Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2017.

Kastrítsi, Greece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 26#Kastrítsi, Greece

Kato Kastritsi, Greece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 26#Kato Kastritsi, Greece

Áno Kastrítsion, Greece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 26#Áno Kastrítsion, Greece

Günther Nowak[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 26#Günther Nowak

East Pakistan Coast Guard[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) 17:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is/was nothing named East Pakistan Coast Guard in the history or at present. This is a way of dishonouring the Bangladeshi organizations and other things by Pakistanis. SRS 00 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There has never been an East Pakistani coast guard. No source or verification of existence available. Bangladesh Coast guard was formed in 1995 long after its independence from Pakistan in 1971. It is not a successor agency to Pakistan Coast guard or any such force.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. It seems that the Pakistan Coast Guards also post-date the independence of Bangladesh so there is no scope for confusion in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above, this would be an extremely unlikely search term. Daß Wölf 16:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Pakistani military unit called the "East Pakistan Coast Guard" is mentioned and cited to a source at Amir_Abdullah_Khan_Niazi#Eastern_Command_in_1971_war. If the source is correct, then this should be retargeted somewhere (current target if there is continuity, or to the Pakistan equivalent if there isn't) instead of deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, at Pakistan_Navy#Indo-Pakistan_war_of_1971, a claim that "three patrol craft belonging to the Pakistan Coast Guard" were destroyed by the Indian military in the 1971 war, would mean that the Pakistani Coast Guard was active during the war, and likely would have had some sort of administrative division for East Pakistan. This book notes that the division of East and West Pakistan hurt the Navy's two wings (pg. 46), which makes it seem likely that the Coast Guard might've had similar dividions. I think retargeting to Pakistan Coast Guard would be the best thing, even if it is an {{R from incorrect name}}. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the Source says Pakistan coast guard and not East Pakistan Coast guard. The Wikipedia page of Pakistan Coast guard says it started operations from 1972. This is a very unlikely search term. There is no west Pakistan coast guard. Nothing has fundamentally changed about the discussion and the redirect should still be deleted.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're talking about the Google Book source I external linked, that's true, but I was using it as an example of sources referring to branches of the Pakistan military being referred to as wings to differentiate their operations in West and East Pakistan. Since the two wikilinked articles all mention a Pakistan Coast Guard (and one mentions the East Pakistan Coast Guard) active in 1971, it's likely that it would have had similar operational divisions.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:36, 12 January 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.

Katosan (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 keep (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this redirect is a dab page. No one is going to enter the name of the target, with the dab parenthesis, and get pointed to the dab. Onel5969 TT me 18:07, 12 January 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.

Oprah Noodlemantra[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) Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depp was indeed credited as "Oprah Noodlemantra" in a cameo appearance in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, but it seems to be a one-off joke not used elsewhere. It's certainly not a common name for Depp himself. I'm a bit torn on what to do with this, though. I could see it being retargeted to the film or deleted. BDD (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems fine. Since Depp has been credited as this, and the credit gives no indication that it is Depp, I think it's a pretty plausible search term. Also, he apparently uses/used to use this name to check in at hotels if he doesn't want the paparazzi bothering him, so I wouldn't redirect to the film since it's directly tied to Depp himself. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but don't add in the infobox as a stage alias because it is a one-time use. I added an {{R from pseudonym}} AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's entirely reasonable that someone who waits long enough to read the credits would search for the names given in the credits. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - His use of this name is notable enough that it's been mentioned in print as well as multiple places online. I agree that we ought to leave the redirect be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:06, 13 January 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.

Caliber (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 28#Caliber (film)

Purple bananas[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. I will, however, remove the broken anchor. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken anchor, just one instance of "purple" in target, IDK what it may refer to specifically. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:29, 12 January 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.

