Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 8, 2018.

Untitled Michelle Wolf talk show[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) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The variety show has been released, so is no longer "untitled". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - both. Since it is now titled, these are no longer needed. Onel5969 TT me 12:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If articles are created before the title of the subject is known (and I'm not convinced they should be - c.f. WP:HAMMER) then the redirects formed when the page is moved do have value for a time afterwards. In this case, the page was created in mid February and moved in early March, so that period of usefulness is drawing to a close, but the page view statistics show that, especially for Untitled Michelle Wolf talk show, it isn't over quite yet. This should be revisited in a couple of months though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping, no longer untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 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 talk:Spectrum Bay News 9[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 by (unsurprisingly) RHaworth Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

Pointless XNR left behind after move. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It was only at this title for a single minute, as part of a day when the page was moved a total of 8 times by SwarmZone and TORaptor for unclear reasons. Why a title in the Wikipedia talk namespace was one of the destinations is even more puzzling, but the redirect clearly has no utility. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I have tagged the redirect for speedy deletion per G6 and G8. Wikipedia:Spectrum Bay News 9 does not exist. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G8 does not apply as the page it redirects to does exist. Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 9 June 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.

Exceptional curve[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 18#Exceptional curve

2010 North Korean nuclear test[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 refine to North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#2010 now that the relevant content has been added. Thanks, Amorymeltzer! -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. There was no test in 2010. This RD has been used as a hoax: [1] – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as WP:G3. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. Redirects don't have to be strictly accurate or even well-worded necessarily, but we shouldn't keep something that appears genuinely misleading. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a hoax at all. Basically, some folks thought the DPRK performed a nuclear test in May of 2010, some folks thought it was as seismic event. A simple search turns up plenty of discussion (Nature, Popular Mechanics, 38North, Phys.org) with most recent pieces suggesting it was most likely not a test. Thus, I think this would be quite useful as a redirect; however, I can't seem to find any coverage of it anywhere on the 'pedia. I'm fairly certain it should at least get some coverage somewhere, with this going to that section. I just don't know which article is most appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Amorymeltzer: if there's anywhere to write about it, I suppose it would fit in at the target where there are already short blurbs about the DPRK's various nuclear tests, and then probably also at Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that reports of a possible test received significant news coverage, but then isn't there still an issue since the redirect, as worded, is misleading? It implies that a test actually did occur as a matter of fact. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is content at the destination that explains that there wasn't a test then there will be no problem with this title redirecting to it - anyone using it will be educated about their misconception, anyone not using it will not know it exists and so cannot mislead them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this slipped my mind! I've just now gone ahead and added North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#2010 with some information on this. On the assumption this section is kept, this redirect can probably be kept and refined to that section. There may not have been a test, but this is definitely not a hoax. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content has now been added to the destination article, which might alter some people's opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target now contains some relevant content, and redirects are not required to be accurate descriptions so long as they are not misleading. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:59, 8 June 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.

Interior department[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/retarget so both capitalizations target Interior ministry. It has been determined that there are other uses for the term, so it should be redirected to the general topic. There was a case made that the US might be the primary topic for the term, but it seems to have been rejected. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this term used in any other context? If so, should this be a disambiguation page? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:42, 1 June 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) 15:54, 8 June 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.

Parasceve[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 Parasceve to Paraskevi, delete Prosábbaton and Prosabbaton. I appreciate the additional input here at the end, glad I delayed closing. This wasn't easy (or fun). For starters, the Prosabbaton and Prosábbaton are delete because, well, most folks either didn't care or supported deletion. For Parasceve, I really think the below discussion is no consensus, and almost closed it as such; Paraskevi doesn't directly mention the spelling, nor does Wiktionary. However, I am redirecting it for two reasons: Friday includes a line (the Greek word for Friday is Paraskevi) that supports such a conflation; and two, the original section these pointed to had a hatnote for Parasceve, pointing readers to Paraskevi. That was way back in January of 2012, and after its removal it would have been reasonable to just redirect it to Paraskevi. The line at Friday is not enough for me to be convinced by the arguments for keep that it would be more helpful than a retargeting.

All that being said, I imagine an enterprising editor could be inspired to re-add some of this material (if sourced) to Friday, and if so, I wouldn't be opposed to these being repointed/recreated back there if it sticks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target section does not exist. None of these are mentioned in the target article (though the Etymology section mentions a "Paraskevi" as the Greek translation). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one. Parasceve in modern usage is the day before the Jewish sabbath, and is also Latin for Friday (it took on the meaning of Good Friday in ecclesiastical Latin). Prosabbaton is Greek for 'the day before the sabbath' (quite literally 'pre-sabbath'). I would retarget Parasceve to Friday (no section), and retarget Prosabbaton to shabbat, and tag both with {{R with possibilities}}. Prosábbaton, the inflected version, can be deleted as an unlikely search term. Richard0612 21:27, 18 May 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) 16:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have stumbled across a topic virtually unknown in Western Christianity, but very significant in Eastern Christianity. English Wiki has no article on it, but IMO it needs one: Saint Paraskevi (personification of Friday) [ru]. (Two incoming links in English Wiki already.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, redirect Parasceve to Paraskevi. I have no opinion on Prosabbaton. Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt. Some fine suggestions, but nothing concrete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Parasceve to wikt:parasceve, where it is defined. Delete the other two, I cannot find a good target. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2-way:
    • Retarget Parasceve to Paraskevi, which is an alternative spelling of the same word and which defines it, and add a link from there to wikt:Parasceve. I also note that Parasceve returns many results related to the Parasceve/Paraskevi name (i.e. individuals, saints and churches), among other results related to the day of the week.
    • Retarget Prosábbaton and Prosabbaton to Friday (no anchor) as the terms seem to exist in English, albeit mostly in religious use, as synonymous of Friday. The Friday#Etymology section may be extended to cover these terms, which it currently does not. Place Clichy (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Parasceve to Paraskevi. Delete the others. Keeping them pointed to Friday without explanation makes them "Easter egg redirects": if you know what "Prosabbaton" means, you'll get it, but otherwise, it's just going to confuse or disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 19 June 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.

