Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2017.

Chaudhari (S.T)[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. There's been an interesting discussion about some abbreviated version of "Chaudhari (scheduled tribe)" -> "Chowdhary" being a useful redirect, but the consensus is "this particular version of it is not useful". Editors are welcome to create redirects at the other titles discussed in this RfD as they see fit. Deryck C. 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The use of S.T is unclear, and the article does not help clarify. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't know of any use of ST as a postnominal, nor can I think of any other likely qualifier. I suspect that S.T may be personal initials. It seems quite common in Indian English to place stops only between personal initials and not after the final one of the group. The qualifier is malformed for any redirect to a notable S. T. Chaudhari (there doesn't seem to be one). It would be malformed even if it were (S.T.) or (S. T.) - unlike Chaudhari, S. T. which would be fine, if there was a valid target. Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have a vague recollection of seeing a South Indian name where the initial followed the unabbreviated name, but that's irrelevant in this case: as evident in the redirect's history, the S.T stands for "scheduled tribe" (see its previous target: [1]). – Uanfala 23:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on scheduled tribe - that can be a valid qualifier. But, I stand by my original proposal that "ST" and the like are confusing to anyone who doesn't know what one is, unless the target is precise. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is S.T the correct abbreviation? The scheduled tribe article uses ST. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we rename this to (scheduled tribe)? Are there other Chaudhari tribes that are not scheduled status? I found Chaudhari (tribe but that goes to Chowdhury. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Chaudhri looks like the correct target. Someone who knows more than me about the subject should decide on the correct spelling of each term, and then add hatnotes etc concerning disambiguation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate all the extra information, but please remember that we're discussing the redirect Chaudhari (S.T). If someone thinks it worthwhile to create the correctly formatted redirects, they're welcome to do so at their own discretion, but that needs to be a separate action than the one we're discussing here (whether or not Chaudhari (S.T) should be deleted). -- Tavix (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In apparent defiance of the last comment, and seemingly moving even further away from the effort to decide what to do with the redirect, I just note that ST seems to be uses as an abbreviation for "scheduled tribe" [2]. – Uanfala 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting, hopefully more helpfully this time. The target is about no scheduled tribes, so this redirect is at best misleading. Add to that the awkward disambiguator (a remnant apparently of the creator's unawareness of formatting) and it becomes clearer that this should be deleted. The fact that between 2008 and 2010 it was the title of a stub article (that subsequently got moved several times before itself ending up as a redirect) doesn't give enough reason for keeping out of consideration for external incoming links rot. – Uanfala 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fundamental question of "Is it helpful?" seems to direct to a flat "No", and I guess we ought to just be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:00, 25 June 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 kammas category[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. Deryck C. 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the target article does have a (small) list, it is not a category. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing and an unlikely search term. Even List of Kammas would be no better - the target isn't a list article. The only list element in it is that usual, and short, "Notable people" section. Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it a list? Is it a category? Is it a list of categories? Doesn't make sense to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 22 June 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.

Blade Runner (2014 film)[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. The consensus here is to delete but the number of participants is small. So I'm leaving this note here to say if anyone feels we've made a mistake they're welcome to boldly recreate redirects in this batch with good reason (like a soft delete). Deryck C. 16:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]

Here is the next batch of "faulty crystal ball" film redirects. As these years have already passed, it's impossible for these films to be released that year. It's also implausible that someone would type these redirects in the search bar due to the incorrect year disambiguation. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree. In some cases, the target is not really the proper thing to give the user who searches for that term, and we don't have anything better. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT loaded. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:27, 22 June 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.

Luke Hemmings (Member of 5 Seconds of Summer)[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. Deryck C. 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is unlikely to be useful due to the unwieldy and non-standard disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 21 June 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.

Reality Leigh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Reality Leigh

Donald Trump–Russia relations[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) 23:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facetious? It doesn't make much sense to cover "bilateral relations" between an individual and a country. And even if we did have an article to the tune of Donald Trump's connections to Russia, the election interference would only be a subtopic there. BDD (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Valid link. Links are cheap. Existing link on discussion pages about topic. Sagecandor (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is presently being considered for deletion, but it looks as though it will be kept. I really think, though, that we have no good target for this redirect. The topic should really relate to Donald Trump as head of state of the USA, not as an election candidate. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Sagecandor. So why should these point to the election controversy over that, or the other article mentioned in this disucssion? See WP:XY. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's the most common one they'll be looking for. And the search results thingy is clunky. Sagecandor (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you propose a hatnote, then? "'Donald Trump–Russia relations' redirects here. For business relations, see..."? --BDD (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would create a disambiguation page given that we don't have an overarching article on Donald Trump-Russia, but have several in-depth articles on aspects of that relationship. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and BDD. At this point in time (1) no evidence has been presented that substantiates a crime has been committed by Trump; (2) it's mostly MSM hype originating from debunked anonymous sources, some of which has been retracted, resulting in RS being unreliable; (3) it's still an ongoing investigation, (4) partisanship is running rampant on both sides, (5) President Obama didn't think Russian hacking was urgent in 2016, (5) and neither did the DNC since they refused FBI help and (6) so much of it is politicized. As for Trump's business dealings with Russia, perhaps there should be an article about US trade with Russia, which in a properly weighted article would include Trump's and Clinton's dealings among many others. Atsme📞📧 17:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trump doesn't have relations with Russia that is separate from the United States. The topic of Donald Trump and Russia is covered in numerous articles as does the U.S. relations with Russia. Choosing to redirect to a single article is not neutral POV and violates the main pillars of Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:16, 27 June 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.

