Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2016.

Ancient Greek 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 retarget to Ancient Greece#Government and law.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A strange redirect. I can't imagine that it's helpful to anyone: civilisation is a much broader topic than anyone looking for an article on ancient Greek government would reasonably expect to find, and ancient Greece is mentioned a bare few times on that page. (Bizarrely, talk:Ancient Greek Government redirects to talk:Ancient history, which only serves to make the situation more confusing.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:22, 18 September 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.

Help:Wikipedia:Edit summary[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) 16:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with duplicate namespace prefix. Viewed only once over the past month. Pppery 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the previous discussion. Nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I wasn't aware of when I nominated this. Pppery 02:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While these are awkward, I'm at least somewhat persuaded by the arguments in the past discussion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:44, 25 September 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.

Cochin carnival[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already moved from here. Name only differ in letter casing. only_nonsense (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep plausible {{r from miscapitalization}} to a target that was just recently moved. Pppery 14:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very good idea to keep it because of the capitalization. Some may forget the C in carnival, therefore the re-direct comes in handy. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was moved only half an hour after it was created and that's barely enough time for the old title to have been picked up by (or stuck around in) any external site, so the usual rationale for keeping {{R from move}}'s doesn't hold here. My own personal opinion is that such redirects should be deleted per WP:COSTLY. However, there have been similar discussions in the past (including ones for redirects nominated by me), often with sensible arguments being presented for and against keeping. My impression is that the outcome each time has been a seemingly random event, the result of the particular configuration of users who happened to have participated. What I think this means is that such discussions are virtually pointless. My own strategy has been to leave such redirects alone, and if they seem too pesky (for example, if there are too many of them pointing to a given target) I tag them for speedy deletion per WP:G6 (or was that WP:R3?); should that get declined, I don't bother taking them here. Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pppery. This redirect is WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ppperry and WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:17, 24 September 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.

Magic Mohawk[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 00:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable nickname, not a plausible redirect. LM2000 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 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.

Leader of the Altitude Era[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 00:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the deleted Dawn of the Altitude Era, too obscure to be a plausible redirect. LM2000 (talk) 07:21, 18 September 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.

Extreme Giant[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 00:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ONLY relevant search result is ONE article on WWE.com. The creator has a history of creating unnecessary re-directs for non-notable, unofficial nicknames, one off insults, etc. for wrestlers. Creator was also recently topic banned for said behavior. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 04:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not a notable nickname. Not a helpful redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best, this falls under the "harmless/useless" category, it doesn't seem that it would find its way into the search bar.LM2000 (talk) 07:23, 18 September 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.

BOQ (AM)[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) 16:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a typo created during a move of the target article to its present title. I don't think it's a common enough typo to merit retaining as a redirect. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Housekeeping. No such radio station with just the three letters like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since WBOK exists, and thus confusion may happen due to this redirect's existence. (If WBOK didn't exist, I would have said "weak keep" due to lack of ambiguity.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 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.

Chinese Army[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 People's Liberation Army and keep, respectively. Target article will get a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These have different targets, but I'm unsure which is better for they should refer to the same target, hence I'm listing it here. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target both to People's Liberation Army since that's the broader article that discusses the ground and non-ground forces in context CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target both to People's Liberation Army per CoffeeWithMarkets. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Why would the Chinese Army be the people's liberation army? There have been plenty of Chinese Armies over the millenia. (How can you find Chinese Armies -- they're at the ends of their wristies. Sorry couldn't resist). would someone searching for Chinese Army want to get this article? Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the present day army is likely to be the primary topic for this search term, but there should be an easy way to reach other Chinese army's but I'm unable to find any useful article, list, disambig, set index or category that fulfils this purpose. Military history of China and Military history of China before 1911 are the closest but wouldn't make great targets as someone wanting any specific use, particularly the contemporary armies of the PRC and ROC, would not find it easy to find their desired reading. Accordingly I think the People's Liberation Army is the best target in the absence of a list, disambig or set index. I will relist this discussion (as your point deserves fuller consideration than is likely on this page) and alert the China and Milhist wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target both to Military of China (disambiguation) This seems like a reasonable solution here. "Chinese army" is ambiguous" and it would refer to multiple entities. This disambiguation page is the possibly the best match I could find. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of outcome, there should be merged. Preference would be for the first one given examples such as Russian Army (disambiguation) and German Army (disambiguation) for consistency. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically sure, but they're primarily known as the Taiwanese army (added 15:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)). A hatnote to a DAB page (say, Chinese Army (disambiguation)), would be sufficient. Wikipedia has had PRC at China and ROC at Taiwan for a very long time now. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to People's Liberation Army. After perusing List of militaries, it seems the standard is actually to redirect to the overall armed forces of a country when that armed forces has "army" in its name as well as a discrete ground branch of the military (e.g. Chadian army, Czech army, North Korean army, Libyan army). For consistency, the same should apply here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Military of China (disambiguation) or possibly create new article titled "Chinese Army". I will also add that the current redirect amounts to incredible WP:RECENTISM as the PLA was only founded in the 20th century, and ignores the various military forces of historic states associated with China.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic all redirects like Italian army, Egyptian army, South African army, etc. would all be DAB pages since national armies only formally came into being after the advent of strong, centralized states and they ignore the various historic states associated with their countries. The primary topic for all these types of redirects is the current organization, and all of their current targets have appropriate hatnotes, sections, etc. to historical armies or other relevant uses. In this specific case, the military forces of the imperial dynasties are more appropriate referred to by dynastic names (e.g. Ming army, Qing army, etc.).---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig page China is ambiguous as their are two of them, perhaps make it a disambiguation page for taiwanese army and PRC's army?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iazyges (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes, but the longstanding consensus on Wikipedia has been to have PRC as China and ROC as Taiwan, because those are how the two countries are primarily referred to as and Wikipedia should be consistent---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:23, 23 September 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_September_18&oldid=1138581339"