Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 31, 2015.

About hair[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) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Wikipedia articles are 'about X' where "X" is the title we use on Wikipedia. There's no point in creating redirects to every article to be "about X" when "X" is about X. This is a very unlikely search term -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Rubbish computer 09:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as all above. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thuthube[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) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have found, this seems like the Vietnamese word for "uncle". Well, uncles aren't exclusively a Vietnamese concept. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find evidence that it means anything in any language, aside from possibly being a name. Definitely doesn't sound Vietnamese to me. If it were a correct Vietnamese word for uncle it might be retargeted to an article which covered Vietnamese kinship terminology or family structure, but the actual Vietnamese words for uncle are chú or bác for your dad's brothers, cậu for your mom's brothers, dượng for uncles-by-marriage (i.e. mom or dad's sisters' husbands), and ông (literally "grandpa", general respectful term for old men) for great-uncles. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Quotes about women[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) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No subject by this name is described in the redirect's target article. Note: this redirect was the result of converting a list-like page into a redirect in 2003. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Male issue[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 Son. bd2412 T 21:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This redirect is not mentioned in its rather article, and the redirect just seems too ambiguous to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be worried about that since the synonymous connection is not mentioned in the article, and I was not able to confirm the validity of that statement based on results I found on search engines, and I looked for a while. (I've never heard of this term before: in fact, when I see this term, I think of an issue of a magazine.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see where you're coming from. As a synonym, I don't think it needs to be explicitly mentioned there. I imagine a reader, probably not great with English, coming across the term "male issue" and not knowing what it means—this would mostly work there. Are there magazines that publish an annual "male issue" or something? --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I would assume that there is a notable magazine subject that does, similar to how the "Swimsuit Issue" redirect exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Son per BDD, but I don't think speedy. I'd like to see what else people come up with for this. In this context "issue" is the term used for children of people who hold hereditary noble titles, such as the list at Sophia of Hanover#Issue. However I'm wondering if there's a competing usage for "stuff which concerns men", such as how women's issue redirects to oh, no, it's red. Never mind. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobility is implied with this sort of phrasing, but not required. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tatko[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) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "father" is not exclusive to Bulgarian. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This is a general topic with no particular affinity for Bulgarian -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, as is redirect from unrelated foreign language. Rubbish computer 09:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambigiously directs readers to the content they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

African-American grandmother[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) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This specific subject is explained nowhere in the target article. In fact, the word "African" is nowhere in the target article. Also, African-American grandmother was formerly an article, but it looks like it was redirected due to containing mainly WP:OR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • We actually have an article on African-American family structure, though it only mentions grandparents in passing a few times, and never grandmothers specifically. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no article related to this enough to have a redirect leading to it with this title. Rubbish computer 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🏁[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. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(U+1F3C1 🏁 CHEQUERED FLAG) Retarget to Checkered flag (disambiguation)Racing flags#The chequered flag. Current target is over-specific. Si Trew (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pumpy[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) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in target article, and I am unable to see a connection with the redirect's term with any encyclopedic subject. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently there was an American football player named Pumpy Tudors, which is just delightful. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unable to see a connection—try saying "PMP" out loud. – iridescent 16:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget as {{R from misspelling}} to Pompey. