Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 27, 2016.

Malia Obama Biography[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Malia Obama Biography

Adams 6[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. On the keep side, it's been pointed out that Adams was the 6th POTUS and similar redirects like Bush 41 and Bush 43 exist. On the delete side, it's been pointed out that this isn't a plausible way of referring to the president and that the "series" is incomplete because some similar titles are redlinks (e.g. "Adams 2", "Washington 1") because of ambiguity. Deryck C. 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible synonym, by the way, for some strange reason, the top result on Google is Tony Adams. Note that Adams 2 was deleted at an RfD months ago. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and note lack of relevance of Adams 2 discussion: Adams 2 was deleted because it was believed that there was significantly ambiguity between the second President of the United States and the second Adams to serve as President. There's no ambiguity as to whom "Adams 6" refers. I'd also contest the "not plausible"; several Presidents are referred to as "LAST NAME #". No harm in keeping this. pbp 22:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the central question here would be: is "Adams 6" ever used to refer to John Quincy Adams? -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a 100% WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Also, how many of them are red because they were AfDed vs. red because they never were created? Finally, "Washington 1" doesn't even redirect to George Washington, and, near as I can figure, part of the reason it might be deleted is because there's significant ambiguity between George Washington and whatever it redirects to now. pbp 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously not a widespread name as Bush 41 or Bush 43. There are obscure non-notable topics this refers to, and even "Roosevelt 26" and "Roosevelt 32" are not valid synonyms. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This isn't some nomenclature for presidents like chapter and verse. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as part of a series (ie. Bush 41 , Bush 43) this would be POTUS#6 Adams -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since I don't have any evidence that John Quincy Adams was ever known as "Adams 6". -- Tavix (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Washington 1[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Redirect already under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 17#1166 Neelix redirects on Vermont Representative Districts. -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PTM. By the way, I am looking for such redirects following the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_20#Trump_45. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Having two simultaneous discussions regarding the same redirect is needlessly confusing. If you want, you can raise your concern at the other discussion, or wait until that discussion is closed if your concerns haven't been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin Thomas[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. 23:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed on the target page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made it a dab page in its own right. Nomination withdrawn. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The change to a disambiguation page was reverted by Bkonrad and the redirect to Benjamin Thomas reinstated. I've reverted to the version with the RfD banner, without prejudice, while discussion here continues. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Whiskey Jack[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Whiskey Jack

A.J. Styles and Kurt Angle[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY redirect: we can't redirect users to both A.J. Styles and Kurt Angle. Former article at this title was created by a sockpuppet and needn't be preserved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

€cherli Pass[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is a likely typo, and stats seem to confirm that (3 hits in 90 days). A quick Gsearch reveals it is used nowhere at all in the wild, except in one word list.

There are already several perfectly reasonable redirects to this target, such as Aecherli Pass and Acherli pass, and all seem to be reasonably rcatted. But surely we should discourage currency symbols used to substitute for letters (although we make exceptions for things like Micro$oft when they are frequently used in the wild). In any case this would presumably substitute for "E", and we don't have "Echerli Pass", etc.

The Euro symbol does move around a lot between different keyboard layouts, but we can't cater for every possible typo. (We don't have tzpo, for example, which I just typed instead of "typo" as I'm on a QWERTZ layout). Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

·𐑡𐑩𐑥𐑱𐑒𐑩 ·𐑐𐑤𐑱𐑯[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:RFOREIGN, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I don't have a font where these glyphs show up, but they're in the Shavian alphabet. The first one, it's marked as {{R from misspelling|·𐑡𐑩𐑥𐑱𐑒𐑩 ·𐑐𐑤𐑱𐑯}}), i.e. as spelled by the second one. They differ only in the fourth character: U+010471 (𐑱, "/eɪ/") in the first redirect and U+010472 (𐑲, "/aɪ/") in the second. The penultimate character is U+010471 in both cases. Since WP is organised by language not orthography, and we accept some WP:ENGVAR, and these are English, then I suppose they are in some sense acceptable alternative spellings, but that seems rather stretching it: we don't generally have redirects for IPA, various shorthands, and so on. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure why the middle dots (U+U+00B7, "·") are there after each word. That doesn't seem to be a character in the Shavian alphabet, but I'm no expert. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Very Confusing. Never ran across this alphabet before. The user that created these was enamoured with it for a while. The middle dots are interpuncts, and indicate capital letters. — Gorthian (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barrio Chino (Havana)[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 Havana#Barrio Chino. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Havana is not mentioned in the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Thryduulf to Havana#Barrio_Chino AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC) updated 02:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! Changing vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually placing it to Havana itself is a better link, given the other Barrio Chinos are going to city articles or district articles. Changing vote again. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Lua/Modules[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. Deryck C. 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all lua modules are high-risk. Pppery 04:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep for historical links per the redirect's creator. This was previously an active page prior to it being deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lua/Modules. Also, redirects in the "Wikipedia:" namespace are not always required to be useful search terms if the redirect has a specific historical benefit, such as this one does. (Other related examples are redirects left over from page moves if the leftover redirect was the former, longstanding name of the page; this redirect somewhat falls under that classification.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in two minds about this. It's absolutely true that not all Lua modules are high-risk, but that's not the reason that I created the redirect. The reason was that between April 2013 and May 2014 the "High-risk Lua modules" option in the protection reasons drop-down that admins see in the page-protection dialog was linked to Wikipedia:Lua/Modules, so all the edit summaries log entries for modules protected between those dates (i.e. most of them) linked to that page, and they can't be changed (at least not easily). The redirect was intended to give people clicking on those links a handy explanation of what "high-risk" means in relation to modules. The protection log entry appears both in the log pages and at the top of protected modules when you try to edit them, so it is fairly high-profile.

    Deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find information about high-risk modules, so I'm not in favour of that. However, I agree that the redirect isn't an obvious one, so just keeping it isn't ideal either. Perhaps we could make it into some kind of disambiguation page linking to both WP:Lua and WP:High-risk templates? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page given the multifaceted issues here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Squall (1993 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing that suggests The Scream (film) was ever titled or confused with The Squall. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Help:Dr. Sanjay Singh Negi[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 criterion G6 by Anthony Bradbury. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help pages shouldn't redirect to articles. Just the result of a confused page move ([1]) on August 16, 2016. 2600:1003:B84F:C889:6C25:D40F:54E1:AD72 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Infobox Government[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to some other template. Current target doesn't seem optimal. Prisencolin (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete possible targets are too vague. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'Governments' are not the same thing as 'government agencies', and I also think that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_27&oldid=1088108772"