Pitt family[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 in some way. I converted the redirect to a stub, with the text copied from Category:Pitt family. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the best possible target? --Nevé–selbert 20:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an ambiguous title with no cure for its ambiguity considering the contents at Pitt. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Or also, Delete per WP:REDLINK per LlywelynII's comment about the possible notability of this family. In addition, I oppose this targeting any section of Thomas Pitt since the subject of this redirect will still seem ambiguous if it is targeting a section of a specific member's page and is not an article in itself because all of the individuals listed at Pitt are not related. (In other words, it would be ambiguous since Pitt is not a redirect to Thomas Pitt, meaning the term "Pitt" is not a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Thomas Pitt.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that makes no f***ing sense. "Yes, ok, someone has shown that there is a primary topic... so we should delete the redirect to it". Pull the other one. (As a more AGFy reply, the PRIMARYTOPIC of Pitt and Pitt family are neither necessarily nor actually the same and that has nothing to do with anything. All of the Pitts listed at Thomas Pitt's family section are related and are the PRIMARYTOPIC of this redirect, so there's no way to AGF to your bold objection there. There's no ambiguity whatsoever in the family discussion on Thomas Pitt's page: it's about his family. Maybe you misspoke and meant to object to redirects to the unrelated laundry list at Pitt? If so, I completely agree. The redirect is correct where it is now, pending its expansion into a fuller article about the British political dynasty.) — LlywelynII 03:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense since I'm not the one claiming that the family related to Thomas Pitt is the primary topic. In fact, I don't see evidence to prove that. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I do not believe that this should be retarget for the reason I already stated. Steel1943 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no primary topic. It could redirect to Pitt dab page though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep or expansion. Editors who don't know enough (or can't be arsed to search at Google Books or Scholar) to know the PRIMARYTOPIC here shouldn't really have their votes counted. See also Category:Pitt family, which is these guys. We could add a {{hatnote}} dab link about Brad Pitt's family if we're really bothering with that, but that's (a) actually the Jolie-Pitt family as far as anyone in media is concerned and (b) only a modern celebrity blip that doesn't really impact the importance the British Pitts had over the 17th, 18th, 19th century. — LlywelynII 13:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should go to Thomas Pitt#Family then or at least have a hatnote to the dab page, in case people are looking for Brad Pitt's family or The Pitts family sitcom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point.  Done [In fact, it already redirected to that section from its creation]. — LlywelynII 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added hatnote for now, and will see how this discussion unfolds. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the best target. There is a PRIMARYTOPIC here and it's the British family. Thomas's article's #Family section is currently our best treatment of it as a unit. You're welcome to copy/paste it and establish a stub if you prefer. — LlywelynII 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some way, i.e. I don't have an opinion about the best location (Thomas Pitt's article, another article, or writing a new article at this title), but when a title has an eponymous category (as opposed to a division of a larger one, e.g. "Stone churches in LOCATION"), it's very rare that that title should be neither an article about that topic nor a redirect to some other page that covers the topic. I don't see any reason to say that this is one of those rare situations. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this arbitrarily redirect to Thomas Pitt? He is just one of many family members, per Category:Pitt family. I'll just "delete" the arbitrary redirect and replace the title with the text copied from Category:Pitt family. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 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.

