Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2018.

List is of South Australian organisations providing support to people with disability[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) 21:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO; fails speedy R3 as not recently created. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:54, 22 May 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.

Listof cities in Punjab and Chandigarh[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) 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO; fails speedy R3 as not recently created. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is too much tampering of these pages and I have not been able to keep up with it. With so much tampering the article may have lost its authenticity. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:05, 22 May 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.

Lady Caca[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) 20:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful misspelling of the target subject. I'd even go as far as saying this redirect is almost a WP:BLP violation as vandalism. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a borderline BLP violation and utterly implausible search term. Richard0612 19:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gross insulting redirect. —IB [ Poke ] 10:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious insult directed at Gaga; Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for demeaning article subjects regardless of our personal opinions on the people Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. More of a neologism as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well, this looks like a bit of pure nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, Lady Caca might be a non-notable parody artist but is unrelated to Gaga. » Z0 | talk 07:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as attack page. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 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.

Glitter & Grease[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 The Monster Ball Tour. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this was a working title for The Remix (Lady Gaga album), it doesn't seem like the subject of this redirect was ever made/released. (I'm suspecting it being a working or former title of The Remix (Lady Gaga album) due to the possibility of both being announced for a 2010 release.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 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.

Luc Carl[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) 20:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per research, this seems like a rumored ex-boyfriend or something. Probably delete per WP:ONEEVENT and a possible WP:BLP violation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete was never confirmed. —IB [ Poke ] 10:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This individuals seems only arguably notable in the context of Gaga's life. It's not clear what notability he has in terms of his own celebrity status. Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, meaningless redirect. » Z0 | talk 07:54, 26 May 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.

2009 Edmonton Energy Season[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. Since the content formerly at these titles have been merged to Edmonton Energy, the redirects have to be kept for attribution purposes so long as the content remains. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlinked/unused redirects for a defunct team. All content was merged (which was unsourced in the first place) into the target article. Unlikely to ever be linked as it has been over six years since the events occurred. If they have no use to be linked then, then they definitely serve no function now. Yosemiter (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not used and because it's also with upper-case Season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You redirected all four of these and then sent them here 30 minutes later. I'm fine with these not existing as redirects, and I'm fine with them not existing as articles, but the proper avenue for removing articles is not to redirect and immediately send to RfD — it's PROD or AfD. More to the point, your copy-paste of the content of each article to Edmonton Energy would suggest keeping these. These existed (in their sorry state) for over half a decade before your cut-and-paste, and should remain to point to the target wherein the content was merged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, I merged the content as that is the proper protocol for WP:NSEASONS (In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article...) as that is what I was doing at the time, then looked into the use of the pages themselves and found they were unused other than at the subject article (which needs a lot of work itself as it is barely notable). Often they are redirected to league season articles first and then the team if that is not notable either. Without the main article, they would have been orphaned; after merging they are unused and unlikely to ever be used and therefore serve no purpose. Can you prod redirects? Because if so, then the article or redirects should still not exist. We could merge the history of the redirects, but there isn't much there to merge either, just a single editor's unsourced project with no edit summaries. (The caps title is also incorrect as the proper title should have been XXXX Edmonton Energy season.) Yosemiter (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Yosemiter: No, you can't prod redirects and history merges are not appropriate where separate articles have been merged into one. - the edit histories of the articles (now redirects) need to be kept for attribution purposes. It doesn't matter that there is no edit summary or that the content is unsourced, we are still legally required to give attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf: Then I am sorry for trying to be helpful in cleaning up an unused mess, apparently I did a bad job here. I was trying to speeding up the process and not waste editor's time in what appeared to be a simple isssue. The season articles were AfD-fodder. At the AfD, 90% of the time, seasons are consensus merges per NSEASONS. This would then lead to unused redirect to the main page. At which point the would be taken here for RfD as unhelpful redirects that lack substance. Maybe they wouldn't deleted for attribution purposes, but we would be in the exact same place, just one month later. Doesn't change my opinion that they are absolutely useless as redirects though and should not have been created in the first place. You are essentially saying they were improperly made but can never be unmade due to procedural issues. If I deleted all the unreliably sourced and unverifiable info (ie they tables I merged), I guess then it would have never been an issue. Yosemiter (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve the attribution history as required. I'll add the appropriate tags as the nominator did not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 30 May 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.

