Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 26, 2018.

Bustre[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. 10:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Bustre? Moreover, who was Bustre in the context of the target? No other suitable target can be found for an artist who no longer uses this alias. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:F1A3:13E8:328A:2925 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Target article is not appropriate and there is no other viable target. This artist doesn't even appear to be mentioned on any Monstercat-related article, which is where I would expect them to be. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Buster as a common misspelling. The editor whose username is Z0 15:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The mention in the target is too insignificant to be of use to the reader and the term doesn't seem to have any other meanings discussed in the encyclopaedia. Retargeting to buster per Z0 would be preferable to keeping this, but I think a reader who searches for this term is more likely, on balance, to be looking for information on the artist than to be making a typo for "buster". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2018 (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.

DotEXE[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. 10:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why may I ask would an artist redirect to a genre? This doesn't make sense and should be deleted as no other suitable article can become a target. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:F1A3:13E8:328A:2925 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only other idea I can think of is a redirect to .exe since the . is pronounced dot though I'm not sure how viable that is.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable music artist and yes, could be confused with .exe AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to .exe. The editor whose username is Z0 15:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the reader who searches for this is most likely to be looking for the artist, who is not mentioned in any substantial way in the encyclopaedia. As such, retargeting to .exe would probably also be unhelpful. Based on a cursory Google search, I think it's plausible that the artist could be notable, so WP:RDEL #10 also applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2018 (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.

I-Self Lord and Master[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 3#I-Self Lord and Master

Yugoslavia national under-20 basketball team[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. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia was much bigger than just Serbia. Here's a source for team appearances: Yugo vs Serbia. Btw this redirect was created by Serbian editor. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting that FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship includes European Championship for Men '22 and Under where Yugoslavia represented Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (that includes Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina). How is that Serbia? Again here's a source Being connected does not mean it's the same and it's not the same. So the redirect is not factually correct. I don't get your other arguements, Yugoslavia (basketball team) is not redirected to Serbia (basketball team).--Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's misinterpreted once again. European Championship for Men '22 and Under' is inaugurated in 1992. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is dissolute in 1992 and has no participation at the Championship. Further, SFR Yugoslavia is not FR Yugoslavia. FR Yugoslavia is one of successor countries (see here) and renamed in 2003 to Serbia and Montenegro. Players from Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina had never played for Yugoslavia at the European Championship for Men '22 and Under' because they represented their countries since the inauguration of the competition.--IndexAccount (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still you don't have any source to back your claim that Yugoslav team is the same as Serbian. FIBA presents them seperately. Yugoslavia vs Serbia & Montenegro vs Serbia. Why can't you present the statistics in correct articles rather than "Representing Yugoslavia / Serbia and Montenegro / Serbia" all in one place? It was a joint team with Montenegrin people, players such as Aleksandar Pavlović, Predrag Drobnjak, Vlado Šćepanović, Đuro Ostojić etc can't be called Serbian. The teams separated - Big changes on the way for Serbia & Montenegro --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you have proven that you do not understand the term Yugoslavia. Also, you made a huge mistake in your comment on 18 July 2018 (UTC) 06:08 about European Championship for Men '22 and Under'. So, it seems, you're not a referent on this issue. Second, your source here merged results of national teams of SFR Yugoslavia (23 million people) and FR Yugoslavia (10 million people). Being connected does not mean it's the same and it's not the same, as you said. What about that? I dont's see any progress in this discussion. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting anything Yugoslavia-related (like the basketball team) to Serbia only proves that you are not acknowledging the facts. Besides that, you are going off topic. You are basically saying that we have to distinguish SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia, but it's okay to confuse FR Yugoslavia and Serbia. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: SFR Yugoslavia vs FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro – It's clear that SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia are two different countries (same like the Soviet Union and Estonia), while FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro are the same country. It means that Yugoslavia in 1985 is not a same as Yugoslavia in 1995, while Yugoslavia in 1995 is the same as Serbia and Montenegro in 2005. That are facts. The problem with your source here is that it merges the results of two different countries. The problem with your source here is that it presents a part of the results of one countries. That are facts.
Not connected to this Rfd. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2: FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro vs Serbia – Cannot be related to the Point 1. Montenegro was like 10% of FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. The fact is that a wast majority of players born in Montenegro and represented FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro hold both Montenegrin and Serbian passport. The same case in not for players born in Serbia. Players such as Aleksandar Pavlović and Nikola Peković are the Serbs of Montenegro and both hold Serbian passport.
That's the reason for this Rfd - 90% is not 100%. Also disrespectful againt Montenegrin people. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3: Your vandalism – I have seen what you did in articles such as Yugoslavia national basketball team or Serbia men's national basketball team and it's clear that you don't understand the topic. Also, in your argument you use whataboutism often and missing the point. You are making harm to people such as User:Bozalegenda, also. Further, you shoved a few misunderstandings in your comments in this discussion. --IndexAccount (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not connected to this Rfd. Content dispute is not vandalism, but some Bozalegenda's edits were vandalism - the reason this user got topic ban (I'm not an admin, so not my decision). Whataboutism is something you are using in this discussion. You are going off-topic in your every response. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelmeen10: Man once again you are making a fool of yourself. I was not blocked because of vandalism, I was blocked because i broke the three-revert rule. And I was blocked only for two weeks and that period is over a long long time ago. I just didnt want to edit english wikipedia anymore. And im happy that articles about Serbian and Yugoslav national basketball team are now on my version, and that other users reverted your version which is ridiculous bullshit. The only person who is making vandalism here is you. You dont know anything about Yugoslavia history and you want to discuss about that??? Multiple users explained you everything and you still have your ridicoulus version. And for the millionth time that FIBA archive table is not reliable, just like we dont use that table at Zaire/DR Congo or Formosa/Taiwan/Taipei national teams we dont need to use that at Yugoslavia national team.--Bozalegenda (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A reminder that the conduct of editors is not what we are here to discuss. All editors should also be aware that this is an area under discretionary sanctions following Arbitration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Another tired nationalistic dispute, sigh. I find this a plausible redirect, and if anyone advocating otherwise thinks differently, then why aren't they spending their time writing it to an article-standard instead of arguing here? Ravenswing 00:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contains content relevant to the redirect. feminist (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2018 (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:Fake news[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. If we list all the options, it's like redirecting to all of them! Seriously, this seems likely to satisfy. Much obliged to DC for the work. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the place where the target specifically discusses fake news. I think this redirect should go somewhere, but I don't know where.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I certainly agree that this shouldn't be a red link. There have been a few disperate discussions in various places about the topic, the consensus of which seems to have been that WP:RS is the key page people should read. However, I'm wondering if a page linking with a 1 paragraph introduction to fake news and links to WP:RS, WP:RSN, WP:IRS (the current target), Fake news, List of fake news websites and possibly other pages (Fictitious entry?, Reliability of Wikipedia?) would be best. While the reliable sources policy is our principle weapon against fake news, that isn't going to be obvious to someone unfamiliar with it without some sort of introduction (which wouldn't be appropriate on the policy page itself). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. 344917661X (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fake news stories are, by definition, always unreliable. So, if this is retained, I prefer the current target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 14#Wikipedia:FAKENEWS was closed as delete. -- Tavix (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, which as far as I know is the only page in the Wikipedia namespace to deal with the "fake news" phenomenon in any depth (though it has certain problems, noted extensively in the RfD for WP:FAKENEWS, and is marked as historical). A more substantial discussion of fake news in relation to Wikipedia's core content policies, such as Thryduulf describes, would probably be useful but doesn't currently exist. Neither the current target nor Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources provides anything useful to the reader on the topic of fake news specifically. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect though current redirect is fine for now, its definitely something people will look for the issue isnt as clear cut. Fake news isnt just false flag reports, it becoming more a kin to news, sources, information that I dont like or is inconvenient to hear. Its still to new to get a clear idea of where it'll end up. Gnangarra 00:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect or create topic index. I agree with the view that we should make this a blue link but the current target isn't the only relevant proposition on Wikipedia's response to "fake news". Deryck C. 14:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic index or just a disambiguation page, listing at least WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Potentially unreliable sources, and WP:Zimdars' fake news list.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:03, 26 July 2018 (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.

