Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2017.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Lebedev[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) 02:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page on which he does not appear, except as a circular link back to the only article which uses the redirect. I've added {{ill}} links to Russian Wiki on both pages. I propose delete to encourage article creation; there looks to be plenty of meat in the Russian article. Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 2 March 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.

Emoticon or Emoji?[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 provisionally retarget to Emoji. There is consensus that if these redirects should point to a single general article, this should be Emoji. Whether they should point to a single generic article or to separate articles about the specific concepts represented has not been decided, so that matter is left to editor discretion. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Emoticon or Emoji? (discussion)[edit]

These should all be retargeted to (or kept at) Emoji since that's what they are. (Note: I'm grouping these all together to purpose them be retargeted to Emoji since they are not Emoticons; if possible, these redirects can be nominated individually afterwards if need be. I'm trying to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK since the purpose of this discussion is to form consensus on these redirects being emojis and not emoticons.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment: The redirects 😚, 😗 and 😙 are currently being discussed separately at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 1#😚 since a specific target besides Emoticon or Emoji for these three redirects has been suggested. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Individual ones can be discussed separately later if desired, but they should all redirect somewhere and Emoji is the best general article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ~★ nmaia d 11:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to the emotion or concept that the emoji is describing. This is what we do for most other emojis and these should be no different. Both options the nom gave are too broad. If this option gains traction, I'll put a list together as to what that would look like (using the emoji's definition) and we can refine it if necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: This promotes the WP:TRAINWRECK that I was specifically trying to avoid in the nomination statement. The purpose of this discussion is just to determine if these are emoticons or emoji. Trying to define what each individual one represents ... WP:TRAINWRECK. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't support either of those options though. The only way it would trainwreck would be if my proposal gains consensus AND there's genuine disagreement on where many of the emojis should go. I can see the first part happening, but I'd be surprised if the second part happened as well. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tavix: Fair enough as I don't believe that my proposal is the final step in fixing issues with these redirects. I do agree that they should ultimately target their definitions since targeting to either one of my proposed options is, yes, in spirit, like targeting Michael Jordan (basketball) to Michael Jordan (disambiguation) for the fact alone that it's a "Michael Jordan" ... which, of course, is technically misleading since the redirect is not ambiguous. I more or less, made this nomination as a way to streamline where such redirects should target in the event that their definition is unknown, ambiguous and/or an article for its definition has yet to be created on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support they are emojis. Emoticons are for the old-school :-), which in social media, if you type in the emoticon, it gets mapped to the graphic Emoji. They could redirect to something else like an emotion if it is a social media graphic with independent notability as with icons and logos. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to emoji or what the emoji are representing per above Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Although many of them are in fact emoticons. I also can't see half of them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These page titles are all emoji, but some of them (like 😩) are graphical representations of emoticons. Confusing, isn't it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Emoji seems to be a good retarget option. --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've compiled a table with my suggested retargets at the talk page. Yes, they are all emoji, but we can do much better than that for almost all of them. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I'm okay with this discussion being closed as "retarget all to Emoji without prejudice for these redirects being WP:BOLDly retargeted to more specific subjects" (such as this discussion being closed, then another editor retargeting 😈 to Devil, etc.) (@Tavix: See here.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a good way to do it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per existing Wikipedia policy (as far as I know, at least) and previous debates here at RFD. On a personal level, I wish we could delete all these Emoji-based Redirects (because they make Wikipedia look unprofessional; less like an Encyclopedia and more like a teenage girl's Facebook page). As it is, however, Retarget all. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:50, 22 March 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.

Security and loyalty controversies[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) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific redirect. There are many other examples of this, like the Great Purge and the Reign of Terror. Someone may type this in with a different intent, like meaning stuff like the Donald Trump–Russia dossier controversy (is Trump loyal to the US? This is important to our national security!). Mr. Guye (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for vagueness/overspecificity. From this side of the pond, I'll toss in the Cambridge Five affair, which related to the same sort of thing. Narky Blert (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly repoint to purge? Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree with Mangoe. The Donald Trump-Russia dossier has nothing to do with purges. The redirect does not imply a cleaning out of government officials.--Mr. Guye (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree with Mangoe. From a British standpoint, "purge" in a political sense brings to mind this. Even British understatement doesn't use "controversy" as a euphemism for "mass murder". Narky Blert (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The wording is just so incredibly vague that I'd rather we get rid of the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:05, 8 March 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.

