Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2017.

Elizabeth Hourihane[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 Direct Democracy Ireland#National Citizens Movement. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent section. This individual sued Irish Water, but I suspect someone familiar with her already knows this, so the redirect is unlikely to be useful. If it's kept, it may be better pointed at Direct Democracy Ireland#National Citizens Movement, since it's not uncommon to redirect non-notable people to notable organizations they found. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2017 (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.

Fusion (music)[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 both Category:Fusion music genres as the most plausible solution for now. Creation of a new broad topic article is encouraged. Deryck C. 11:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical fusion is not limited to jazz. I had forgotten, but this actually came up at AfD a few years back, and yours truly closed the discussion as delete. BDD (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added Fusion music to this nomination. This currently targets Category:Fusion music genres, which in my opinion isn't a bad target. but I think the two should be discussed together. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In colloquial speech, "fusion music" certainly is not limited to jazz. This is one of the reasons I instinctively felt it weird that it would redirect to that topic. I know nothing beyond that; I'm not a musicologist or well studied in that area by any means. Wolfdog (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are two questions to consider. First, if "fusion music" or "fusion (music)" are susceptible to multiple meanings, is there still a primary topic among them. Second, if there are multiple meanings without one of those meanings being a primary topic, are we missing a WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the more general meaning of "fusion" in music? bd2412 T 15:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think there's a primary topic. The article I deleted was argued to be full of OR and V violations, rather than the topic itself being non-notable (at least that was my reading as closer), so starting again is an option. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wanted to read an article about Fusion (music) today and was pretty surprised when Wikipedia wanted to redirect med to Jazz fusion. I think it would be better to redirect to Category:Fusion music genres. Otherwise we risk people believing that fusion is limited to jazz when it comes to music. //Sofie Sigrinn (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2017 (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.

Brian Harmon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 15#Brian Harmon

46 DC EA D3[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly obscure redirect. Pretty sure this has something to do with the private key, but since I'm not sure I don't want to speedy it out of process. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the description at File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg, the lead image for the article, makes it clear that this is indeed the start of the private key. If the key were present in the article, then I would have no hesitation in keeping the redirect (I just found the AACS encryption key controversy article via the 09 F9 redirect for example) but as it isn't I'm not sure. Given that there has been no discussion on the talk page about including the key or not, and we publish it in the file description and also include the key at the AACS controversy article, I'm tempted to just add it but I would prefer to see other opinions first. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (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.

Communist era[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 15#Communist era

Did you know (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 Retarget to Did You Know. The proposed target in this nomination Did you know, is a redirect to Did You Know. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this be retargetted to Did you know when the disambiguation page at that title is almost certainly restored (see #Did you know below), see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 4#Did you know when Did you know was changed from a redirect to DYK to a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2017 (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.

Biggest house[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTRIVIA. That, and describing the target as a "house" may be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (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.

Biggest ikan bilis[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 biggest delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem helpful due to the use of the word "biggest". Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, without even getting to the question of the title including the word "biggest". Largoplazo (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2017 (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.

Israelo-russe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Israelo-russe

United States Executive Order 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 retarget to Executive order#History and use. Consider this withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Executive order#History and use. "Executive Order 1" would simply be the first executive order issued by George Washington. However, they don't seem to be officially numbered until Herbert Hoover's presidency, so the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't actually have an official number (that I'm aware of). -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Executive order#History and use. As orders are numbered it is very plausible that someone will use this search term to find what the first one was, the history section of the article about them explains why it isn't really known what the first one was. We do have a List of United States federal executive orders but the earliest entry in that list is from 1836, 40 years after George Washington (who issued the first 8) left office, so I think it's a less useful target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose this suggestion. There isn't even any mention of a first executive order there, so whatever information someone would be looking for is not at that target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed that by adding a sentence about what the Washinton Times calls the first [1]. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. It still wouldn't be called "United States Executive Order 1", so I'm still wary about a retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting to Executive order#History and use. The numbering system was set up by the State Department in 1907, and they deliberately numbered executive orders retroactively back to the Lincoln Administration, and no further back.[2][3]. However, Executive Order 1 was not the Emancipation Proclamation. See here. Executive Order 1 was issued October 20, 1862: "provisional court established to function during the military occupation of Louisiana; Charles A. Peabody appointed judge and compensation of officers specified". I have edited the Wikipedia article about executive orders accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is a perfect example of what makes Wikipedia great. I wanted to know about something and was disappointed when I couldn't find it, even making incorrect assumptions based on what I did find. Other people come through and fill in the gaps, and I learned what I wanted to learn in the process. Thanks, both of you, for your work in making this happen. I withdraw my objections to a retarget and am now satisfied that someone in the future won't have a confused moment like I did when trying to figure this out. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. But I didn't mean to give you a rosy view of Wikipedia. There are BIG and PERSISTENT problems here, alas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. I could see a couple alternative targets but that one's not bad. Emancipation Proclamation, however, is definitely wrong. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2017 (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.

