so they won’t need to look up the foreign word on Wikipedia. If an English-speaker does encounter an etymon in another context, they shouldn’t rely on Wikipedia to be a translation dictionary. Gorobay (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ἀνάλυσις and add {{R from original language|grc}}--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, User:The Traditionalist That is not going to help anyone searching in English Wikipedia. We are not the Ancient Greek Wikipedia. We are not even the modern Greek Wikipedia for that matter. Nobody is going to search this way except in cut and paste and if they already can transcribe Ἐπίθετον then they don't need to look up the article. WP:Competence is required. I worked it out as being big sigma multiplied by pi by theta (that gives it a rotation) by little em by tau by o by v. So by my calculation, assuming on the left hand side in algebra that Ἐπίθετον equals one and that after reducing those all down with the independent variables I think you owe me a Big Nickel but I haven't double checked, could be More or Less. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Ah, then why do we have this very much elegant template, my good fellow?--The Traditionalist (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. It's all Greek to me. Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Traditionalist: {{R from alternative language}} is for alternative-language redirects worth keeping. An Ancient Greek example is Ϝάλις. The existence of the template doesn’t mean any particular redirect should be kept or deleted. Gorobay (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorobay: Then, you should define “worth keeping”, I suppose...--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my first comment in this discussion, in which I discuss WP:FORRED. Gorobay (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am with User:Gorobay on this one. Yes, foreign-language redirects exist solely (or should do) to help English-language speakers find the informaion they are after. I suppose this might be useful to Aristophanes or Plato or whatnot but it is not useful to English-language speakers. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SimonTrew. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the other editors that this isn't particularly useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:14, 31 May 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.

Andrena miserabilis[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 per this discussion and as Neelix redirect. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a red link to encourage article creation Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit odd actually. The species is not in the list in the article although many other redlinks are, and I clicked on the external link and got a 404 site not found. Since it would just mean "miserable bee" is this a hoax User:Plantdrew or User:Peter coxhead would know. Of course I could check but right now I am ploughing through Neelix redirects and don't want to distract myself if you see what I mean. The thing that sets alarm bells ringing for me is that the article redlinks lots of species but not this one, which is only a HTTP 404 external link, it could well be fine but it doesn't add up right as it stands at the momemnt (we can easily fix the target) but when there are loads of red links to other bee species in that article but this one is only in the article in an external link that doesn't work. Could well just be a {{dead link}} of course but you can see why the alarm bells start ringing, good call to find it. Si Trew (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of Andrena species; see List of Andrena species. Andrena miserabilis does appear to be a valid name; see here.
The general principle should always be that redirects from a species to a genus should not exist unless there is only one species in the genus or a short description of the species exists in the genus article. Neither is true here, so the redirect should be deleted so that a red link indicates the need for an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: thanks for the check. As I say I was ploughing through Neelix redirects so didn't want kinda to take my eye off of that to try to find this. It still means the article itself will need some fixing because the external link is dead. I don't know what to do about that (I could of course mark it as {{dead link}} because if I just remove it we then have no information there even a dead link. I guess the thing to do is add the poor sad bee to the section that lists the species, as redlink as you suggest. Delete. (Why the bee so sad? Actually I suppose it is more in the sense like Les Miserables of kinda the workers, the underclass) Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Better off with a redlink to encourage creation of an article that has information about this species. Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 23 May 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.