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader would have to type the "o" incorrectly, then completely forget the "e". This is too unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Houghs Neck where a local location is indicated -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Pumpy does not appear to be mentioned in this article. Rubbish computer 10:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not reading the article closely enough. or the pumpy by the locals -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there seems to be no suitable article for this to lead to. Rubbish computer 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there have been some retarget suggestions, but without any one obvious option, this is better off deleted so that the search engine can work its wonders. -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Peter Sabbath[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) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection here. Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per apparent lack of connection. Rubbish computer 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The connection is found in the reference citation that was removed (and rightly so) from the redirect. That citation has been placed on the talk page of the redirect. Gonick, the author of The Cartoon History of the Universe, mentions on page 298 of his work that Prince Justinian's birth name was "Peter Sabbath" and that "Justinian" was his adopted name. This redirect is not mentioned either in the present target's article or the perhaps better target, the article about Gonick's work. Perhaps if "Peter Sabbath" were to be written into the article about Gonick's work, then this redirect could be retargeted there. Barring that, a Google search provides us with a priest who might be notable someday, which means this redirect might be better off as a red link. It's a 7-year-old redirect, so external links breakage should also be a consideration. – Paine  04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't certain how reliable Gonick's work was and the article on Justinian is quite tightly written, so I decided to add the redirect as a compromise. What ever happens to the redirect, I would like it if some way could be found to keep the information.--Auric talk 21:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I'm sure you're aware, the only way to be sure to keep the information is to find an appropriate way to mention the redirect in an article. If as I said, the redirect could be mentioned using the source on its talk page in the article on The Cartoon History of the Universe, then in addition to keeping the information, this redirect could be retargeted to that article. Or, if this redirect is deleted, then at least the sourced information would be in the article about Gonick's work. – Paine  06:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bill Niederst[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) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are these two names connected? Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per apparent lack of connection. Rubbish computer 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know Jennifer Niederst, so I can personally attest that the following is a legitimate page, a page where she makes the connection quite clear: http://www.jenville.com/. More generally, this name association, complete with birthplace, is made at literally thousands of pages on the Web, such as IMDB, and of course at the article Liam Lynch (musician). If it were false, and Wikipedia were responsible for the false information, wouldn't Mr. Lynch have been likely to complain? (And finally, may I suggest that in the future, when the editor who created the redirect - in this case, that's me - is still active, it would much simpler just to ask a question on that editor's talk page.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still don't see any connection at Wikipedia, which I think was the implication in the question by the nominator: searching for "Bill" in the target article yields nothing. @John Broughton:, despite what you say, this name is not mentioned at Liam Lynch (musician) as far as I can tell. Nobody suggested the information was false, the implication was (I think) that it is a WP:SURPRISE to put in this name and end up at an article which doesn't mention it.
After all, there are probably many Bill Niedersts (and Billy Niedersts and William Niedersts) in the world, many of whom are not WP:N: so from the point of view of Wikipedia navigation, this is not useful as it stands. This is an encyclopaedia not a directory such as, e.g. zoominfo.com. Since there is no encyclopaedic content on this person, it's reasonable to suggest deletion.
I agree it would have made sense to talk to you first as the creator of the redirect, but since you get the notification of listing anyway, it's no big deal. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: - The first three words in the Liam Lynch article are "William Patrick Niederst". To state the obvious, "Bill" is a variant of "William". There are no notable people named "Bill Niederst" other than the one we're talking about, so I'm not sure how WP:SURPRISE is relevant here.
If someone wants to create a redirect at William Niederst or William Patrick Niederst, have at it. It's been 8 or so years since I created the redirect, and I'm guessing that Mr. Lynch was known among his friends as "Bill" rather than "William". But that's just a guess; I've never met him or spoken to him. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, that's just an unsourced guess. MOS:BOLDTITLE says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence", so Liam Lynch should appear before his real name. As for William vs Bill, it is not necessarily obvious to a WP:WORLDWIDE audience for whom English may not be a first language: at least, "Bill" should appear in the name, c.f. Buffalo Bill or Bill Bryson. Si Trew (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the last time I edited the article, in 2007, the name, at the time, was "Bill Niederst", not William, and the name was, as you point out it should be, not the initial words in the article. So someone else changed that part of the article since I last edited it, and you're welcome to fix that.