"Ain't I a stinker"[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 (non-admin closure). There is clear consensus that the phrase should exist as a redirect (as a notable {{R from catchphrase}}), but there is no consensus whether the exact form with quotation marks should be kept. Closing this without any prejudice against another RfD, possibly bundled with similar redirects, to determine whether such redirects are desirable. – Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect created "for fun". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to version without quotes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also support this move. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 503 page views this year prove that contrary to Tavix's suspicions, people do use this redirect around 40 times a month on average. Create Ain't I A Stinker as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was anticipating when the "pageview fallacy" would rear its ugly head. The pageviews aren't because people are searching for this specific phrase using quotation marks, it's because it appears in the first page of Wikipedia's index. To demonstrate, compare "Ain't I a stinker" with a remarkably similar redirect "Ain't gonna jump no more", and you'll notice a pattern. Just as I suspect people aren't actively searching "Ain't I a stinker", people aren't actively searching "Ain't gonna jump no more". Rather, it's a symptom of being on the first page. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prove that nobody who is viewing this redirect is getting where they want to go and that people are failing to find something different (which exists) I will support deletion. Until such time as you (or anyone else) can do that there is no reason to delete the redirect that is obviously proving useful to people who want to view a Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated why "it has nonzero page views, therefore people use it" is a fallacy, which is the heart of your argument. Pageviews don't demonstrate that people are searching using this term, nor do they demonstrate that they were even looking for something to begin with. I certainly don't see usage of this catchphrase with quotation marks. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have theorised that not everybody who uses this redirect are using it because they are using this as a search term. You have not demonstrated that nobody is searching for it, nor that there are no links from external websites. You also fail to advance any policy-based reasoning why, even if people clicking articles from the top of the list account for 100% of uses of the redirect, why deleting it will help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I haven't seen any satisfactory evidence of usage. We don't create novel redirects for the fun of it, but when it's plausible that they'll get use and be helpful to our readers. I don't see any purpose for this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't consider evidence of a redirect being used to be satisfactory evidence of usage? There is no requirement that a redirect has to be used in a given way to be acceptable and putting quotes around a quotation when looking for an article about that quotation is hardly novel, and given that it has been used more than once every day this year on average I find it highly plausible that it will be used in future. I understand you don't like it (although not why), but that's not a reason to delete anything, nor is your apparent belief that browsing titles that happen to be near the top of the index an improper use of an encyclopaedia. The bottom line is that people use this redirect, the target is correct, it is not misleading or ambiguous, so there is absolutely no benefit to be had from deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, I disagree with your analysis. It appears you either missed my point, or are choosing to be ignorant of it. Either way, this discussion is going nowhere. Good day. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your argument that you do not consider people who use this redirect who (you theorise) are not looking specifically for this topic to be using this redirect. I do not understand why you think it makes sense as an argument when it is self-contradictory (people who are using a redirect are at the same time not using it). I also categorically disagree that your theory about why some (you have not even attempted to show that it applies to all users) people use this redirect, even if it is correct (and you have not proven this), justifies the deletion of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't just create it for fun. It exists as a popular quote. I lean on both keeping this and the line without quotations too. Jhenderson 777 23:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the quote should be capitalized: Ain't I a stinker? as per Chuck Jones's autobiography [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect for aint i a stinker (no apostrophe) should also be considered AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. The phrase itself is rather well known in a Warner Brothers context, so Ain't I a stinker would be a good redirect to Bugs Bunny. However, the quotes make it highly unlikely as a search target, highly unlikely to be used except by people searching Special:Allpages as noted by Tavix. We could redirect aaaaamngorubgoudbhodruh to the seventeenth page you get when hitting Special:Random, and it would still get lots of search results, largely because people see it in Special:Allpages and wonder where it goes. We keep redirects because of the titles themselves if they're reasonable typos (see the RFD for giigke,cin for example) or for other reasons someone's likely to type them or search for them, but merely the page's location in the site index shouldn't be taken as an indicator that we should keep the title. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are over 700 redirects that start and end with double quotes. They seem to be of various sorts, but there is a proportion that are redirects from catchphrases. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is usage with the quotation marks as Angus' source proves. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 30 January 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.
  • Post-close comment Creating a redirect at Aint i a stinker was suggested by AngusWOOF – I haven't proceeded to do that, but if anyone sees it fit to do so, they're welcome to. – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election 2016[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) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There will not be any more Australian federal elections (or any other elections for that matter) in 2016. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had written up a keep rationale, since "next election" titles seem to be quite common (why get rid of just this one?), but eventually I noticed that this title specifically mentions 2016. That's rather unusual, and since there can't be a next election in 2016, there's no point in keeping it. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working through a (currently partial) list of all the "next" redirects that don't target a page with "next" in the title (see User:Thryduulf/Redirects with next) retargetting where I can, and only nominating here if I can't find anywhere to point it currently and there isn't enough information in the related articles for me to write that content. This redirect is different though as it specifies next and a year - something I think might be unique. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it is exceedingly unlikely that any English-speaking person would be daft enough to believe that 2016 has not already passed, the redirect is still misleading and outdated. 122.104.1.161 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:49, 22 January 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.

LÖVE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 19#LÖVE

Next Basque parliamentary election[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) 17:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 election has been and gone, and there is no information about the next one in either that article or in Basque Parliament, nor is there enough information in those articles for me to write anything more than it is expected to happen. I'll ping relevant WikiProjects but I don't know how active they are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is of no use nowadays, I would just delete it, there are no elections in sight at the moment. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 19:44, 12 January 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.

Imagine (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31#Imagine (song)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_12&oldid=1088107428"