Indomina Releasing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 30#Indomina Releasing

Business culture[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 Organizational culture. I haven't added {{Copied}} to Talk:Etiquette as the content consisted of only two sentences, and appears to be have been taken from the Etiquette page itself. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is a WP:SURPRISE, and between possible alternative targets such as Business or Business ethics, I don't see a valid unambiguous retargeting option. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Organizational culture which is what Corporate culture goes to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that Organizational culture is the better target. But this redirect was from a merge. Doesn't retargetting break attribution? Or is it just making sure we preserve the article history that is important? I don't know the law here. --Mark viking (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Use {{copied}} on the talk pages of the articles content was merged from and to to maintain the link to the attribution. As long as the edit history exists and can be found it doesn't matter so much where it resides. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 30 May 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.

Етика[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) 21:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target has no affinity to the Bulgarian language. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 22 May 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.

Grammatical error[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 Error#Human behavior. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; should be deleted to make room for a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This originally targeted Linguistic prescription, which while not using the term "grammatical error" does discuss the concept. Would that make a better target? Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Error#Human behavior in which the second paragraph discusses deviations of grammar as errors. Also okay with deleting as error is a common word. Only used in a handful of articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:06, 14 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) 12:34, 22 May 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.

Operatives[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 Operative. I made a minor change to the Operative dab, which I think is what you all wanted? Change as needed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Operatives" are not exclusively unlawful combatants and the redirect is misleading. Changing target to Operative is not appropriate because none of the entries is used as a plural. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An operative can be any worker, also used in computer terminology. Gotitbro (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Prehaps the page 'operative' just needs to be expanded? I'm seeming plenty of news articles that use the term "operatives" in a general sense to mean "specialists of a certain field" such as this New Yorker story. And here's something about professional agitators going after Beyonce. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to an expanded disambiguation page at operative per CoffeeWithMarkets, especially as that includes at link to Wiktionary. "Operative" can mean any worker, not just a military or skilled one - see the results of this search for example. Years ago I did see a job advert for a "front-line used-resource recovery and transportation operative" as a euphemism for a waste collector. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 13 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) 12:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab page at operative per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Operative dab which discusses agents (plural operatives) and doesn't have the surprise of going to unlawful combatant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:55, 30 May 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.

Omnimalevolence[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) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with these. Some of the examples of dystheism, such as trickster gods, aren't all evil. There are very few uses of the term on Wikipedia. One option might be retargeting to Omnibenevolence as {{R from antonym}}, but frankly, I'm not too fond of those except for when it really is as simple as saying "X is the opposite of Y". --BDD (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with redirecting rare terms to terminology sections even if they are just briefly mentioned there. It's a different matter if people try to create standalone entries on such terms.
I would strongly advise against just deleting these. The reason is that if there is no redirect, sooner or later people will be tempted to create stub entries, which will generally be so worthless as to just create work merge/deleting them, whereas if the term is already a redirect, people will be pointed to a related topic where they can actually contribute to an existing, and hopefully coherent, presentation of the topic. --dab (𒁳) 19:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're pretty obscure terms. Is there really a danger of repeated recreation? If someone is interested enough to do so, they might be interested in explaining the concept somewhere on Wikipedia too. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 11 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) 21:26, 12 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) 11:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems to me that the targeted page just needs to be expanded. The question of what exactly the idea means to be all evil for ideological reasons (I suppose the Old Testament's smite-happy traditional vision of Yahweh is either this or close to it) versus mostly evil for selfish reasons (normal trickster gods appear to fit here somewhat nicely) or only halfway evil out of incompetence or some other flaw (the DC and Marvel universes seem to be full of these)... well, that's a can of worms that seems to have no bottom. I'd like to point out, though, that the targeted page already takes about "He Gives Us All His Love" and other works that paint the divine in such a negative view that it can reasonably be called 'acting evilly'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:02, 23 May 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.

Miraiki[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) 21:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Oddly, this word seems to mean "attachment" in Malagasy; a related word in Japanese, mirai, means "future". Steel1943 (talk) 02:28, 22 May 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_May_22&oldid=1138582456"