As for the core issue, I think that it is sufficiently documented that Liam Lynch's original last name was Niederst. (Here's an archived page from Jennifer Niederst's website, in case there are still doubts.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've no doubt his name is William or Bill Niederst. It's just ithe article doesn't clearly (reliably) say so. We can fix that, as you say. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's his name. The article could make it a little clearer, but the first words in the article are "William Patrick Niederst" and Bill is a common nickname for William. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't typically create redirects from short names that the person doesn't actually use, e.g. Bill Wheaton (Wil Wheaton). However here I think we have sufficient verification that people actually call him "Bill" rather than Wil, Will, Willie, Billy, or any of the other short forms of William. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Information On Giant Pandas[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) 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary JZCL 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 14:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the superfluous "information about/on". It's obvious that the Giant Panda article contains information, we don't need a redirect telling us that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fun fact: I almost nominated this back on May 19th, but ended up finding a better "I" entry and forgot about it until now. -- Tavix (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete information on X is exactly what all articles are about, information on "X". We do not need every article to have a redirect from 'information on X' forms. These are unlikely search terms. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very obscure synonyms for the article --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search terms, no reason for deletion has been suggested. WilyD 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Heavy metal ramification[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) 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Same idea as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Heavy metal genealogic tree but I think this is different enough that it should get a separate discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Heaevy metael uemlaeuet[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) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. The German-to-English rule of respelling "ü" as "ue" doesn't apply to a heavy metal umlaut because it isn't actually German. -- Tavix (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, per Tavix. I'd argue that since none of marks on these letters is really an umlaut (linguistics), calling them so is technically wrong, but of course Metal umlaut is its WP:COMMONNAME so that of itself is fine, but these are stretching it a bit.
We don't have Mëtäl ümläüt, nor Heävy metäl ümläüt (for which the first one would be the transliteration), but we do have Heavy metal ümlaut, Röckdöts, Röckdöt and Röck döts for the others respectively: these also all go to Metal umlaut.
{{R from title with diacritics}} is inappropriate in these cases since they are not the exact same title as required (or at least recommended) when using those templates.
This is getting a bit out of hand, I think: @Tavix:, did you want to add any I mention to the nom? Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I think it'd be best to start a new nomination because the rationale would be different. You're more than welcome to make the nomination if you'd like. I'd like to focus this one specifically on the false "ü" to "ue" respelling. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll wait until we settle this one. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Heavy metal ümlaut is less clear-cut: The word umlaut does not actually have an umlaut on the U, even in German, but I can see it being a common misspelling of "umlaut" rather than of itself intended to mean the metal umlaut. But then, we don't have metal ümlaut. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible misspelling. Rubbish computer 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two heavy metal redirects, as intentional mispellings, which may be copypasted into the searchbox -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain further? I'm not understanding what you're saying. -- Tavix (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying they're intentionally spelled with improper spelling to emphasize the heavy metal umlaut, by using the conventional umlaut replacement scheme with a following-e -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, as I pointed out above, we don't have metal ümlaut, so it does not follow that we should have heavy metal ümlaut let alone the transliteration heavy metal uemlaut. (I don't need to copy-paste them, I can type them: on a US keyboard with a US International keyboard layout.) Heaevy metael uemlaeuet is even more odd because putting the umlauts back would give Heävy metäl ümläüt, which is red. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That those redirects do not exist does not follow that these redirects that do exist automatically shouldn't exist. We're just missing some redirects in that case, that can be created. Redirects don't spring up automatically as a consequence of an article being created, someone needs to go around and create them as well. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My main bind is that the laut placing on these is arbitrary. You mention a "conventional umlaut replacement scheme" but I don't see any convention being followed here. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is replacing an umlaut-bearing vowel with the stripped-vowel followed by an "e". The placement of the "e"s (or the umlaut-bearing form) is the intentional mispelling. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that this was added by a bot, I don't think it was "intentional." -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Heavy m[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) 20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a super vague redirect. For starters, my search results show "Heavy M" as being some kind of mapping technology. On Wikipedia, it could refer to anything at heavy metal, heavy mineral, heavy machine-gun, etc. No matter where you put it, there'll be a WP:SURPRISE, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Heavy metal genealogic tree[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 Metal: A Headbanger's Journey#"Definitive metal family tree". --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. This is confusing because the article gives no indication of what a "heavy metal genealogic tree" would be. -- Tavix (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Next Australian constitutional referendum[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) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't a good idea to have a redirect of the format "next (event)" as it will require maintenance, or in this case, remain outdated. -- Tavix (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; it's possible it would be used correctly, e.g. if the article was about some event in 2011 then in context the next referendum might be in 2013, even though now in the past: but even so it would be better to refer to a specific date and pipe, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it may get readers where they want to go right now (WP:POFRED), it will quickly become dated. WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague and will become, or remain, outdated. Rubbish computer 15:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Turkishmenistan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12#Turkishmenistan

My Malaysia[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 Wong Kew-Lit. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No plausible target and this particular term certainly does not refer to the current target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to Negaraku#Proposed renaming where this is now mentioned and sourced. (Malaysiaku was already mentioned there, it just didn't mention that means "My Malaysia" in English. Malaysiaku also redirects to Negaraku already.) As the nominator states, there is no other plausible target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, there's an apparently non-notable film by Wong Kew-Lit which is actually called My Malaysia (unlike the anthem's proposed renaming to Malaysiaku) and gets a bare mention on his article (and in laundry lists of his works in lots of news articles). A WP:TWODABS WP:DABMENTION seems like a bad idea. Maybe delete and let search results sort it out. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wong Kew-Lit#Filmography, where it is mentioned with enough context to establish some meaning-Kew-Lim's involvement, the fact it is a film and when it was produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 August 2015
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

I-net[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 procedural close. Converted to a disambiguation page. Being a bit bold myself and closing early! (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to iiNet, as I couldn't think of any other possibility, there are several other non-notable topics by that name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create a disambiguation page i-net and iNet are synonyms for "internet", however, we also have topics inet, INET, Inet TV, INET (Megaranger), for which we are missing a disambiguation page -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, please, since there were no links in article space (and only a few in user space plus this discussion of course) I've WP:BOLDly converted this into a DAB with the entries as suggested, so it is no longer a redirect. I've also added a hatnote at Inet (but not at any others). I am sure other entries could be added to the DAB, but it's a start. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • Comment. Sorry about doing this after the close, but I've moved the DAB to Inet (disambiguation) and tidied/added the hatnotes at Inet and INET. So it is now an R again, but an R to DAB. I add that here as it may seem confusing to others coming to this discussion after the early close: a bit naughty I know but useful to add it here, I think. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Options[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) 16:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget Delete Browsing History to Web browsing history; where this topic is discussed (granted, that section also looks like a "how-to guide" right now, but given articles like [2] there is probably room for more encyclopedic discussion of the topic there). Delete Internet Options as too vague to refer to any specific topic; best result in that case is probably to show search results. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "internet options" is excessively vague, as it could refer to dataplans, or ISP choices, etc. Delete "browsing history" as excessively vague, since many websites keep track of browsing history through your account, etc. Delete as WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to vagueness. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 10:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How mobilephones work?[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) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTFAQ. - TheChampionMan1234 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Summary of trojan war[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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this is misleading. In a sense, any article is or contains a summary of the topic. So a reader specifically searching for this term may be looking for something more specific, along the lines of the excellent Introduction to evolution.