Religious founder[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. Maybe not the best we've got, but useful and clear enough ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects could be considered misleading. Due to the order of the words in these redirects, the question could be asked: "Religious founders ... of what?" Maybe the reader is trying to find founders who are religious, but maybe founded a company? These redirects are too ambiguous. Also, they al last present a "chicken or the egg" question: Were the founders religious before they founded a religion, considering that their respective religion didn't exist until they founded it? Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. You are overthinking this. Redirects are pragmatic. If the term exists, the redirect is valid. If the term is polysemous, turn it into a disambiguation page. A glance at google books shows that the term "religious founder" is indeed used in the sense "founder of a religious tradition or movement". If you do find the term used for "founders of companies who were also religious", and you wish to make an entry on such a category, by all means come back and disambiguate. --dab (𒁳) 06:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have nominated these redirects if I didn't see the problem I stated. In addition, creating a disambiguation page for such terms isn't helpful either since there are no subjects that go by these names. These terms would be better off deleted so that readers can use Wikipedia's search function to figure out what they are attempting to find. In addition, though I usually support Google Books results, such results should, IMO, only be used to enforce associating connecting terms/phrases that do not have possible ambiguity due to their wording (such as "dog" or names of cities of countries); phrases such as these have natural ambiguity that Google Books results cannot account for, and are thus unhelpful in cases such as these. Steel1943 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:44, 30 May 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) 14:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the only pragmatically plausible meaning of the phrase religious founder is "founder of a religion". Yes, there is superficial ambiguity in this term, but here I think we're going too far in trying to shield readers from all possible misunderstandings. Ambiguities of this sort are endemic to any use of natural language (nuclear medicine is not the "core" field of medicine, a heavy drinker is not a drinker who weighs a lot etc.), and these ambiguities become a problem only if we were trying to make an encyclopdia to be used by translation bots, not by human readers. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uanfala's arguments are convincing me that this is not actually ambiguous at a practical level. It's also worth noting that even if we were writing an encyclopaedia for translation bots that vast amounts of semantic markup would be required even without theoretically ambiguous titles. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 16 June 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.

Midquel, Interquel, Sidequel, Paraquel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 17#Midquel, Interquel, Sidequel, Paraquel

Korean United Party[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This name for the target is not used in the article, and indeed the redirect is the only hit on google for the exact phrase. The target is a union of two previous political parties, but it isn't known by this name in English, nor does it seem to be a translation of the Korean name (Google translate offers "Right Future"). Further there are several unrelated parties listed at List of political parties in South Korea with "United" in their name that this would be be a more logical search term for (e.g. United Korea Party, Grand National United Party, etc) if there was any evidence of use. Other the day of creation (when it would be viewed by new page patrollers), every single visit recorded has been on a day the target was moved or the redirect was categorised. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's not a translation of this party's name, it's not a translation of the names of any of the predecessors, and to be honest I can't find any party whose name would reasonably be translated this way (there's parties which use 연합 or 통합 in their name but no plain old 한국연합당 or 한국통합당, and all the other ko:통일당 besides the United Korea Party appear to be called Unification Party in English). Confusion between South Korean political parties with vaguely similar names is already a problem on Wikipedia given the speed with which these parties split and merge and all draw from the same tiny pool of adjectives with which to describe themselves, and this redirect just makes things worse. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - concur with the above. Deryck C. 13:07, 14 June 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.

Belloumi[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target is the only article with this name in the title and from what I can see he was not known (as a common name), by his family name, unlike Diego Maradona Dom from Paris (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, {{R from surname}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per LaundryPizza03. As there is no other article about people with this name there is no risk of confusion. A google search suggests that even if there are other notable people with this name, that the Algerian footballer would be by far the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 9 June 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.

Mirada de mujer (2018 telenovela)[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirection, the telenovela was canceled. Philip J FryTalk 13:12, 8 June 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.

Pornographic film studio[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you want to write an article just do so over the redirect. In the mean time the redirect gets people to content that is relevant to their search term - a pretty standard {{R from list topic}}, as indeed the redirect is already tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to be fair, I didn't tag it as {{R from list topic}} until after it was nominated here. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's standard operating procedure to redir the topic to the list article when we have the list article but not the topic as stand alone article. E.g., we do this with lots of "Mayor of City" titles, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 10 June 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_June_8&oldid=1127488376"