Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2017.

Scare tactic[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 13:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Fear mongering, the article on the use of scare/fear tactics. This is a common, general, English-language phrase with a clear meaning, and is not commonly associated by most readers with the particular (defunct) TV show it is presently redirecting to. This is a clear WP:DIFFCAPS case; a published work like a TV show is fine at an undisambiguated but capitalized title like Scare Tactics, since the everyday phrase scare tactics is not capitalized by anyone who knows how to use English; the later should redirect to the article on the concept, as usual. Since there's also a comic book, that's three-way disambiguation, so I've created Scare tactics (disambiguation), and hatnotes can be cleaned up (the TV show article has two). There's no question that the TV series is the WP:PRIMARY topic for the capitalized form, since the comic is obscure and was short-lived.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History: These were previously redirecting to Fear mongering by Penbat [1] or the topical but pershaps overly-vague Political strategy [2], but re-redirected to the TV show by Edgepedia on the basis of just "tidying" [3] and that the TV show is the "primary article" [4]. Both rationales appear questionable, especially since the singular and lower-case scare tactic is not likely to ever be confused with the TV show, and upper-case in sufficient to distinguish work titles from regular-English phrases by long consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Hatnote on the Tactics article should suffice for someone who uses Too Many Capitals, and the nominator's clearly correct in saying that the most common use is not the TV show. This is a good example of why our article titles are case-sensitive. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom The lower-case versions are not seeking the TV show, while the upper-case versions are. Hatnote to TV show is good too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I agree completely with the nomination statement and can't think of anything else useful to add. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 13:25, 28 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.

Japanese detainment[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) 18:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too vague. Without specifying Japanese Americans, this could refer to any incident of Japanese people or the nation of Japan detaining or being detained (for example, List of Japanese-run internment camps during World War II). --BDD (talk) 21:08, 25 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.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)[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) 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too boastful for me to say that I'm more familiar with article naming policy than most, and this was still a major WP:SURPRISE for me. Nothing indicates that this refers to the names and titles of royalty and nobility, as opposed to the names and titles of articles themselves. Some incoming links are intended for Wikipedia:Article titles itself, where the redirects formerly pointed. I'm concerned that these are misleading and ambiguous.

Note that I'm not nominating Wikipedia:NCNT or Wikipedia:NC(NT); since "NCNT" does not, itself, suggest the general topic, I don't see them as problematic. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as too vague (and especially the MoS one since the target is not an MoS page). I don't quite buy the nom's rationale, since the prefixing of "Naming conventions" before "names and titles" is an indication that the "names and titles" means something different, something about the subjects themselves, not about Wikipedia. However, it could mean any kind of name (not even just a human one, much less royalty) and any kind of title (job title, or again something non-human, like the title of a published work). These things are all covered at multiple, separate NC and MoS pages. Long, complicated strings like this are not something anyone would type accidentally or as a guess, so these "mis-descriptive title" redirs serve no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:47, 27 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.

MOS:HOTLINK[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 by nominator. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn, with apologies; see below. Completely unused shortcut to now-deleted warning [5], probably from the stone age, about something it's hard to conceive anyone trying to do, and if they did it just wouldn't work, so who cares? EEng 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is very handy. I didn't realize it existed, but I can definitely see myself using it in edit summaries. We should reinsert the shortcut box. - Eureka Lott 20:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment made me do a little digging, and I realized I was checking the wrong What links here. I withdraw the nomination. My apologies. EEng 21:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since fixed: What happened was someone totally removed all mention from MOS:IMAGES of the fact that images cannot be inlined from other sites (a fact our new editors need to know), instead of just paring the material down. I restored brief mention of this and the anchor for the shortcut.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:17, 25 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.

Help:Advanced editing[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, unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This concept isn't necessarily exclusive to wiki markup. Readers could possibly be looking this up to find a guideline about how to write an article in a way to get it sufficient enough to be eligible for GA or FA status. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 25 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.

Wikipedia:Filling the page[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) 23:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project namespace redirect WP:SURPRISE. A page can be filed by a lot more than just wiki markup, such as files, text, an article, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This one doesn't make any sense. (Maybe that's what the nom means by WP:SURPRISE; a CNR between the "Wikipedia:" and "Help:" namespaces is not a surprise, but standard practice, since people often think Help pages are in the WP space, since much of the WP space is documentation and the Help space is disused. I would actually support a move to merge Help into WP.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. What is the "page" and what do you "fill" it with? --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 1 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:Editing Tips and Tricks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Wikipedia:Editing the community portal[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) 20:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community portal cannot be edited by this redirect directly, and this redirect leads to the talk page of the community portal (Wikipedia talk:Community portal). Editing Wikipedia:Community portal is done through this link, and I'm not sure that we should be be retargeting to that since it's technically an external link. With that being said, probably delete, weak retarget to Wikipedia:Community portal or very weak restore the page since the nominated redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steel1943, are those options given in order of your preference? Without any other input here... --BDD (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: Yeah, I suppose deletion may be best as the edit history isn't necessarily needed to keep per WP:CWW. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --BDD (talk) 20:24, 7 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.

