Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 1, 2016.

Mandarin chinese[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mandarin Chinese as {{R from incorrect capitalization}}. No-brainer, listed for completeness really (was redirected yesterday by XqBot). Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think I have got all of the English-language ones of interest listed before midnight UTC, so listed together on one day! However, there are a lot of Chinese writing and transliterated Chinese redirects that might need to be checked, too. The few I have checked have all been stable at targeting Standard Chinese. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Mandarin (language)[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 deleted per WP:CSD#G6 —Kusma (t·c) 09:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a {{R from move}} to Mandarin Chinese from 30 March 2013 until yesterday. However, it's a WP:CNR. Delete. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2016 (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.

Germany—Serbia relations[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) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with the wrong dash just invites errors in linking articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternatively if it's just being kept around for the pre-merge edit history, then move it back to the name that nobody would be tempted to use. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and since it is a {{R with history}} that is not on an unlikely name. Besides the fact that erroneous linking is not a strong, or even valid, rationale for deleting a redirect since it does not prove the redirect to be a misleading search term ... Seriously, it's just a dash, like the dash the article name currently has, and with the existence of the redirects German-Serbian relations, Germany - Serbia relations, Germany Serbia relations, Germany – Serbia relations, Germany-Serbia relations, German–Serbian relations, Serbia - Germany relations, Serbia Germany relations, Serbia – Germany relations, Serbia-Germany relations and Serbia–Germany relations, that means we already have most other variations covered in case someone types the title in whatever fashion. Also, "...the name that no one would be tempted to use" is actually rationale why a redirect at the edit history's former name, Germany–Serbia relations/version 2, should not exist and should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addition: I would be okay with deletion only under the following condition: The edit history of the redirect has to be moved to a title that redirects to its current target that is not useless. In other words, I oppose moving the edit history back to Germany–Serbia relations/version 2. (My "{{R with history}}" concern is significantly stronger than my "WP:CHEAP" concern.) I moved the edit history to this title because as I cited above, basically all other variations of the redirect's target's title were already created. The only other options I can think of off the top of my head would involve lower-casing the second country or upper-casing the word "relations". I looked around for a disambiguator that could apply to the redirect's target (and then move the edit history to that {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} title,) but I could not find one that has any precedence for use to redirect to related articles. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I basically agree with the nom's arguments: misspelled and miscapitalized redirects are regularly misleading, and with the new, improved search algorithm finally being available, they're often more irritating than a real help. So while the hyphenated ASCII version "Germany-Serbia relations", the valid alternative title "German-Serbian relations", and the same three combinations in the reverse order have a place, the rest should go. IMHO we should even revise our WP:CHEAP policy and consider mass deleting incorrect redirects. --PanchoS (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge. Move the edit history from 2009 and prior from Germany—Serbia relations to Germany–Serbia relations. Since Germany–Serbia relations was created in 2010, there wouldn't be anachronistic problems and the history of the article can be properly attributed at the present title. I fairly strongly dislike moving history to random redirects as it makes it next to impossible to track down where the history is. Conducting a history merge would solve this. As far as whether or not the redirect should be deleted after the history merge is completed, I am neutral. While I doubt someone would search in this manner, it's harmless and unambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A redirect for something as picky as which dash was used is a nearly ideal use of a redirect. The argument that it's "misleading" because of the new search engine is invalid - 1) redirects do far more than merely support the search engine and 2) not everyone navigates the wiki using the search engine. I could see the argument to history-merge but there is no real point since the current redirect is not ambiguous. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "point" of a history merge has nothing to do with whether or not the redirect is ambiguous—it's to move the attribution to the correct place. In my rationale, I'm not arguing to delete the current redirect, but I do feel a history merge is needed nevertheless. -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Mandarin[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 deleted per WP:CSD#G6 —Kusma (t·c) 09:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Retargeted from Mandarin Chinese yesterday, but WP:CNR. Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2016 (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.