Blank space[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting this discussion to determine if the song is the primary topic for "blank space" in this capitalization. Talk:Blank Space#Requested move 15 November 2014 is closed as move, but many discussion participants supported the move on the basis of WP:DIFFCAPS, i.e. the article about the song would be moved to Blank Space with Blank space continuing to redirect to Space (punctuation). This redirect was later retargeted without discussion to the song. Should this redirect point to Blank Space or Space (punctuation)? SSTflyer 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: It currently targets the song, so you're suggesting a retarget.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 13:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly shouldn't be to the song, no. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a dab page, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Godsy. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Godsy. I'd just suggest modifying their draft dab to have the link to Empty space moved to the "See also" section as none of the thing listed at that article can, as far as I know, be called "blank space". Uanfala (talk)
@Uanfala: You are welcome to make any change to the disambiguation draft that you think is an improvement. Best Regards, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Godsy: @Uanfala: I am being deliberately obtuse (not for the decision to disambiguate, which I agree with, but in case it helps consider what should be there): what would be unblank space (in a typographic sense)? What kind of space is not blank? I think sometimes there is inverse space an ANSI character essentially a block cursor just when the character-based video modes would switch the colours but I am not sure if it would make sense to list those there even if we had 'em. It's a bit redundant really to say "blank space" but I agree the DAB is kinda the least worst option, probably gets people where they want to go. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. But word usage doesn't need to make perfect logical sense and "blank space" is indeed often used as a synonym for a white space, no? Isn't "white space" redundant as well? Are there space characters of a different colour? Uanfala (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: It is indeed a synonym. Space characters take on whatever color the background is, so they are clear in a sense. @Si Trew: Word dividers could be called unblank spaces.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, "White space" is not redundant in traditional typography because it is used to distinguish between other kinds of "leading" and stuff (black space) the essentially borders around pictures and so on that are on the gutter margins and black leading (that will probably go to windows but I mean in a typographical sense) that would be set by a traditional compositor (typesetting) on a Monotype machine or similar in hot lead. "white space" when you set it backwards which you used to have to do on an etaoin shrdlu usually is kinda the blanks in the hot lead where there is no ink applied to the type because it is just a blank bit of lead (which is then remelted so it doesn't pollute the atmosphere like leaded petrol also expensive). So, no, I don't think that is redundant. Perhaps we are coming to a consensus then, that "blank space" is kinda meaningless but a "white space" is meaningful? Actually the ink will if you're not careful rest in the lead "blank" and then make an ink blot on the page but usually you manage that by just raising it a little so the ink won't settle on it and prefers to go elsewhere to other parts of the type by a physical process I am not entirely sure which it would be because neither osmosis nor nucleation sites but it just "likes" to go to stick to the type. Oh probably by what's it called when something crawls slowly up a glass and you get a meniscus at the top of the glass it is probably that one. I never really thought about it too much. That the type kinda "sucks" it in obviously that is no good term but what is it called oh I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I suppose if we are being incredibly accurate that is a transparent space isn't it @Godsy: @Uanfala:. But we don't have that. Si Trew (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate "Blank space" per Godsy. "Blank Space" would still redirect to the Taylor Swift song. I'm not sure if the Tanya Chua album song has that as the official translated title. But I do like the empty space and other disambiguations on that dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Space (punctuation).--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:01, 24 May 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.

Medial section[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Medial section

Myopically[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. There's a majority favouring delete and "no target has presented itself after over a month of discussion" (Tavix's words). Deryck C. 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect) I have taken Myopes and Myope to CSD per WP:G6 housekeeping, however I feel this could be a valid {{R from adjective}}. However it is usually used about comic characters such as Mr Magoo or in a figurative sense to mean short-sightedness in a metaphorical sense, lack of forethought, and so on or not to see unintended consequences. So while I don't think it should be deleted, I am not sure targeting it to the literal myopia is best. Probably is, but not sure.short-sightedness rightly goes there.) Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as just about plausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another implausible Neelix redirect. "Myopically" is in my experience far more commonly used as an adjective, rather than a reference to the disease state. I think it is confusing and misleading to keep this redirect because I do not think it matches the target most people searching will be looking for. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary and its page on this (yes, I know there are other ways to link to said page, whatever). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a new target per nominator; it's not this, and short-sighted also points to this target, which I guess is appropriate. But like others have said, this is not normally used to refer to the medical condition but to the condition of not considering of the full consequences of your hasty plan (e.g. council voted myopically to spend an extra $1B propping up that crumbling freeway that nobody uses instead of investing in transit). I'm not quite sure what that better target is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget or disambiguate Of the first 50 GBooks hits, I see only two which refer to the medical condition. Most of them seem to refer to marketing myopia, high time preference, or some sort of variation of greedy algorithms (I think). But a disambiguation page consisting entirely of metaphorical uses seems a bit weird, so I wouldn't object to deletion. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as no target has presented itself after over a month of discussion. Most people don't like the current target, but disagree on where to take it, so let's give our readers search results. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 31 May 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.

Science and technology in Kazakhstan[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) 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the conventions of other language Wikipedias and the difference in meaning. (Or is this some strange joke like Kazakhstan got its education system messed up so that its education brings no fruits of science & technology?)

See Science and technology in France / United States and Education in France / United States

Did not want to start the stub instead, maybe a Kazakhstani can...(redirects to uncreated pages imo probably inhibit the creation of them.) Fixuture (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The redirect apparently comes from template {{Asia topic|Science and technology in}} that is placed at the bottom of the articles such as Science and technology in Russia. If you find this redirect confusing then it probably can be deleted. Back in 2009 I remember creating several similar redirects to fill in navigation templates, some articles could not be about exact subjects, but about closely related topics. --ssr (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:27, 22 May 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.