There are other redirects like this, but I'm not going to review them all right now. Summary of 6teen episodes seems fine since the target contains summaries of episodes, but many others, I suspect, have the same problem as the Trojan War one. BDD (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there were an Outline of the Trojan War as there is for some topics, this would be a good redirect to it. That's currently a redlink, and beyond my skill to create. Weak keep, I think, in the sense that the lede of any article is meant to be a summary of the topic, and Trojan War has a decent one. I also see BDD's point about it being misleading, but I think it's not particularly harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was converted from a stub to a redirect one minute after it was created on 6 October 2008, so the chances of external links are vanishingly small. It probably should have been deleted then, but hey-ho. Hits are well below noise level (about one every two days) and no internal links except related to this discussion. No significant edit history. Does not meet WP:TITLECAPS. We don't have Summary of Trojan War, Summary of the trojan war or Summary of the Trojan War. I think Ivanvector's point about having an outline article is good, but then this should be deleted per WP:REDLINK, to encourage its creation. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SimonTrew's points. Rubbish computer 10:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rekt[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) 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't internet slang; it's a meme for the word "wrecked". Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Namgyong[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 the first three to Names of Seoul, keep the last one. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Nanching" -- this is clearly a Wade-Giles variant, and most Chinese cities should have various Wade-Giles variants as redirects -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Namgyeong" is getting lots of hits for some reason, so it may be a candidate for keeping. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked (not piped) from Seoul#Etymology, but oddly not from Names of Seoul. Suppose then that it should be retargeted to Seoul as an alternate name, although that makes it a circular redirect. Doesn't seem to be in use anywhere else, but certainly a WP:SURPRISE clicking on a historic name for Seoul and ending up at Nanjing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch; I agree it should be either retargeted to Seoul or deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chonjin[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, delete, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Tyenjin because that's how it's pronounced, making this a plausible guess by anyone who doesn't know Chinese. The others are Korean and can be deleted. Siuenti (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sanghae[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 Dongmyeong of Goguryeo. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Cha Sang-hae, although deletion would be the more obvious thing to do. - TheChampionMan1234 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sanghae is also an alternative name of Dongmyeong of Goguryeo. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 58.176 is probably on to something there. My search is showing that this might be an honorific or a diminutive in Korean, as I'm finding many Korean actors who have played roles with Sanghae in the name, as though it's a modifier and not a real name. I've also found this which is a discussion of the Korean crime "sanghae" which is essentially "inflicting bodily injury", but I don't think redirecting to a legal topic would be appropriate per WP:FORRED. In the case of Cha Sang-hae, unless he is known just by "Sanghae" then this wouldn't work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sanghae is just an ordinary name, no special honorific meaning [3]. I'm not a big fan of redirecting names to random people who have that name, but it's a losing battle; there's thousands of {{R from given name}}s. On the other hand, when there's more than one person with the same given name, there's usually a WP:SETINDEX for all the people with that name, which I think is reasonable. There's even a whole WikiProject devoted to maintaining them: WP:ANTHROPONYMY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dongmyeong of Goguryeo, the only person in English Wikipedia who is known mononymously (even if only alternatively) as Sanghae. If Wikipedia gets more people named Sanghae in the future, then perhaps Sanghae could become a {{given name}} WP:SETINDEX. But since there's only one other person in Wikipedia right now, and Sanghae isn't one of the list of the most popular given names in South Korea, the name doesn't seem to need a set index page right now. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Beiching[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, delete, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I first saw "Beiching" above, I thought it was as misspelling for "belching". Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beiching per 67's point. Unsure about the others. Rubbish computer 10:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tongkyong[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 Gyeongju. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Is God real?[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 10#Is God real?

Jumpy[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 procedural close. WP:IAR close here. I created the redirect, but have since converted to a disambiguation page, which seems to go in line with the nominator's rationale anyways. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May not be a reasonable redirect, as the page's name is an adjective that can reasonably be construed to have other meanings, and is not specific to the redirect target. MopSeeker FoxThree! 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. (I am the redirect's creator.) I drafted the disambiguation page below the redirect after I realized that all current incoming links refer to a non-existent article called Jumpy (play). Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean seriously, can this discussion be closed? (WP:IAR?) This redirect was nominated a mere minute or two after I created it. I didn't even have time to realize that I made a mistake. Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2015_July_31&oldid=1146032552"