Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2016.

Wagner[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. Should have been WP:SNOWed much earlier.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wagner (disambiguation) since this is a common family name --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment question is whether Wagner carries the primary topic in music as with Beethoven, Mozart and Bach. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: people link Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Verdi, Wagner, meaning the composers. To find the tight person in a sea of names would make things needlessly difficult. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Richard Wagner is the overwhelming primary topic for this term. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The composer is clearly the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b. If a change is made, the disambiguation page should rather be moved to plain "Wagner". See WP:MALPLACED. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although "Wagner" is a more common surname than Brahms, Mozart, Puccini or Schubert, the composer is the name's sole holder who is referenced in a general context by that single name. He is also the sole Wagner who has an adjective created from his name — Wagnerian — which, in the same manner as Wagner, redirects to Richard Wagner. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by usage; e.g. out of my first 20 hits in Google Books, 18 are about him. Furthermore, the two books that aren't (one about Honus Wagner and one about Otto Wagner) both use full names in the title, whereas the books about Richard are mostly titled just with his surname. (A rare case of an {{R from surname}} actually pointing to a primary topic, rather than just being a years-old leftover pointing to a random football player). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm going against my instincts here, but I'm persuaded that Wagner's international fame and lasting influence is strong enough (and documented by so many reliable sources) that we have a clear case of a 'primary target'. As stated above, we have the likes of Mozart, Puccini, et al as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be the primary topic and also the hatnote can easily direct our readers to the dab page if necessary --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 12 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.

Billie Campbell[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 Glen Campbell#Relationships and children. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 30#Wills Campbell, this should be deleted too. There's no one named "Billie" at the target page, and since Billie is predominantly (only?) a feminine name, this is likely to be the case indefinitely. BDD (talk) 16:34, 6 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.

Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing, S.J.[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) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Neelix redirect I am unsure of. I am not sure because this redirect includes the bishop's title S.J. Do we create redirects with the religious title in their name? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no titles unless that's their common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was being used then I'd recommend it be kept as a plausible search term but with exactly 3 hits between 1 January and 28 August I don't think there is evidence to support that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no such rule that an official rule can't be in a redirect. Per WP:AT, official titles only disallowed on article titles proper.--Prisencolin (talk)<
  • Keep; this is what a redirect is for: to use even a non-compliant title to guide a searcher to the right article. — Gorthian (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the S.J. part really necessary? most searchers will type in Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing and will be able to find him from there. Unless there are news articles that regularly use the S.J. part? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Absent higher usage than one hit per just under three months, it's costly. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:13, 13 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.

The second part of multiple two-headed boys[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 split decision: delete those that began with "2headed" or "Twoheaded" or those that lack some variation of "part two", keep the last two, and no consensus on the others. Since these were all so similar, I don't blame the nominator for a batch nomination, though this still ended up being at least a train fender-bender. No prejudice against speedy renomination for any of those that remain, and I'll be amenable to respectful requests to restore those that don't (and they, in turn, may also be renominated). --BDD (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Headed Boy Pt. Two is a song on In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel. For some reason, on one day in 2014 HeinzzzderMannn felt the need to create dozens of redirects based on incorrect variations on the title. I will accept that there may be a case for keeping one or two of these, but not all of them.  — Scott • talk 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except the real song title someone searching for the real title will be impeded by all these variants. "Two-headed boy" already goes to the album, and so would a second part. Retain only the real song title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the four that end with "Boy Pt. Two" and delete the rest as implausible searches that clutter the search bar for no good reason. So that means 2headed Boy Pt. Two, Twoheaded Boy Pt. Two and the last two are okay. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm okay with that.  — Scott • talk 19:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those that start "2headed" and "twoheaded", keep the rest as likely search terms for someone who knows the title but not how it is styled. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:TRAINWRECK alert. I'd like to encourage all participants in this discussion to make their positions explicit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the four that end with "Boy Pt. Two" and delete the rest per Patar knight. OK BDD ;)  — Scott • talk 16:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seven: the four that end with "Boy Pt. Two," per the reasoning above, and also Two Headed Boy Part Two, Two-Headed Boy Part 2, and Two Headed Boy Part 2. When the song's title is said aloud it is not obvious that "Two-Headed" is hyphenated nor that "Two" is spelled out, so I think these three are quite plausible search terms. (For that matter, it's not obvious that "Pt." is abbreviated. If we wind up keeping these latter three, I think we ought to also create Two-Headed Boy Part Two, which I'm rather surprised to see doesn't already exist; it seems more obvious than quite a few on this list.) Delete the rest as implausible per above. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2Headed Boy 2, Two Headed Boy Two, Two Headed Boy 2 and Twoheaded Boy 2 due to being partial title matches that are quite unlikely since the subject referenced in these redirects is a song title, weak delete all titles that start with "2headed" or "2Headed" (the titles that start with "2" that do not have the "2" and "headed" separated by a space or a dash) since the phrase typed as so is quite unlikely since the song's title doesn't ever seem to be stylized in that manner, weak keep all of the rest due to them being plausible variations of the name of the song (including the ones starting with "Twoheaded" with no space.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 7 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.