Ripcordz Are Go[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 resolved. czar 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were previously minimally-sourced articles about albums, which were listed for AFD resulting in redirects to the band. However, in the process of source-repairing the band's article, it became clear that both album titles were actually wrong; the first one was called Ripcordz Are Go(d), and the second one was called There Ain't No 'H" in Ripcorz, Dork-Face. No prejudice against the creation of redirects from the right titles if desired, but there's no value in holding onto redirects from wrong album titles. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat, I can speedily move these to the right titles, if that's an amicable solution for you czar 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not entirely convinced of the value of moving a redirect from one title to another in a situation where the value of even having the redirect in the first place is uncertain, but I have no objection if you're willing. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 25 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.

Next Holyrood elections in 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) 23:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no more elections in 2016, so there can never be another next one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we should have a CSD criterion for these. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, as they are useful when there are next elections in the given year and so should not be deleted until after the year. They are also way too infrequent for CSD - this is only the second I've come across after looking through the best part of 100 redirects with "next" in the title. Redirects without a year (e.g. Next Bangladeshi presidential election) usually are or can be made to be useful so should not be speedy deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 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.

Georgia capital[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Georgia capital

Presidential and Vice Presidential March[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Presidential and Vice Presidential March

SQL 2000[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, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Same as below) First: After 17 years no one has a mental link between the term "SQL 2000" and an outdated version of the commercial product "Microsoft SQL Server". Second: There is a risk that the term will be confused with a version of the SQL standard, which is often noted as SQL:2003, SQL:2006, SQL:2011, ... . --Kelti (talk) 14:39, 25 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.

SQL 2005[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, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was PROD'd for a good reason but its a redirect so .... First: After 12 years no one has a mental link between the term "SQL 2005" and an outdated version of the commercial product "Microsoft SQL Server". Second: There is a risk that the term will be confused with a version of the SQL standard, which is often noted as SQL:2003, SQL:2006, SQL:2011, ... . Peter Rehse (talk) 14:12, 25 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.

The President Obama[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) 23:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, otherwise we should have redirects beginning with "The" to every other article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, plus this isn't even commonly used. feminist 15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary due to implausibility.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can imagine somebody searching for "President Obama" instead of "Barack Obama" — but I can't imagine any plausible scenario in which somebody would actually search for The President Obama. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you go to this title and find that it doesn't exist, your next attempt will naturally be President Obama, which will work. "POTUS" isn't like certain British princes/s/es, in which a capitalised "The", prefixed to "Prince/ss/es" (e.g. The Princess Anne), indicates a dignity greater than would be accorded someone who doesn't get a "The". Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 31 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.

29th United States Ambassador to the United Nations[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, WP:G7, by ErikHaugen. -- Tavix (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premature, as Nikki Haley is not now the ambassador to the UN and there is a possibility that she will never be. Largoplazo (talk) 03:24, 25 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.

Sod alll[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 dellete. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. This was created in April 2010 and had never gotten any other edits until an hour and a half ago, when Loopy30 tagged it for {{db-error}}. The redirect seems a bit pointless, but (1) apparent pointlessness is no reason for speedy deletion, and (2) I see no reason to conclude that it was created in error. In particular, it's likely that an error obvious enough for speedy deletion would have been discovered before now, so I'm really hesitant to do anything with this redirect without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The re-direct of the term is not pointless, but the plausibilty of that typo is extremely low. The typo is the three 'l's in the title. It appears to have been created in error with the correct re-direct (sod-all) created a minute afterwards. I don't care one way or the other, just trying to clean up... 'cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's merely an implausibility thing, it definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted; the relevant criterion, "R3", is only for recently created redirects. Of course, we can delete non-recent redirects with discussion. But what do "sod all" or "sod-all" have to do with "nothing"? The target article has no mentions of sod, and I don't see how sod (all of it or not all of it) is relevant to the concept of nothingness. If you believe that "sod all" is a good redirect, this title is reasonable as an {{R from typo}}, since triplicating a duplicated letter isn't a hard mistake to make. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Keep as redirect page with {{R from typo}} if you think it is needed. "Sod-all" has nothing to do with sod (lawn/turf) and is instead a British colloquialism roughly equivalent to the North American "f*ck-all" (or in Quebec - "f*ck-nothing") derived from the word sodomy/sodomize. As far as time goes, if an error is not picked up automatically in a few days, it can last for years before being discovered/corrected manually. Yesterday, I found and corrected/reverted typos/vandalism that were years old. Good hunting. Loopy30 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Nyttend is correct that redirects of this sort are not speedy deletion candidates, even if apparently completely implausible, as there are often reasons that are not apparent to a single person - nominate them at RfD instead. In this case, I was expecting to recommend deletion as implausible but it gets more hits than I was expecting (14 last year) and there are far more instances of the typo being made in talk space that I would ever have predicted, so I'm going to recommend keeping it as harmless and slightly useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see Thryduulf's rationale, but don't find it terribly convincing, since it could apply to any word/name with a double letter in it, and we don't want people going around creating redirs like Jesssica Alba or WP:CANVASSS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for three L's. I've added {{R from slang}} for "sod all". A three-L version is not used in news articles or books and is not a plausible typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete since it just only has one misspelling. Still I find it not that useful to our readers --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 1 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_January_25&oldid=1148627254"