Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 3, 2016.

User:Example/Oney Anwar[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The result of the discussion was delete the first three; fourth withdrawn. JohnCD (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary redirects as part of a general cleanup of Wikipedia's example pages. Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep User:Example/Sandbox as a plausible capitalization difference, but add indefinite full protection to the page (and maybe its target as well) to prevent the redirect being overwritten as a sandbox page (see the page's history for more details.) Delete the rest per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 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 Scott Block Theatre[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Neelix redirect) per WP:THE. While the target said it is AKA The Scott Block, a Neelix R which I have tagged as {{R from nickname}} for keeps, we don't usually have "The" in the names of things unless they are specifically so-called. I moved on the list to the X1 section (per WP:X1) but user:Tazerdadog removed it from that section with this edit and summary " I'd like to see these two have an Rfd" – in which case, that user should have raised the RfD rather than simply remove it, where it could easily have got "lost" as a "keep" by default. Si Trew (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:THE is for article titles, not redirects. While we wouldn't title the article "The Scott Block Theatre", it's still common vernacular to use the 'the', thus making it a useful redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We must assume basic competence for people looking up an encylopaedia. Only people in cartoons file everything under "The". Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm a cartoon character then. I'd totally be fine with that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have a better filing system than that. I file everything either under "W" or "M". "W" is for "whisky" and "M" is for "Miscellaneous". Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The wording at WP:THE is inconsistent, there. The lede starts "Introduction: This article is about naming conventions for Wikipedia articles..." but the next para says "Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a"/"an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia page only if ..." (my emphases) and continues to say page name not article name nor article title. "Page name" to me means any page on Wikipedia, not just the names of articles. For if not, say "article name" or "article title".
WP:THE is also self-contradictory in calling itself an article. As far as I understand in the Wikipedia sense, articles are pages in mainspace that are not redirects. WP:THE is a guideline or a policy or an essay (things that exist in WP space), it is not an article. Someone was nodding there, especially because of the use of "article" to mean the definite article or indefinite article in the same sentence of referring to itself as an "article", which it isn't. I suppose I can propose a merge into the article at The, but I needn't labour the point. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I edited WP:THE to fix the problem.[1] Please double check the page to make sure that I didn't introduce any new errors. In particular, please look for any places where it isn't clear whether "article" means Wikipedia article, definite article, or indefinite article. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with that edit you've pissed on User:Tavix' bonfire. Tavix, I think believed that policy was about articles whereas I believed it was about pages generally. That's quite a harsh change without having WP:CONSENSUS. I could have just been WP:BOLD and done it myself, but I think that Tavix and I have different views on what WP:THE covers, and that is how we achieve consensus (or in this case it is probably not going to be cos only Tavix and I shall probably be bothered to argue over it). Please remember to sign your posts, User:Guy Macon. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: no, not at all. Quite the opposite, actually. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the opposite? Is that tantamount to saying you agree with the WP:BOLD change? If so, your argument about article titles is subject to defenestration, i.e. goes out the window, because you said up top "Keep WP:THE is for article titles, not redirects". Am I being particularly obscure here or particularly clear-minded? If you agree to the change, your !vote stands as nonsense, since patently it is a page and so WP:THE applies to that page, according to the current version of WP:THE. I still don't think it's right that if someone don't like a policy they change the policy, that goes against WP:CONSENSUS. How strange. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Yes, I agree with Guy's change and yes, WP:THE only applies to Wikipedia article titles. These things aren't mutually exclusive. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only take what I see, User:Tavix and User:Guy Macon. When Guy changes it to say "page" not "article" then it applies to all pages including redirects. I think we should take this discussion to WT:THE or somewhere, don't you? We're not really disussing this particular redirect here but the policy in general. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's NOT what his edit did, he changed "page" to "Wikipedia article", and it was simply for clarification purposes because you were confused about it. There has been ZERO change in policy. 12:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Guy's edit was in line with the well-established clear consensus that WP:THE doesn't and shouldn't apply to redirects. Sideways713 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, this issue was already settled at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2#RfC: Apply this Guideline to Redirects. Also see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)/Archive 2#articles or pages. And yes, after ten years and 30,000 edits, I do understand the difference between editing a page to be consistent with existing policy and attempting to set a new policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using "The Scott Block" as a nickname has led to articles where the venue has the "The" in front. Some articles show it as a lower-case while others use upper-case. So keep for convenience in searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I said I had tagged and marked The Scott Block as a keep, when I nommed it. There is an AKA in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE for that, but not for Scott Block,. which I shall nominate separately. You can't have it both ways: this is not about that redirect,I didn't nominate that redirect, I nominated The Scott Block Theatre. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nommed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_4#Scott_Block. You can't combine these, because the "The" is the thing that sticks out like an opposable digit with high blood pressure, something has to give here. Si Trew (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If "The Scott Block" is a nickname with some legs, then this redirect here makes sense. It's merely going "Nickname of Person + Institution Strongly Associated With That Person". That's helpful. If there was to be a museum dedicated just to rock band The Who, then 'The Who Museum' would be a perfectly reasonable redirect. Same for The Edge / 'The Edge Museum', The Alan Parsons Project / 'The Alan Parsons' Project Museum', or whatever else. If John Wayne had a museum (maybe), then we could have 'The Duke Museum', and that would make great sense.
I understand the concern about supercilious usage of 'The' where it's not needed, and unhelpful redirects being made, but this is a distinct case. Most individuals, institutions, and the like aren't known as 'The ____' as a popular nickname or semi-official title. There are lot of 'queens' and 'mothers' in the world, but there's only one iconic 'The Queen Mother' (at least in recent memory). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:04, 5 October 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.