Psycho (Borderlands character)[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 Borderlands 2#Psycho and Ultimate Vault Hunter Upgrade Pack which satisfies the "not in target article" argument. -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target article, not even in the respective "Characters" section. Lordtobi (✉) 10:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If such a character exists in the game, then the pageviews given at the stats link suggest we should keep it and remedy the problem by actually mentioning the character there, provided the character is prominent enough to warrant being mentioned (which the stats on the redirect suggest is true). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was an article until two months ago when it got redirected by User:The1337gamer [3]. – Uanfala 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Borderlands_2#Psycho_and_Ultimate_Vault_Hunter_Upgrade_Pack. This seems to be the only title where it mentions Psycho which is actually a character class in Borderlands 2. It seems to be a character class in Borderlands in general, but as it is not mentioned, then this would be the better spot for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Psychos are the one of most common enemies, in Borderlands, and a playable class in Borderlands 2 DLC. This is adequately covered at the proposed target section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 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.

Yellow people[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 Color terminology for race. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the best target. Prisencolin (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note the existence of The Yellow People and Yellow race to the same target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Lego minifigure /s--Prisencolin (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Color terminology for race is a very good solution, in fact the obvious one. Malays were subsumed under Mongoloid but I'm not sure they were also considered yellow, Blumenbach put the Malay race as part of his brown race. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:24, 22 June 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.

Austin dickinson (vocalist)[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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend this redirect for deletion (see [4]) as improbable and/or gramatically incorrect. Austin Dickinson (vocalist) as redirect already exists. Quis separabit? 14:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's nothing wrong with a lowercase letter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 21 June 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.

Zombi (2012 Video Game)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 11#Zombi (2012 Video Game)

Psychoheresy[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. No prejudice against recreation if the term becomes sourced somewhere after everything is sorted out (see Uanfala's comment). -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to anti-psychology or anti-psychiatry appears to be original research. The inventors of this neologism object to this connection. The term is not notable as was already recognized. I see no suitable article to redirect to. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:REDLINK. This is a very specific coinage denoting objections to integrating psychology/psychiatry and Christianity, and all references to it go back to the original book and its authors. It also seems to me that things have evolved in a the decade since the last AFD to where an article could be written using secondary sources. Seyasirt (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't content from this article merged as a result of the afd? Pppery 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, nothing was merged. Antipsychology was defined as specifically Christian already, and then an IP rewrote the thing to eliminate any reference to that a year later or so. Just today it was redirected to anti-psychiatry, again without any merger. If there's any relevant material in the last, it's purely by coincidence. Seyasirt (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Psychology of religion as yourdictionary.com's definition [5], and that article seems to discuss mixing psychology and religion. Add non-neutral name given that it calls it "heresy". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will not do. The proposed target is about analysis of religion from a (secularized) psychological viewpoint, whereas psychoheresy is about the religious problems of practicing psychology within a Christian framework. They are almost completely reversed from one another. Seyasirt (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This seems to be covered in the subsection Psychology of religion#Religion and psychotherapy AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... which shouldn't be there, but in a separate article. For all I know, it might even exist already, but this obviously doesn't belong in an article which says, in the first sentence, that it is about psychologial analysis of religion. Seyasirt (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments above. This can get retargeted to whatever article that Psychology of religion#Religion and psychotherapy eventually gets split into (as it clearly doesn't belong where it is now), but only if a mention of the term is made (otherwise the redirect will be plainly confusing). Noting that adding such a mention isn't a trivial task: it will take some research to find enough sources for a balanced way to define and contextualise it. – Uanfala 10:17, 7 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.

Wally Grant[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 move Wally Grant (ice hockey) over Wally Grant, retarget Wallace Grant to Wally Grant, and delete Wally Grant (disambiguation) (G6). -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Grant was a one-entry DAB page which I've turned into a redirect. I propose: swap the two pages round. Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional - to be consistent, Wallace Grant should redirect to the hockey player. I'm nominating Wallace Grant. I hope Narky Blert is okay with this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardcavell: Well spotted & absolutely fine by me - Grant isn't mentioned in the Virginia Tech article. Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 21 June 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.

American Folkloric Tradition[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 Folklore of the United States as I find no consensus to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely search term. The original text was migrated to American Folkloric Witchcraft which is itself currently at AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is not a title that one would search on. The page should be deleted to eliminate confusing topics. Daß Smithriedel 11:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriedel (talk • contribs) [reply]
I'd support the lower-case version of that. Striking above vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The history of American Folkloric Witchcraft indicates that the contents of this article were transfered to the witchcraft page, and then this page was sloppily turned into a redirect. The only reason for keeping this page is to try to make legitimate the phrase "American Folkloric". It's not a phrase in common usage and isn't likely to be searched. If a user starts to type in American Folklor... then they are offered the choices that finish the page name. We don't need a redirect to a page that the user would find anyway. Why isn't anybody mentioning WP:FAKE? — Myk Streja (who?) 07:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Folklore of the United States per Patar knight. feminist 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term does appear awkward but a google books search comes up with a couple of pages of sources, most of which use it in the phrase "African–American folkloric tradition". If the redirect is kept in some form, then it should be marked as {{R unprintworthy}} and moved (without leaving a redirect) to the lower-case version. – Uanfala 14:19, 1 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.

Lohengrin: An Opera[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) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term and unused variation of the work's title, apparently created to make a WP:POINT in an unrelated discussion at Talk:Trump Tower: A Novel#Requested move 20 June 2017. — JFG talk 06:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree this seems of little use.TheLongTone (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it should not been created just because I made a red link to show that it makes no sense. It concerns several hundred operas, I hope they will be spared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a "point" action. Saw a redlink and thought the user was indicating it was a useful link that wasn't made yet. No objections if the community doesn't find it useful. Either way is totally fine. Sagecandor (talk) 18:51, 21 June 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_June_21&oldid=1136448047"