Access to amenities[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) 19:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject at Amenity is about a concept that is not exclusive to bathrooms/restrooms/public toilets, so these redirects are misleading. Note: Access to amenities (transgender) is a {{R from merge}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CoffeeWithMarkets: I can see what you mean by your recommendation, but that would create the odd situation where versions of an ambiguous title with a disambiguator exist, but the ambiguous title does not. (In other words, there would be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC conflict.) Is there another phrase that could mean "Access to amenities (transgender)" that doesn't require a disambiguator? Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is a better way to phrase it than just "access to amenities by transgender people", but I can't think of such a way at the moment. I also don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing if a title is improperly formatted since there's no reason to expect any particular random visitor to know the specific conventions of how Wikipedia uses parenthesis. There are so many examples of similarly styled redirects that have been kept, even just over the past several weeks. Irritant (biology) going to Irritation comes to mind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Access to amenities could mean anything. It could mean parks. It could mean public transit. It could mean bathrooms. It could mean public meeting rooms. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with Oiyarbepsy. An amenity is, well, it is something you have access to so this is a bit redundant anyway since if you haven't access to an amenity it is no longer an amenity kinda by definition, it's a disamenity (as you see I made that up what with OED describing "dis" as a prefix "having privative force"). That aside, this is just so vague that it might as well go WP:RFD#D2 confusing as WP:XY. No doubt tripadvisor.com or whatever will use the phrase to mean "with a ladder and some glasses you can see to Hackney Marshes (if it wasn't for the houses in between)" as the old song goes, or some such but it is just so vague we are never going to make anything encylopaeidic out of it. I did think of disabled access (-> accessibility) but that seems too much a stretch I think, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HAhaha. As User:DGG notes it is too nonspecific, which is a bit kinda Newspeak!. How can you be too nonspecific?! That's funny, I laughed, thanks DGG. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 23 May 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 satellites[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) 19:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting to allow creating an list article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll ironically note that DavidBuddy and Notecard likely want the exact same thing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct, and I think you and I also agree that creating a redlink will facilitate the creation of that list. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to create a redlink per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 30 May 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.

Demosthenes as fictional character[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) 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Demosthenes (disambiguation) (which does not contain much information about it, either) or just delete away. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, is this really a likely search term? Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely search term. A redirect could be made for Demosthenes (character) instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a very unlikely search term, does not deserve its own redirect. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:43, 30 May 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.

Katey[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 dabify—err, set-index-ify, because those are totally a Different Thing. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence target is PTOPIC Nohomersryan (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support IP's recommendation. Sagal isn't referred to exclusively as Katey as with Oprah. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed my mind. WP:PTM applies. No notable people with singular name Katey. Exception could be made if there were a fictional character that goes by that singular name and spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 31 May 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.

Cao Kui Xian[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 unambiguous finding is that these redirect titles are misspellings of this Korean actor's name in Mandarin Chinese. No matter whether we consider Cho Kyuhyun's connection with Chinese culture is strong enough to warrant a redirect, misspellings of foreign language titles generally aren't kept. Deryck C. 23:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. These are misspellings of the Mandarin Chinese pronunciation of the name of a Korean singer. The correct pronunciation Cao Guixian doesn't exist, nor should it, per WP:RFOREIGN. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does appear from the article that this Korean singer has recorded albums in Chinese and has also made quite a splash there. So maybe the pinyin misspellings are completely irrelevant? Provided they are plausible as misspellings, something I'm not really able to gauge myself. I'd say weak keep, but I'm willing to change that in the face of a good argument. Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It depends on how big the splash is there and whether the articles use this particular spelling regardless of pinyin. Based on what I see in his article, he is only part of Super Junior M and isn't even mentioned by his Chinese name 圭賢 in that article. No solo career in China or Taiwan to warrant being listed under his individual moniker. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 23 May 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.

Taiwan Open (2016-present)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An error (moved several times). 333-blue 13:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep obviously. So, imagine you delete this redirect, and I decide I want to go to this article. So, I start typing in the title, but then I have a problem - my keyboard doesn't have an en-dash key (or is it an em-dash?). When titles use characters that aren't on keyboards, you need redirects that do have them on keyboards so people can get to them. You also simply assert that it is an error, but say nothing whatsoever to justify this statement, including not even stating what the claimed error even is. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both versions and create a dab - this redirect is a double redir to WTA Taiwan Open. The actual intent appears to be to dab from Taiwan Open (golf), which was a tournament that ran until 2005, as well as Taiwan Open (Taipei and Taoyuan), and a few others. What this really needs to be is a straight "Taiwan Open" dab page to point to all the other articles. MSJapan (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It has had one for a long time. See Taiwan Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both versions as they are unnatural links. No one just starts typing Taiwan Open (2016-present), with or without the hyphen/ndash. They would simply go to long ago created Taiwan Open Dab page and find the correct event from there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added the other variant to the discussion as well as fixing the targets. -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a mess. Were the older tennis tournaments officially named Taiwan Open or not? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both 2016 could refer to the golf tournament. WTA Taiwan Open is good enough as the primary topic. Each page now has hatnotes to clarify which WTA tournament, and the dab page is now organized. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:45, 31 May 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.

