Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 27[edit]

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

0.999[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. 12:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Although it is a short name, "0.999" is DEFINITELY NOT EQUAL TO "0.999...". 333-blue 23:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for two reasons. One, I don't think the number .999 (with a specific finite number of nines) has any sort of notability. Two, this number is also known as .999, which might get converted to this by some sort of formatting-stripper. Pppery 23:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - .9 redirects to 0.999... as well; .99 redirects to 99%; .9999 is red.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Yes, indeed, "0.999" is absolutely not the same thing as "0.999...", but we still have a gigantic family of redirects from incorrect names. I feel inclined to leave this redirect be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect is technically incorrect, but the target article is perfect to explain why that's the case. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 8 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.

Roman Catholics in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[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) 22:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to say about Roman Catholicism / Catholics in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. There isn't even a permanent population there. It makes no sense to redirect this to the Falkland Islands either, especially since it makes no mention of SGSSI. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 27 October 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.

Cis scum[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, G10. -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible, possible attackValentina Cardoso (talk) 21:42, 27 October 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.

List of politicians[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. 12:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who would search for this? This seems like a bad idea, even a list of lists of politicians is a bad idea considering how many hugely long articles that would result in. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a plausible search term; if we had List of lists of politicians that would be a more appropriate target, but there's no real equivalent at List of lists of lists#Government and politics (the nearest is Lists of office-holders, but that doesn't include unsuccessful politicians). These redirects are a service to the reader; it's better they land on the Politician page (which may not be what they're looking for, but is likely to contain links to what the reader is looking for) than just to get a blank screen with a 'You may create the page "List of politicians"' message. ("Hugely long article" isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided there's a sensible reason for the list to be a single hugely long sortable list rather than being split; take a look at List of townlands of County Mayo some time.) ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could, but that would be an WP:XNR. I wouldn't be against it on that principle, because to me categories and articles and redirects are all in reader facing space. So in principle I would say, yes, we could. In practice because that category is such a broad category, I am not sure it would be helpful to readers thus to do, there are only two pages in that category, Politician and Hereditary politicians. So as a navigational tool it doesn't seem to make sense to me thus to redirect this one, but in principle yes I think we should R to a category when it makes sense. but Delete this one, this one doesn't make sense to XNR that way, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:29, 27 October 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.

P:VPP[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) 21:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard psuedo-namespace prefix. Pppery 21:18, 27 October 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.

Voornaam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 4#Voornaam

Wikipedia:RfU[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 10#Wikipedia:RfU

Contraceptive Pill[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 (non-admin closure). Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is an unprintworthy redirect (incorrect capitalization) and unused (no incoming wikilinks). So let's take this opportunity to do some cleanup by deleting it. (I'm sure there will be objections, but I'd be interested in more than "redirects are cheap".) Senator2029 “Talk” 12:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This redirect appears to take the vast majority of readers to where they want to go, which is the purpose of a good redirect. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly good redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 2 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.

Ziyanid[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 as plausible alternative transcription. Deryck C. 12:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether this is a plausible redirect. A google search suggests that it is neither a common alternative name nor a common typo. Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so much a matter of typos as it is trying to fit a non-English language into English. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, especially given the fact the one of the "typos" ("i" for "a") is a more accurate rendition of the Arabic vowel, and the other one involves the omission of the doubling of "y", which in Arabic orthography is represented by an optional diacritic. – Uanfala (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: {{R from alternative transliteration}}? -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... do we use that for cases that aren't technically transliterations, but other kinds of romanisation, like transcription in this case? Or is the distinction not relevant for classifying redirects? – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 28 October 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.

Clutch Plague[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) 21:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unintentional hoax. See word changer for background—in brief, a joke browser extension can damage articles. If an editor inadvertently changes [[Great Depression]] to [[Clutch Plague]], it would be better for the new text to be shown as a red link as an alert that an error has been introduced. Keeping the redirect suggests that "Clutch Plague" is valid terminology when it is actually a hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a non-notable meme, nothing more. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An edit filter should probably created that warns editors about such unintentional changes. Pppery 19:51, 29 October 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.

Kim Mi-Sok[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) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mi-Sok 김미속 should be deleted per WP:R3 implausible typos. Sawol (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep leaving out one of two consecutive "o" in a non-English language sounds like a plausible mistake. Unless there are "Kim Mi-Soks" covered on Wikpedia, this should be ok. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Patar knight, give attention to the family name. Sawol (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider that since AFAIK the "m" doesn't really affect pronunciation in a noticeable way unlike changing up vowels. My !vote stands. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you prefer, Ki Mi-sook or Kim Mi-sook? Kim Mi-Sok will only confuse the matter. Sawol (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sawol has demonstrated that this title can be a plausible typo of the names of at least two different people and we don't have a topic that is correctly referred to as "Kim Mi-Sok". Deryck C. 12:29, 10 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.

2004 Republican Presidential Nominee[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 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 and Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone search for those terms, if not deleted, retarget to George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000. We don't have 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee, for example. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:04, 27 October 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.

Hillary Diane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 14#Hillary Diane

H. Clinton[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) 21:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY There are multiple people that this can refer to, per the dab at Clinton. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Clinton dab page. I'm not sure if the candidate is known in this moniker to warrant as the primary target so I think it's better to retarget here instead. --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former Secretary Clinton is not known as "H Clinton"; that's both clunky and unhelpful. I would delete that one. The other redirect is a distinct case. I suppose I'm neutral on it, although I see a good argument for just leaving it alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as useful shortcuts. For multiple reasons, we have a lot of US presidents from the same family or otherwise sharing a last name, and it's not very uncommon to use initials to disambiguate. Also see CHEAP. Mihirpmehta (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This contradicts MOS:INITIALS "Only use initials in a personal name if the name is commonly written that way. " and WP:MIDDLENAME. "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are about use in articles and article titles, not redirects. Many useful redirects wouldn't follow MOS or article naming guidelines. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Patar knight - I don't believe INITIALS has anything to do with the redirect policy. Mihirpmehta (talk) 03:58, 31 October 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_October_27&oldid=1088108556"