Build a wall[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. Various retargeting options have been suggested, but the argument that the redirect is vague has prevailed. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although Donald Trump has talked about extending the Mexico–United States barrier, this generic phrase is not mentioned in the target article and is really too vague to serve as a useful redirect to Donald Trump. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:17, 2 March 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.

Kremlingate[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 disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no use of the term "Kremlingate", and there is no mention of it at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. However, the media is beginning to refer to the Trump/Flynn/Russia saga with that name.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am deeply skeptical of the recentism bias that google counts and news searches produce. Kremlingate was a fairly common name for the Bank Menatep scandal when it was occurring in the late 1990s. See, for example, here. That said, perhaps this title would best serve our readers by being converted to a disambiguation page. I'll throw a draft under the RfD template but it could probably use expansion. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page. As long as the post-Soviet Russian government plays around with various foreign shenanigans, a practice has gone on for years and years, we'll see various events attracting either this label or something like it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proposed disambiguation fails WP:DABENTRY as "Kremlingate" isn't mentioned at any of those entries. Per WP:LABEL, I'd be wary of using the -gate suffix anywhere without a reliably cited mention used in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is this Kremlingate the same as one of the two already mentioned, or a third -gate? I don't see any mention of Boris Yeltsin in any of these. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 2 March 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 awards and nominations received by Tommy Hilfiger[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, G5, redirect was created by a blocked user. Anyone in good standing may recreate the redirect at their discretion. -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of target is unrelated. - TheMagnificentist 10:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks like a perfectly good search term and redirect to me. It's the sort of redirect which might (or OC might not, I express no view) be at some future date split out into an article. Meanwhile, redirects like this can be useful in populating categories in order to help readers to navigate. Narky Blert (talk) 01:40, 3 March 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 lavender mountain lily[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 criterion G7 by Cyp on a request by Rubbish computer. Procedural close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect for lavender mountain lily exists. Is there a reason to keep (or encourage creating) variant redirects prefixed with a definite article? Plantdrew (talk) 06:05, 2 March 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:Special:UncategorizedPages[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double namespace prefix is unhelpful. Wikipedia:UncategorizedPages exists. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:16, 2 March 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.

Loquacious[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 Verbosity. -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to have this redirect to Wiktionary? Largoplazo (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete was recently created within a day of this RFD with the purpose of redirecting to the Wiktionary, so it is not useful. No potential for article, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Was it recently used by someone to make it popular? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is the third independent creation of content at this title: A one-sentence 'article' in 2007 that was speedy deleted as nonsense; and from May 2008-May 2016 a Neelix-created redirect to fluency speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6. Also in 2007, Neelix created Loquaciousness as a redirect to the same target, but that was quickly speedy deleted as R3 (implausible). user:SMcCandlish independently created Loquaciousness in 2010, this time as a redirect to Prolixity, which is now itself a redirect to Verbosity (a bot updated the Loquaciousness redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Verbosity to match Loquaciousness. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. We already have an article on the concept, and it is not some dicdef article. PS: Back in that day, we did have multiple articles on the topic; if I recall correctly, one was literary-focused, the other psychological, but it's been a long time, and WP:MERGE is a good thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 2 March 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]