Brockway monkey[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax redirect. Neologism coined in this Cracked.com article. No Google results from before 2011, nor are there any book results available through Google.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note also the comments section: most popular is one about inserting misinformation. Another says explicitly "AbuGonzales: I was so psyched to see [Brockway monkey] that when I went to make "Brockway Monkey" redirect to the emperor tamarin page." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:31, 22 May 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.

Poetesses[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, especially when taken with the below discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I explain. Either someone is a female poet, and prefers to be called, and WP presumably by concensus prefers to call women who write poetry "female poets" rather than poetesses. So if WP does that, then "poetesses" is a bit well not sexist exactly but these terms are going out of fashion like many female actors do not call themselves actresses. (They never should have done in the first place they should be actrices but that's my pig latin kickin' in, Richard Burton was not an acter). Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when people misspell "consensus". Oh dear me. Si Trew (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this one sort of goes where it should, it's a list of poetesses. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete; maybe retarget. Poets and Poetess target Poet; perhaps this should too. Regardless, unfashionable words are still valid search terms, and deleting it serves no purpose. Gorobay (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarget to Poet as a word form. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not a real word, or at least used extremely sparingly. we are not a novel word-forming collective. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Delete You wouldn't find poetesses at poet, but you would at the current target. It's a rare word though, so I'd also be fine with WP:R#D8 deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 1 June 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.

Female poet[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 without prejudice against sending the target article to AfD. The "delete" opinions, as I understand them, are actually about the encyclopedic value of the topic itself, not the redirect... Deryck C. 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I don't think we should have this unless we have male poet. Sexism works in both directions. The list is fine but I don't think we should encourage it in redirects. We do not have List of male poets so there is some gender bias here but considering that the vast majority of editors on WP are male that is easily corrected. I am not really sure to have such a list makes much sense anyway who do you start with Sappho but I'm not arguing the list but the redirect. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: female poet redirects to list of female poets, but poetess redirects to poet!? If this is kept, it should at least be consistent with poetess: "female poet" and "poetess" have the same meaning, and should therefore redirect to the same place! (Though I note that comedienne redirects to comedian, and actress redirects to actor, but neither female actor nor female comedian exist; therefore I'd lean towards deleting this one for consistency with those examples...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per WP:XY. It's not an encyclopedic topic to be both female and a poet, any more than it's encyclopedic to be blond and a construction worker. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You put it much better than I managed to. Thanks. Delete. (Incidentally in English wouldn't a blond construction worker be male and a blonde one female, or is that distinction lost in English? It kinda sometimes crops up I think with the distinction but I think is mostly lost) Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering that too, after I typed it. English is non-gendered for the most part, but blond[e] comes from Old French, so I don't know. I guess I'm in the habit of only adding the e when describing a female subject. Maybe that's my what-passes-for-bilingual-in-southern-Ontario upbringing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current target is about both topics (women and poets) so this doesn’t fall under WP:XY. Keep with {{R from list topic}}. Gorobay (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an encyclopaedic topic to be both female an a poet because they are fewer than male poets. Ivanvector's comment looks as if he was suggesting to delete the article, too.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, the list is fine. We don't have a list of male poets but someone could create one if they thought it would be useful, and that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument anyway. What I'm saying is we don't have any discussion anywhere about the topic of female poets, so someone looking for that topic is going to be disappointed. I prefer deletion over say retargeting to poet because readers aren't going to find any discussion there differentiating poets who are female from other poets; you're either a poet or you're not, regardless of gender, at least from an encyclopedic standpoint. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 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.