Rock anthem[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 a clear consensus against deletion but a less clear consensus about the ideal target for this redirect. I note that the last suggestion was unrebutted. That seems the most plausible target to me, too. But I am retargetting as an ordinary-editor action. Further discussion about potential retargetting should be continued on the redirect's Talk page. Rossami (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Arena rock which is what anthem rock redirects to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKellymoat (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Arena rock per AngusWOOF. "Anthem rock" is also mentioned as a synonym there. Google search results are flooded with hits for Party Rock Anthem, but I don't think that partial title match is a good target, because I don't think it is referred to without "party". — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDo not retarget to Arena rock. I might be misunderstanding something, and if that is the case please let me know, but a "rock anthem" is a kind of anthem, while "anthem rock" is a kind of rock and I can't see how one should ever be redirected to the other. – Uanfala (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to anthem, which explains that "[t]he word "anthem" is now commonly used to describe any celebratory song or composition for a distinct group". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to anthem per NCFF. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2017 (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.

Resignation of Richard Nixon[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 withdrawn and retarget speech related redirects per consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend retarget, all to SP 3-125: Presidential Address Announcing His Intention to Resign the Oval Office. --Nevé–selbert 17:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I shall have to oppose such a move. The topic is the resignation itself (which occurred just before Noon EST on August 9, 1974), not the resignation announcement/address which occurred in the evening of August 8, 1974. There's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) *Keep. The current target (actually the "Final investigations and resignation" section of Watergate scandal) gives lots more background information about the resignation than the article about the speech, which is essentially just the final part of a long process. The speech article is linked from the present target so users actually wanting that can easily find it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comment was left when there was only the first redirect listed here. Looking at the others, those redirects specifically referring to the speech should be retargetted per the nominator, the others should be kept as is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget redirects 2 and 4 only. Leave the others as they are. A user looking for the speech would only conceivably use 2 and 4. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Millionsandbillions, retarget just "speech" redirects to "SP-3125". Other possible targets are Presidency of Richard Nixon#Nixon resigns and Richard Nixon#Resignation, but the articles are brief overviews(?) or something like that. Neutral on the rest for now. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget redirects 2 and 4 only. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with editors above that the "speech" redirects, 2 and 4, should be retargeted. And I think all the others should be kept. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X I withdraw my nomination while agreeing with editors about retargeting the redirects 2 and 4.--Nevé–selbert 18:34, 4 February 2017 (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 articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members[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 clear consensus (which defaults to keep). It's been well over a month and relisted twice already. I see little chance of consensus emerging anytime soon. Rossami (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redundancy, unlikely search term, these are not "outline" articles which redirects of these sort may be plausible for, or lists of articles that are something other than Wikipedia articles, it's hard to imagine why a reader may search for anything other than "List of X". (I seem to remember we've had at least one previous discussion involving redirects in the format "List of people named XY".) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears that this nominating process was done completely backwards, with discussions being created and noifications sent out first, and the nominations being bundled together into a single discussion later. Pretty sure that's going to break some stuff, but here we are. (You may need to fix links in pretty much every notification you sent out so that users wind up in the right place) The upshot is that my remark is now compleely out of context as it was a reply to what was, at the time, a single nomination. [4] So, for the record, my comment is in reference only to List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom and I have not reviewed and have no opinion on the merits of all the other redirects. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Kind of hard to respond to a nomination with no rationale attached, but for what it's worth: this is a leftover from a page move I did like six years ago. I can't say I recall exactly what was in my mind at the time or have thought about this a single time since then but I would assume I left it because it has a fair number of incoming links and is a possible search term. So, assuming what is being asked for here si deletion, I don't see any benefit in doing so, so Keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, here is the discussion I was referring to in the nom. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. This isn't the usual way we title list articles, but in most cases here, it's accurate. List of wikis is a pure list of articles, and most of the others list entities which already have their own articles or we can reasonably expect to someday. Delete the New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador ones, though. Their target articles, about political parties, have partial lists of members, but nothing that purports to be comprehensive, and so the "List of articles about" format seems misleading for them. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NAVELGAZING. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (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.

Zenti-[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Zenti-

Tom Lamb[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 wrong forum. Per the instructions at the top of the page: If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.}} Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is blocking move of TomLamb. TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (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.

Jaiswal Brahmin[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the Jaiswal have anything to do with the Kanyakubja, except perhaps for them being one of hundreds of Brahmin communities.

The redirect did at one time make the claim of a connection but it was never reliably sourced. Sitush (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (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:Esta página está protegida[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This isn't the Spanish Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2017 (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.

Did you know[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 Restore Did You Know as a disambiguation page, and Retarget Did you know to Did You Know. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

error redirect Shizhao (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert Did You Know to disambiguation page and retarget there. I'm adding that to the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout Pppery for reverting a disambiguation page set up via consensus at RfD twice now. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and trout per Uanfala and Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes no sense to me to have a disambiguation page containing only one topic that has more than a sentence of coverage. As far as I can tell, the only information at all about the single is "In 2016, DJ Pauly D released a single called "Did You Know" with Tdot illdude.", whereas there is a whole section about the advertising campaign. What in the world does the nominating rationale of "error redirect" mean. Pppery 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may wish to read the linked previous discussions. In addition to the advertising campaign there are other topics with very similar names that are likely to be searched for using this string, including Wikipedia:Did you know? so there is no clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Pppery you were the nominator of this redirect in August last year so you should have been aware of it. Meaning it's rather troubling that you unileraterraly decided to disregard that consensus with discussion 8 months later. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the disambiguation version (which, by my count, had eight entries - some were thin but all were relevant). Rossami (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All but two of which were PTMs, and thus in the "See also" section. Pppery 01:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really very relevant - just because the article titles are partial matches does not imply that they will not be searched for using this term, particularly given the very recent consensus to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2017 (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/2017_February_3&oldid=1138581546"