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 convert to set index. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous, as an entity is not given. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. This is a plausible search term for articles like Socialist Republic of Romania, History of Poland (1945–89), People's Republic of Hungary, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–89), People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and others. List of socialist states#Marxist-Leninst sort of fills the role but doesn't have any introduction to explain the ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no such era, and I'm not finding any subjects listed at List of time periods that could be referred to specifically as "communist era". There could potentially be an article created at this title to describe the term (WP:BROADCONCEPT), but since there seems to be no subjects that are specifically called "communist era", a disambiguation page at this title could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: Many countries have had a communist era, for example all the ones I listed above, even though the article does not use that title. Template:History of Bulgaria, Template:History of Czechoslovakia, etc. use the term, Communist era of Czechoslovakia exists as a redirect, History of Hungary has a section using the synonym "Communist period", etc. This redirect got 519 views in 2016 so it's obviously something people are searching for, and search results are not helpful, finding mostly articles about communist parties rather than periods of history. This is a classic case where disambiguation is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and my own opinions, your idea wouldn't be a disambiguation page since the articles you have mentioned this far are not title matches or synonymous with the phrase "communist era". I get what you are trying to point out, but this is more of a case where a WP:BROADCONCEPT article is needed. And if it can't be created at this time, best help readers find what they are looking for through Wikipedia's page search function. Also, Communist period doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that Wikipedia's search function will not help users find the article(s) they are looking for, and there is not really a lot that can be said in general other than that many countries which are or were formerly communist describe that period of their history as the "communist era" or "communist period" in relation to events, policies, architecture, societal attitudes, etc. This is exactly the same as how phrases like Victorian era, Reconstruction Era, Plantation era, etc, just that they happen to have been chosen as the names of articles. It is an artefact of our article titling conventions that we seem use dates or the formal name of the country to name these articles rather than descriptive phrases, that doesn't make the term "communist era" any less likely a search term or any less ambiguous. So what we need to do is decide whether the WP:DISAMBIG guideline or what's best for our readers should take precedence - for me there is no question that it should be the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf laid out a good argument why an article on the topic should exist, but this is not a case where "communist era" is a ambiguous term that needs disambiguation between multiple articles. -- Tavix (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't see any scope for an article here as there is nothing to say beyond what is at the first paragraph of era#Colloquial use but using "Communist era" as the example rather than "Elizabethan era", followed by a list of periods in the history various countries that are referred to in this way. If the articles were named "Communist era of <country>" rather than "History of <country> (dates)" or "<official name used during communist era of country>" there would be no question about this being a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if the articles were named "Communist era of ...." they would all be partial title matches and so, at least in the standard model of dab physics, a dab page wouldn't be warranted. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is an example of where IAR should be used - the purpose of disambiguation pages is to assist users in finding the article they are looking for when they use an ambiguous search term. "Communist era" is an ambiguous search term that people are using, so we should have a page (call it a "set index" and move it to "List of communist eras" if you prefer but the outcome is the same) that lists the articles that they could be looking for. In most cases partial title matches make poor entries on disambiguation pages, but not in every case - for example when the articles use natural disambiguation or where alternative titles are used to avoid an ambiguous name by which the subject is also known. The point is that this is an occasion where following the guidelines that work in most cases will actually make things worse for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index - Periods of communist regimes belong to the "communist era". "Dabify" would be possible, but the terms are too related. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index of links to articles about various countries' communist periods. As pointed out above, this is a plausible search term. — Kpalion(talk) 21:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is not ambiguous; it's generic. So is the current target. There is no doubt that "communist era" refers to a past period of communist government. If it is linked to from an article, the context makes it clear what country is meant. The current target, communist state, is an overview of communist governments in general, not any particular country's version. There is also a template there, History of communist states, which contains a list of previous communist countries in a clear, clickable list. There is no need to write an article on the generic topic (that's handled at the target), nor is there any need for a list article—there's already a complete list of "communist eras" at the target. — Gorthian (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify - I agree with Thryduulf that this is a likely search term worth offering some content to readers, and I equally agree with Steel1943 and Uanfala that in the form of a disambiguation page such a target would be a gross failure of WP:PTM. I've drafted the bones of such a set index below the redirect, basically reusing the links from Template:History of Communist Nations, but just as an example. I'm not going to put a whole lot of time into it if it's just going to be deleted. I'll also note that List of communist states just redirects to Communist state, even though that article contains only a small subset of such a list, so perhaps this set index should live at the "list" title instead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist in order to close a log page. I usually dislike multiple relistings, but each have been fruitful so far...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 2 March 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:FARC/Christmas[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. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this WP:FAR (WP:FARC at the time) discussion list needs to have a shortcut when no other such shortcuts exist. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: Can't say I understand any reason to keep this redirect. I made it rather apparent why there's no need for this redirect to exist due to lack of any other such redirects existing, keeping such a redirect validates anyone else creating needless redirects in this space, and I already linked every apparent reason of what's going on with this redirect, and any supposed need to "keep" this redirect is honestly offset by the harm such redirects can cause due to WP:COSTLY needs to maintain the redirect in the event that another nomination happens. Steel1943 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not quite convinced of the harm, but I see the argument. I think what it comes down to is that any utility this redirect had has long since expired. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 11 March 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.

Grade rationing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 11#Grade rationing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_2&oldid=1143889502"