Socio-economies[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 all.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some web searches, it doesn't seem this term is actually used anywhere. Even if it was, I'm not sure that it would mean socioeconomics anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: N.b. These are Neelix creations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See socioeconomy. — Gorthian (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep socioeconomy, Delete all others. Iazyges (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Socio-economy" and "socioeconomy" given the respected, academic use of the term (this source credits it going back decades to American Sociological Review). The line-up between the redirect's meaning and the target page concept's meaning are not exact but still highly related. I'm neutral on "socio-economies" and "socioeconomies", although I wouldn't really oppose deleting them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:05, 8 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.

Raphael Warnock[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 13#Raphael Warnock

Men of War - Wiki[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 01:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really meet a reason to keep or delete in WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?, but certainly doesn't have the section presupposed in the article history, and certainly wouldn't in the future assuming the target had better quality. Of doubtful usefulness, and anyone searching for an mow wiki is doubtless going to find either the wiki(a) in question or our Wikipedia page. Izno (talk) 13:07, 6 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.

IPhone 7[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, G4. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion. There's still no official announcement (yet) and there's still no sourced content about the iPhone 7 at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, likely to mislead readers. I didn't G4 it because I did do that before, and the page was create protected until a few days ago. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4. Nothing is substantially different, so the prior discussion still applies.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:52, 6 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.

埃及野菜[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 01:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by the same editor as モロヘイヤ, for which I believe Mulukhiyah might be a better target. But I don't see any reason to keep this. Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never heard of this in Japanese, and it's not in any dictionary I checked. But a Google search shows some usage on Chinese web sites. Cnilep (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RFFL @Cnilep: Yes this is Simplified Chinese. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 6 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.

モロヘイヤ[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 01:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is a Japanese "transliteration" (if that's the correct term is for this language pair) of the Arabic ملوخية. Aside from the plant Corchorus, we have Mulukhiyah as a vegetable dish that is en.wiki's transliteration of the Arabic. Multiple targets, no reason to keep improbable cross language term. Plantdrew (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • モロヘイヤ is the Japanese name for the plant when it's used as a vegetable. I haven't heard the word used for jute. On the other hand, ja:モロヘイヤ is a redirect to an article on Corchorus olitorius, where the Arabic name ملوخية‎ (mulūkhīya) also appears. Cnilep (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing about this plant is particularly Japanese. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think that we have clear precedent that we should be following for these kinds of redirects. This should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 21:56, 11 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.

Death warrant (disambiguation)[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 01:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 Death warrant was a disambiguation page. In 2011, it was redirected to Execution warrant, which is not a DAB but includes a hatnote. Later in 2011 RussBot EmausBot fixed the double redirect. This 'R to disambiguation' is therefore misleading & unnecessary. I recommend deleting it. Cnilep (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A redirect with "(disambiguation)" in the title should only redirect to the same title without the parenthetical. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. — Gorthian (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two dabs, doesn't need the (disambiguation) parenthetical. Death warrant -> Execution warrant is clearly the primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 8 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.

Wikipedia:IAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#Wikipedia:IAP

Blood in the water movie[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, and move reverted. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because 1. the target is now redirected to Blood in the Water (2009 film), because there is a 2016 film of the same title that comes out today, see IMDb 2. If anybody starts to type "Blood in the water" in their search bar they will see the film there. 3. We don't need to have all combinations of capitalization (water/Water), brackets (film/(film)) and movie/film. We indeed don't have any other, just this one, and I think it is superfluous too. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but fix double redirect). Firstly this is a {{R from move}} which are normally kept. Secondly, until such time as there is a page for the 2016 film, this is unambiguously the correct target for what is obviously a useful search term. If/when an article about the 2016 film is created, then it should be retargetted to the Blood in the Water disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debresser, did you mean to nominate Blood in the Water (film) instead? That's the one you put the RFD notification on. There's no template on Blood in the water movie.— Gorthian (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. thanks! Fixed that now. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: your suggestion doesn't work since Blood in the Water (2016 film) doesn't exist. Per WP:G8, any redirect to a non-existent target will be deleted. Are you advocating for deletion then? -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's only if the 2016 film is notable enough to create an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:02, 7 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.

Ben Shutron[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) 16:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY; see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli Joeykai (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I totally agree with Joeykai, especially after reading the Rfd he mentioned. I marked the page as reviewed to take it off the queue. I have it watchlisted and will make sure the results of the discussion are implemented.WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:42, 6 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_6&oldid=1088108253"