Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 5, 2017.

Art-designs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 28#Art-designs

Five Satans[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 Watcher (angel)#Five Satans. -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be a plausible mis-spelling but seems offensive PRehse (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but how does that reflect its power as a search term for the current target or even as a general search term.PRehse (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those views are just background noise. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly this should not redirect to The Five Satins. Is it a plausible misspelling? Dubious; in any case, I don't think the The Five Satins would appreciate the redirect. I changed the target to Watcher (angel)#Five Satans.
    A little history: In 2004, an editor created a stub for each of five "fallen angels" mentioned in certain passages of the Book of Enoch (example). A few months later I consolidated those into a single article, Five Satans. In 2009, another editor converted the article to a redirect, since the phrase "Five Satans" isn't explicitly used in an English translation he consulted. However, "Five Satans" is a term of convenience used in secondary and tertiary sources that predate the Wikipedia articles (e.g., 1, 2, 3) The new target anchors to a list of these "Satans" in the Watcher (angel) article. —Ringbang (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargeted by Ringbang. Mentioned at target, and with a significant editing history. – Uanfala 13:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - As stated above, this should go to the related article about the creatures in Hebrew tradition. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:01, 12 July 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.

Hinduism redirects[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, WP:TRAINWRECK. Never a pleasant call to have to make, I'm afraid, but there just wasn't a simple consensus to follow here. No prejudice against nomination of individual redirects, or smaller bundles of like ones. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of the list (113 redirects)
Discussion[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 18#Hinduism in Djibouti. I went through and identified all "Hinduism in X" redirects in which the target doesn't mention Hinduism in the given country and I couldn't find a suitable target. As such, these are misleading as someone searching using these terms won't learn anything about the subject. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all. I think it's great that you did this work. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Refine all as long as some sort of religious breakdown is mentioned in the target article. Unlike a lot of redirects, where the absence of the specific term in the target article means a reader learns nothing, the absence of any specific mention of Hinduism does impart information as long as there is a religious breakdown. If say Hinduism is not mentioned but "Other religions" or equivalents have percentage points in a religious breakdown, then the reader knows that Hinduism will not be higher than that percentage. However the redirects should be refined to the demographics/religion section in articles where they are not. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the hinduism in Iceland redirect as I added information about that in this edit. Abstain or Neutral for the rest of the redirects.--Snaevar (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll withdraw that one. This is a perfect example of why deletion is beneficial. If these redirects are red, it'd encourage people to add information on Hinduism in that particular country instead of assuming that information exists. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and unbundle into smaller groups. Per Patar Knight, most of these should be kept, refined or retargetted rather than deleted but there are too many to reasonably investigate individually. Taking the first one I selected at random, Hinduism in Benin, the reader would be better served by landing at Hinduism in Africa#West Africa than deletion, even though Hinduism in Benin is not explicitly mentioned there is relevant information there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hinduism in Africa#West Africa has the same problem as the current target! Some searching for Hinduism in Benin will learn nothing about Hinduism in Benin no matter where you put this redirect, so deletion is the only logical choice. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's not true, they will learn that Hinduism is not significant in the region and that it's essentially only a few immigrants who subscribe to the faith. If there isn't anything to say about it we should tell people that, which that article does, rather than a redlink which would encourage the creation of an article about something that isn't notable while not giving anybody any information at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the redirect is Hinduism in Benin, not Hinduism in West Africa. It's misleading to our readers to redirect them to a place that does not discuss Hinduism in Benin, and it's misleading for you to assume that little blurb of information applies to Benin. -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benin is unquestionably in West Africa, why would it not apply to Benin? Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benin may be in West Africa, but Benin isn't necessarily representative of West Africa as a whole. We shouldn't assume it applies unless we have actual information on Hinduism in Benin, as the redirect implies. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine all to specific religious sections for the nation's articles. Delete any where not mentioned (e.g. Religion in Burkina Faso) or notable. For example, Hinudism in Hawaii, there's only a single footnote that it is grouped among Other religions, and it is in the table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: Hawaii is the only one that has Hinduism mentioned in a footnote. Hinduism isn't mentioned in any of the others. Since you say "delete any where not mentioned", would it be fair to interpret your !vote as "delete all except Hawaii"? -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd even say to delete Hinduism in Hawaii given that it isn't even given a sentence besides what's in a table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned there will be a precedent of (group) in (region) where the only mention is in the table itself. Like children in (locale), women in (locale). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only concern at hand is this group of redirects. The bottom line is if there's discussion about a group within a country, then it's a cromulent redirect. For every redirect listed in this discussion, someone will learn absolutely nothing about Hinduism in the given country, so we shouldn't mislead our readers into thinking we have content where there isn't any. -- Tavix (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (with the disclaimer that I have already voted "delete"). It is true that a reader searching for Hinduism in Ascension Island will arrive at an article that they can read and that will ultimately give enough irrelevant information for them to conclude that there's likely no such thing as Hinduism in Ascension Island. But the same conclusion can be reached, much more straightforwardly, by the simple observation of the absence of relevant articles in the search results, which is what would happen if these redirects get deleted. And if it's really deemed sensible to keep them, then it would be just as sensible to start creating redirects for all the conceivable things that are absent from the targets. Think of Sea cliffs on Jupiter, Penguins in Quebec, Raccoons in London and an innumerable number of combinations. – Uanfala 20:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine all some of the countries listed do indeed have a Hindu presence. I have just added a small segment to Religion in Taiwan about the small Hindu presence there. There is evidence to suggest a small Hindu population in East Timor, indeed Commons has photos of a Balinese-style temple in Dili. Alas, there's no text in English I can find about the community, only a Facebook post in Portugese. There was even an Indian diaspora in Somalia, which no longer exists. --RaviC (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed. I'm persuaded by the argument about a complete breakdown: if the article already tells us the religious affiliations of the population (a table, or a statement saying something like "The entirety of the population is Christian, Muslim, or atheist", or anything else comprehensive), and if Hinduism doesn't appear in that breakdown, we're making a solid statement that the religion isn't present there. A reader wondering about Hinduism in that country will be well served by the redirect taking them to a place that says that Hinduism doesn't exist there. But if we don't have any content about Hinduism, and if we don't have any content that excludes Hinduism, we shouldn't have a bluelink. And of course, if anyone's added Hinduism content to any target articles (aside from Iceland) since the start of this nomination, it should be kept. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 24 July 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.

