Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2017.

Christopher colub[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 Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus had enough affinity with several languages that it makes sense to be liberal with redirects from his name, but both of these seem extremely implausible, barely attested outside Wikipedia. "Christopher Colub" appears to be the name of a DJ. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the first as misleading. Keep the second, harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete both. Colub is not notable or mentioned in any news articles. Topher has never been a nickname for Christopher Columbus as documented in news articles and books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:26, 11 October 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.

Khatta ANARDANA, pomegranate seeds[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 Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deletion as implausibly unwieldy search term. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Weird caps on Anardana, not clear what khatta is as it is not discussed in the article. Anardana already redirects there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 10 October 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.

Foo (wine)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 22#Foo (wine)

Redirects to Guava[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:FORRED redirects that are not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Bayaba" is the name of the plant in the Philippines and "Peyara" is the name of the plant in Bangladesh. There are over 180 countries and over 1,000 dialects, and each may have their own name for any plant using the Roman alphabet, and we do not list them all in articles, it would be UNDUE, redirects are the most efficient way to handle them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the section on regional names for the fruit in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that makes it sufficient to keep there as it still is a WP:FORRED statement. The random names kind of stick out in the way you wrote them in. However, adding peyara to Bangladeshi cuisine might be alright, assuming peyara is a more prominent English name than Guava over there or has some notability to write about in the cuisine. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references I added are in English, not in a foreign language which shows that the foreign name is used in English. The rule discourages redirects in foreign alphabets this is the transliteration in the Roman alphabet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FORRED applies to redirects from foreign language terms regardless of script. – Uanfala 10:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bayaba. The term is wikt:bayabas ; the final "s" is not the English plural marker. No opinion on peyara. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving without leaving a redirect would be okay for Bayabas. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Bayabas" is a good redirect, keep bayaba; the discussion above demonstrates that anglophones will interpret it as the singular of "bayabas". Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 13 October 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.

Aloo(name)[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 speedily deleted. Done by User:RHaworth (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User created this page as well as a corresponding entry at the Aloo (which I redirected it to). However, there is no evidence of Aloo being used as a name (as far as I can tell). Further, there is a missing space. See no reason to keep this. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Aloo (name) without leaving a redirect behind. This was a very short article that got turned into a redirect and immediately brought here: this is generally a bad idea, if you want an article delete, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. But now that it has been brought up here, we might as well discuss it, especially since with a topic like this it's as likely to receive meaningful input here as on AfD. Aloo indeed appears to be a common Parsi name [1], and we've got one article about a person with that name. With more searching it's possible that enough sources will come up for a proper article (that's why wouldn't want to delete the article's history), but until that happens this probably ought to be preserved in the form of a redirect to the dab page, where I'll proceed to add an entry for the one person with the name that we have an article about. – Uanfala 08:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Uanfala's suggestion. I've added some more folks with the name. They're mainly relatives, but there are some characters as well like Chuck Aloo. If it's too small a sample size, it can be merged into the Aloo (disambiguation) page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Why is it necessary to have a separate page? Why can't the names just go to the already existing DAB? I don't see any reason to separate the two. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • When recommending a move, my intention was to keep that as redirect, but preserve its history (expecting it sooner or later to become notable per WP:APONOTE). But now that the article's original creator has restored it as an article, and that AngusWOOF has expanded it with more enries, it does look keep-worthy. Your question is why shouldn't it be merged into the dab page. Well, it can, and it probably facilitate its navigational function. But this is also an article about a name, and the information it contains about this name generally wouldn't belong on a dab page. Maybe we should allow such dab pages to have encyclopedic content, but we don't. I personally wouldn't object if one is added, but it's very likely to be removed on sight by the MOS:DAB-warriors who watch over dab pages. – Uanfala 19:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. el cid, el campeador should get a WP:TROUT for trying to delete an article via RfD. The page is now an article at Aloo (name) and as such does not belong here, so I suggest this be procedurally closed, and if el cid still thinks the article should be deleted they should use one of the proper processes. – Joe (talk) 12:30, 11 October 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 Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787[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) feminist 12:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An improbable redirect. This is the full title of the first edition of a book. The Federalist, without subtitles, redirects to the same target (The Federalist Papers). Nothing links here. For reasons that include the length and complexity of the subtitle, nothing is ever likely to link here, and no user is remotely likely to search for this name. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) rev. 03:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the actual title of The Federalist Papers. -- Tavix (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, this is the publication name of the original book collection of The Federalist articles. The articles were published in three newspapers, then were collected in two volumes with the long but historically important title. We've been having a discussion on The Federalist papers talk page about boldfacing this historic title in the lead. I'm for it, the nominator is against it. Obviously, as the original name of the book, its first (and only) mention is boldfaced in the article. That aside, a redirect from the historical original name seems appropriate, even if it's a little long for some, and it's now linked on The Independent Journal page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, it's the full title, but what are the circumstances where it would be used? I can't think of a single one. Bold the title in the Federalist Papers article, yes, but that is unrelated to having a long redirect. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's absolutely no reason to get rid of the full-name version. You might copy the title from a library record, for example. A library that doesn't follow standards might derive its MARCs from OCLC 978096404 without inserting the mandatory space before the space (believe me, this kind of mistake happens all the time), and if you run a Special:Search for the resulting phrase, you'll find this title immediately. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend (notwithstanding that in the last 2 years nobody has!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper above, this is a perfectly valid {{R from long name}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:16, 17 October 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.

War of the Servers[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 Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. It's most certainly not WP:PRIMARY either. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable stuff that should stay on Wikia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a film based on Garry's Mod and War of the Worlds, done by Robert Stoneman so it has some video game news coverage: [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 10 October 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.

Pulsareffect Roleplay[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 Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Another redirect exists for Dark Role Play, which is mentioned in the article as DarkRP, but it looks like this one isn't the same. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:28, 10 October 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.

Mingebags[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 Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. See also the page history. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:26, 10 October 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.

Burned Fur[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 Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. According to WikiFur, they are a group that existed during the turn of the millennium that called out deviants within the fandom. No notability can be established. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:25, 10 October 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_October_10&oldid=1088106138"