Mrs. Bill 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 retarget and keep, sort of. Of course, it's not a true retarget, because the destination article remains the same. But the section redirect is removed from the first item. Readers can still find more specific information in the article, but this remains a valid, if somewhat antiquated, name for Hillary Clinton. And while the "Later Arkansas years" section is probably fairly stable at this point, we needn't worry about the section redirect breaking if it's renamed. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a brief disclaimer, this nomination is not aimed at deleting this redirect, but rather whether or not it should remain redirected to Hillary Clinton#Later Arkansas years or be retargeted to just Hillary Clinton again, without the redirect to the section. --Nevé–selbert 14:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added the section to the nomination. Incidentally, it's marked as {{R from pseudonym}}, but it's not really a pseudonym, {{R from married name}} may be more appropriate. (It's also correctly marked as {{R to section}}.) Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to top of article. Presumably meant to refer to the subject generally as an alternate title, not a named subsection in particular. @Neve-selbert: this is a fine use for a redirect discussion, deletion is not assumed here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it stands. The text says " During her husband's campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters". Since that is the only thing we have that shows her self-identifying this way, and although redirects don't have to be neutral, removing it to the top of the article makes it seem more pejorative (the "little woman") than it is if she self-identified as that. Most of the references I found on a Gsearch are using it in a pejorative sense, though they are Twitter rubbish &c. and not WP:RS in any way (redirects don't have to be, but then it should probably go to List of nicknames for Hillary Clinton or something like that, but I couldn't find anyhing). Unfortunately, the statement at the current target isn't referenced either, so that weakens my "keep" a bit. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_4#Mrs Bill Clinton (without the full stop/period), which I imagine we will want to take the same way as whatever we decide here. I hesitate to combine because they are on different days, and it's not my nom, but I don't mind if someone else does. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC) User:BDD combined them here. There is nothing to see, folks, nothing to see, at the other, we're doing the two together. Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as redirect from self identified married name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it stands right now, although this is a tricky situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that Mrs Bil Clinton without the fullstop/period doesn't R to section just the head of the article. If kept they should probqbly bth go the sqme way. Sodding belgiqn keyboqrd. Si Trew (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew: Personally, I believe that Mrs Bill Clinton should be deleted rather than retargeted alongside Mrs. Bill Clinton. Pretty much nobody outside of North America has referred to her with that, and in British English there is no full stop (period) after Mrs, unlike in American English.--Nevé–selbert 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true. I am British and occasionally speak British English. Fowler certainly would say its shouldn't have the stop, on the rationale that you don!t stop after the last letter, so "Co." should have a stop but "Coy" (rather oldfashioned, I know) should not, because the "y" is the last letter, and "mrs" assuming it is short for "mistress", which is itself rather disputed, the "s" is the last letter and doesn't need a stop. But actually most British people do use the stop. (And Mr Speaker is stopped always in British Hansard as Mr. Speaker.) There's not really a WP:ENGVAR here. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 6 October 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.

AWH Engineering College, Kozhikode[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12#AWH Engineering College, Kozhikode

Darby Llewellyn[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A completely meaningless redirect. Although Darby Llewellyn is currently playing for the Kitchener Rangers, it makes no sense for his "article" to redirect to the team page. WikiPancake ✉ 📖 13:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- per nom. WikiPancake ✉ 📖 14:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as {{R with possibilities}}, {{R from person}}. Mentioned at the target (in a table of current players), but all of the other players in that table have red links. It was created as an extremely stubby article but converted into a redirect four minutes later, at 02:34, 18 September 2015, by User:Erpert. This is the creator User:NickStoogey's only contribution to WP. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Si Trew. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unremarkable player that has made no lasting, significant contributions to this team. The only place he's currently mentioned is the current roster. As a junior team, there's heavy turnover in the roster, so there's no reason to assume that he'll always be mentioned at the target article. More likely, he'll shift to other teams, creating an WP:XY situation until/unless he becomes notable enough for an article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NHOCKEY and per Tavix. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if he's not notable by WP:NHOCKEY standards, there doesn't need to be a redirect whenever he moves around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NHOCKEY as above. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not too familiar with the conventions when it comes to these kinds of athletes. However, there's still the central thing that while Darby Llewellyn may be well-known, that's not the same thing as being notable. It seems best to just delete the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:45, 6 October 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.