Allegations of Islamic apartheid[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) 15:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem neutral, and I'm not sure where it was going anyways.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects don't have to be neutral just plausible. Are there any such allegations?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this seems to be a lame attempt at mirroring Israel and the apartheid analogy. The 16 hits at Scholar seem to confirm that. However if kept, a better target would probably by Gender apartheid or Islam and gender segregation, as apartheid is never defined at the current target. Place Clichy (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Coment note that there is non-trivial history at Islamic apartheid, which should probably be nominated together. There are also discussions about the worthiness of this term at Talk:Islamic apartheid. Place Clichy (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Given that redirects don't have to be NPOV or even strictly factually accurate (indeed, this is loaded language to say the least), I think that we should go ahead and target the specific section 'Gender_apartheid#Islam'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even salting is fine, I closed the afd 11 years ago. This was part of a larger issue that emerged with socks, vandals, and nefarious types editing on anti Islam. Perhaps co-incidentally I find it strange that it appears so soon after one the worst sockmasters of that period who was community banned asked for an unblock via OTRS, hence just delete even salt would be fine. Gnangarra 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The current target, which never uses the word "apartheid," is obviously unhelpful to the reader. Gender apartheid or Islam and gender segregation seem more suitable, but it's not clear to me that unqualified "apartheid" is close enough to "gender apartheid" to warrant a redirect. The reader who searches for the former is probably looking for something broader, or more in keeping with the commonplace, specifically race-related rather than gender-related sense of Apartheid. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Islam and gender segregation. The Gender apartheid article is too general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arms & Hearts. The word "apartheid" alone means racial apartheid, as in the crime of apartheid, and the proposed target does not discuss that. The only other Wikipedia mention I can find of apartheid in the Islamic context is a brief passage at Islamic views on slavery, which seems too narrow. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2018 (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.

Josh Birkholz[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) 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY Joeykai (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The redirect creator did hundreds of these garbage redirects to bump up his new creations count (something for which he was eventually community banned both from redirect and new article creation), and they followed this exact pattern: redirecting from some desperately obscure NN hockey player to a bizarre search target. In this case, this is no more valid a target for this ephemeral third-line minor leaguer than the teams he played for, and it is an implausible search term to boot. Ravenswing 19:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Birkholz is mentioned in several articles (List of Florida Panthers draft picks, 2008 World Junior A Challenge, 2009–10 Florida Panthers season and 2009 NHL Entry Draft, among others), none of which has anything more than a passing mention. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2018 (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.

Bayside Station[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 Bayside station. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page was merged with Disney Resort Line, leaving Bayside station (LIRR) as the sole "Bayside station" with an article and thus as the primary topic. Jc86035 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added College/Bayside and Bayside railway to the Bayside station dab so retarget. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 26 July 2018 (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.

Kunal Kohli's Next[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does this outdated redirect even serve now? Besides, there aren't any mainspace pages linking to it. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Does not appear to be a working title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Presumably the article was created at this title in the sense of "Kunal Kohli's next film", but (1) the incorrect capitalisation gives the impression that it might lead to a film called Next, and (2) having been released in 2008, the target is no longer Kohli's next film, so the redirect is potentially confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2018 (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/2018_July_26&oldid=1205207579"