D'Angers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#D'Angers

Hockey on the ice[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 Hockey#Subtypes. This seems like the best compromise available, and has ample consensus to support it. I note that on at least many desktop monitors, readers will have quick access to bandy, ice hockey, and an explanation of the historical name for bandy direct from these redirects. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I am reopening this discussion. It is ridiculous to say hockey on the ice is "bandy". For the majority of the English speaking world, bandy is not even well known. For most people hockey on the ice is ice hockey. Why are we complicating this by redirecting to an almost non-existent sport in the English speaking world? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support Re-target to hockey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, I say Keep as the redirect is a sourced past name for bandy and has never been used in that particular form for ice hockey (no matter how confusing). Bandy clearly has a hatnote at the top of the page saying exactly that it is not ice hockey (maybe needs to be made more clear it is a historical term in the hatnote). It should be noted that in most of the "English speaking world," as you call it, would far more likely either just look up hockey if in North America, or ice hockey in the rest of the "English speaking world." Yosemiter (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to multiple uses (and possibly English as a second language), Retargeting to Hockey#Subtypes per User:Tavix as the description for bandy directly states that it used to be known as hockey on the ice. Yosemiter (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts on the matter haven't changed, so I'll resubmit my previous !vote: Retarget to hockey. I'm convinced that this phrase refers to both codes (bandy and ice hockey) fairly equally. I don't think we should favor any particular code since there are strong arguments on both sides, so this should be redirected to hockey as a compromise, where our readers can learn about all types of "hockey on ice" (maybe refine it to Hockey#Subtypes?) -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this should go without saying. Hockey on the ice is a synonym for bandy, not for ice hockey. Röd Boll (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the hat notes are enough. "Hockey on the ice" is not just a description, it is a term, the old English name for bandy. The very first modern bandy game, played in London in 1875, was called hockey on the ice. Skogsvandraren (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same can be said for ice hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is "hockey on the ice" a redirect? There should not be a redirect for this at all because of the confusion it would have between ice hockey and bandy. Both sports had the term "hockey on the ice" to describe the sport. It is an old English saying for it. Also note that the reference used is outdated and should be supported with another reference. If I were going to support any side, I'd say redirect to hockey. Readers will at least be able to find the sports in which hockey is played on the ice which kinda brings up a new point about how that page should be categorized. Conyo14 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hockey on the ice as {{R from historic name}} of Bandy. Delete Hockey on ice per WP:XY as it could equally refer to ice hockey or bandy.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why do we have to go through this discussion all over again, less than a year after we did it the last time? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target Hockey on ice is also a historical name for ice hockey. I think Tavix has hit it on the head that it should redirect to the subtypes of hockey section because it applies to both. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your source for hockey on ice a historical name for ice hockey? Röd Boll (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to ice hockey and hatnote to bandy, as I said in the previous discussion. Users typing this are more likely to be looking for the modern and popular sport, not a historic and no-longer-used name for a sport of minor prominence. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My opinion is unchanged from last time. The hatnote at the top of bandy is sufficient. The argument for "hockey on (the) ice" as referring to ice hockey really exists only because of the French name of the sport - hockey sur glace. However, I've never heard of ice hockey being referred as "hockey on ice" in English, so there is no historical connection such as exists with bandy. Resolute 15:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB: why not make it a dab page? HandsomeFella (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to that since it would effectively be redundant to retargeting to Hockey. By retargeting to hockey, you present someone a paragraphs-long explanation about both sports, and if they want to know more, they can click on the article and find out more. With a dab page, you'd be limited to no more than a sentence. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target: What User:Tavix suggested is probably the best option. Honestly, I'd never even heard of bandy before but if I looked up "hockey on ice" I would not expect that to redirect as it currently does.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to ice hockey and hatnote to bandy; if we direct readers to any other target, I think it is more likely to WP:ASTONISH them than help them. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to WP:ASTONISH, this is actually why I think it should probably be redirected to Hockey#Subtypes. In places outside of North America, hockey is usually used in reference to field hockey, of which bandy would be more similar, so looking up "hockey on ice" could easily be in reference to bandy (especially since where bandy is popular, English would probably be their second or third language). Yosemiter (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hockey#Subtypes per Tavix. After thinking about this some more (read: taking a lot of cold pills) I think Tavix's solution is best, and also accommodates the disambiguation argument since that section is effectively a set index. In the interest of finding consensus on this oft-discussed redirect, I am changing my !vote. Any user typing this will find some information on the topic they're interested in at that target, and can click through for more info on whichever topic they choose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Resolute makes a good point. The reference used to describe the old name of bandy is not only outdated but is likely insufficient to describe an older term. Hockey on the ice or hockey on ice could refer to ice hockey or bandy. Retargeting to Hockey#Subtypes would likely be the best solution.Conyo14 (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to hockey. Unless it makes sense to make a Hockey (disambiguation) page. But I think that's un-necessary. Alaney2k (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per irregular word formation, or Redirect to ice hockey --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 30 May 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_May_22&oldid=1146664544"