"Kansas City Stomp", Breaks in Jazz, "Darktown Strutters Ball"[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term is not found in the targeted article, and given its complexity it is a very unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The track is titled: "Kansas City Stomp," continued (Piano Instrumental) / Breaks in Jazz (Interview and Demonstration) / "Darktown Strutters' Ball" But this is a combination of tracks that isn't notable by itself and is only found among his complete collection as listed above. [1] Kansas City Stomp already has an article. This would be like when some musician plays one song at a concert, then has an interview and plays another, and it's listed as a single track. It would not be played on the radio like that or chart with any notable significance. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 6 July 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.

Average Call Hold Time[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 23#Average Call Hold Time

Dr . Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. misplaced periods relative to the honorific make both of these very unlikely search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' I don't even know why they Doofenschmirtz page go created. I created "Heinz Doofenschmirtz" as a redirect page, and then for some reason another editor moved the redirect to the misplaced period page. JDDJS (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misplaced period makes for unlikely typo when the rest of the search string is that elaborate, as opposed to simple searches like Mr X Dr. No or Dr. Strange. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the redirect looks more like we're citing journal authors: |last=Kalam |first=Abdul |last2=Pakir |first2=Avul --Atsme📞📧 18:06, 8 July 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.

Chirstopher Rants[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) 19:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely misspelling. How do I know? It's the only "Chirstopher" redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a transposition of the i & r to me. --Atsme📞📧 18:08, 8 July 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.

💫[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 Dizziness. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too unlikely Carl Fredrik talk 11:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A better target would be Dizzy, if this is kept at all. See here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dizzy, all emoji should target something, preferably the Unicode definition. Prior consensus has supported that. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dizziness would be a better target than the disambiguation page, it doesn't refer to anything else there. Peter James (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dizziness; this is specifically talking about the physical condition, not Dizzy Dean, 5831 Dizzy, or anything else that happens to have "Dizzy" in the name. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dizzy or dizziness?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dizziness, obviously: this is the only relevant meaning listed on the dab at Dizzy. – Uanfala 22:39, 5 July 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.

Bride of Kildare[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 24#Bride of Kildare

Çarşamba Ieşilırmak Stadium[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. Author requests deletion and it is unopposed. Deryck C. 13:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mistyped title was inserted in a list, and a user created a redirect to the corredt title Çarşamba Yeşilırmak Stadium. The wrong wikilink was replaced by the correct one. So, there is no need for this redirect because mistyped by me. CeeGee 15:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • CeeGee I don't know Turkish - how similar are I and Y in Turkish? In English and many other languages, they have very similar meanings, being interchangeable in some cases (such as the silly spelling dysfunctional instead of the logical disfunctional). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oiyarbepsy: Thank you for your attention. There is no similarity at all. It was a mistake of me that happened in hurry. Sorry for the trouble. Best. CeeGee 05:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a speedy delete G7 (only creator requests deletion) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:03, 6 July 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_July_5&oldid=1138581715"