File:Building with trees.jpg[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 criterion G6 by RHaworth. The page on Commons is now visible. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 3 October 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.

File:AF1.jpg[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 criterion G6 by RHaworth. The page on Commons is now visible. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect shadowing commons file. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 3 October 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.

File:Nin hyderabad.jpg[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 criterion G7. Deleted by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative file name Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't have an opinion either way. If common practice is to delete these, then it ought to be deleted. I didn't suppress a redirect when acting on Sfan00's file rename request because it didn't seem to fit any of the usual criteria listed at WP:PMRC. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 13:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Duplicative to what? Commons:File:Nin Hyderabad.jpg doesn't exist, so this redirect isn't eligible for {{Db-redircom}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: I'm assuming (sorry if I'm wrong) that Sfan00 IMG is referring to it being too similarly titled to File:NIN hyderabad.jpg. That was the justification that I used for the move, under WP:FNC#7, to disambiguate it from that similarly titled file. I still don't know if that justifies deleting the redirect, but it doesn't matter to me either way. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 03:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, it is not going to avoid any WP:RFD#D2 confusion if the {{R from page move}} to it still exists, is it? So let's have CSD per WP:G7 author requests deletion. I've referred back to here. In the meantime I've changed the link in the R so the pic doesn't come up at the R (by changing File: to :File:); if the CSD or RfD results in a keep we need to remove that (don't forget!) Si Trew (talk) 12:44, 4 October 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.

首爾國立大學附属病院虐殺[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:R#D8 unlikely synonym. These are Wikipedian-invented names that appear nowhere on the internet besides Wikipedia mirrors. The terminology in the redirects is a dog's breakfast — they use the Korean word for "hospital" but the Chinese word for "university" (the same word also works in Korean, except it's not the actual one used by Seoul National University) and two Chinese exonyms for Seoul the first of which wasn't invented until decades after this massacre occurred — and these titles doesn't even exist as redirects on Chinese Wikipedia. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:36, 3 October 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:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Sandbox/Associates[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, G6, by Sphilbrick. -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are implausible and inappropriate for they repeat the same namespace. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per policy, as the original titles/URLs are in error, and all that is needed is the correct title/URL. Softlavender (talk)
What policy? Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G6. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot - Why in gods name wasn't these speedied per G6 ? .... No need for a discussion....., Obviously all implausible. –Davey2010Talk 12:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all No need for discussion these are mistakes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:23, 3 October 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.

LVs & Autotune[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, with encouragement to Si to write his essay on why redirects are important. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This mixtape is insignificant enough to not be mentioned in the article. Therefore, there shouldn't be a redirect for this mixtape. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tavix reverted the CSD because "the "A" prefix is for articles only, not redirects". I don't want to make a big deal of this. Tavix is technically correct, and the only reason Twinkle let me CSD it as that is because when something has an RfD tag on it is techincally no longer a redirect but an article, so yes it was a bit of a gamble to list it as WP:A9 and in some sense swindling the software to do it thus. But more generally, redirect titles look like article titles in a search, they are in the same namespace and in most search tools they are presented as if they were articles. My stance is geerally that naming conventions for WP:article titles should apply also to redirects for that reason. Of course there are exceptions for {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from other punctuation}} and so on. I think somewhere else, a long time ago, I said I should like the rcats to be subdivided into "wrong" and "good" redirects. Things like {{R from incorrect name}} or {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} are there primarily to alert editors that any article linking thereto should be changed (and I would hope a bot could do that alert), whereas things like {{R from other name}} or {{R from other language}} are "good" in that they enable people to search in different ways. I just take the stance generally that "Were this an article, would it make sense as a title?" and go from there, so I do think that WP:Article titles applies to the "good" redirects, obviously the "bad" ones such as {{R from misspelling}} by definition are going to fail those and can be argued each to each whether they are likely misspellings and so on. Over the years I have become somwehat of a deletionist regarding redirects, because they can sometimes "block" people searching things (e.g. they get taken somewhere WP:SURPRISEing like "List of" probably does). That is because I see redirects as pretty much the first and most important indexing tool that this encyclopaedia has, and the most important one, which is why I argue very vigorously about maintaining it properly. We are the index, folks'. we are the index to the encyclopaedia. Not categories or portals or wikiprojects or navboxes or anything, we are the first and foremost and most visible index – and the most invisible, since if we get our job right most people won't even realise they have gone through a redirect. That's a bit off-topic and I should probably write an essay about why redirects are important. User:Tavix thinks it is important, because that user will almost certainly disagree with anything I propose, but that is because that user cares as much about redirects as I do. That's a bloody good thing because not many people seem to, but we have three times as many redirects as we have articles, and only a small crew of regulars that sort them out, with experts such as User:Plantdrew and others that we can call in on particular areas, but we shouldn't over-exercise them since Rs are not their primary concern. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 5 October 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_October_3&oldid=1088108532"