Chinese Mandarin Chinese[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) 16:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeted yesterday, but a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense – at least, redundant – really. We don't have French French or English British English; butEnglish English -> English language in England and German German -> German Standard German (how very German). Delete. Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "French French" is a real concept, either as French people from France, or French language spoken in France, since there are ethnic French from outside of France, and French dialects that are not from France, so they do make sense, indeed Wiktionary considers to as a proper way to define words only found in French in France. English English and German German both would suffer the same ambiguity as French French in distinguishing ethnic from linguistic. All three should be disambiguation pages.
    "Chinese Mandarin Chinese" supposes that "Mandarin Chinese" dialects exist outside of China. Which may be the case if you consider Singaporean local dialect of Mandarin as something that exists, and Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese does indeed exist.
    -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:CHEAP per Taiwanese Mandarin Chinese, dialect of Mandarin language that is from China, and not Taiwan, or Singapore. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of what it's trying to do, but actually the target does not mention "Chinese Mandarin" at all, and neither does Mandarin Chinese, so it is at least WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Nothing actually links through it. 70.51, even if you don't want to delete it, are you sure you don't want to retarget it back d to to where it was? Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • There shouldn't be much confusion, as it is the typical national Mandarin found in the PRC ("China"), instead of regional ones. A hatnote can link back to Mandarin Chinese. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off-topic, but I think you have a case for German, since German people, unusually, is an R to the article at Germans whereas German is a DAB, none of which quite says "people from present-day Germany", the closest we have being "citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany under German nationality law". It would be absurd to target "English English" to anything other than the language, though, because uses of "English" in e.g. American English and Australian English always mean the language and never the people, unlike e.g. "Irish" in American Irish or Australian Irish which mean the people. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't think to look at Chinese Chinese, which is red, as is Chinese Chinese language. I don't know what that tells us, if anything. What's the difference between Chinese Mandarin Chinese and Standard Mandarin Chinese (→ Standard Chinese)? Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you've pointed out other forms that do exist, the non-existence of these doesn't seem to say much. Chinese Chinese would suffer the same ambiguity as I pointed out above for English English and French French. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As those redirects have just been RfD nominated, we'll have to see the results first to determine that. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which redirects? RfD nominated where? They're not on today's log. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Standard Mandarin Chinese" is nominated on this day page, by yourself. Others are also nominated with it across this day and the next day (April 2) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sounds redundant, but it could theoretically be used to distinguish between the Standard language of the mainland and that of Taiwan or Singapore or just in reference to China in the abstract sense..--Prisencolin (talk)
  • Keep per Pirsencolin. Rossami (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2016 (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.

Popularize Mandarin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 12#Popularize Mandarin

Standard Mandarin language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been at this target since 18 Jan 2011 (a similar bot-move to sort out double redirects by XqBot) and were not changed by the move of Mandarin Chinese to Mandarin Chinese (group) yesterday. (For details of that see #Mandarin (linguistics), below). I'm listing these mainly just to say so, and involve other editors who may be otherwise unaware of this discussion – although perhaps some should be retargeted, or deleted as WP:XY: I've no opinion (yet). Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all of them targeted to Standard Chinese (though Standard Mandarin (linguistics) could go). Anything with the word standard in the title refers to Standard Mandarin=Standard Chinese, not the Mandarin group of dialects. —  AjaxSmack  13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist "popularize mandarin" as it should be discussed in the discussion above this one, instead of this one. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I could see an argument to retarget but the use of "Standard" in the titles makes the current target more plausible in my mind. (I concur with 70...'s argument that "popularize mandarin" should be moved to the discussion above. Even though it wasn't previously discussed, it's a capitalization variant and the issues are more similar to that title than to the other ones here.) Rossami (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have moved "Popoularize mandarin" to the discussion directly above this one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all that are still in the nomination. All of these redirect titles refer unambiguously to the standard spoken variety of Chinese and Mandarin, which is what the target discusses. Deryck C. 16:57, 4 April 2016 (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.

Chinese, Mandarin[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) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like many others listed today (see #Mandarin (linguistics)), these all targeted Mandarin Chinese until yesterday, and were retargeted by a bot for the same reason as those (i.e. page moved, new redirect retargeted, bot fixed double redirect, page moved back over it). Retarget back; but I hesitate to do so boldly. Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Chinese, Mandarin" and "Chinese, Mandarin language" and "Mandarin Chinese language" to Mandarin Chinese -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Mandarin Chinese since that page is decently hat-noted but the argument to retarget to the disambiguation page isn't bad either. Rossami (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Mandarin Chinese as a closer topic match. Deryck C. 16:55, 4 April 2016 (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.

Mandarin vs Other[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) 16:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was a redirect to Mandarin Chinese from 2008 until yesterday, but perhaps it's WP:XY by its own definition. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Varieties of Chinese, but the "vs" is a bit, well, adversarial.
  • Delete. Not used in article space, stats below noise level. History shows it was merged way back in September 2004, but nothing seems to be using it nowadays. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search query. Since "[[[mandarin]]" is currently is a dab page, "mandarin vs other" could mean "Mandarin Oranges vs other oranges" or something--Prisencolin (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Using the "vs Other" wording is frankly confusing, and I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects this old were not handled the same way by the edit-history engine. Links may no longer be in the article-space but they may be in history and may exist externally. The likelihood of confusion with oranges seems remote to me. Rossami (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument that "links may be in history and may exist externally" basically says, we can never delete or move anything, nor substantially move or delete any content within an article. You can make the same argument for changing a section name, for example, which is why we have WP:RSECT and MOS:LINK2SECT, although they don't seem to be widely followed.
      If external links wish to have a link to a particular version of an article, they should use a permalink; we are not responsible for the maintenance of external websites, but one way of checking whether links are in practice followed from external websites is to check the stats.
      I do think – and have said so before – that would be useful to bring up a historical version of an article that had its links and transclusions piped to versions that were extant at that time (recursively), a sort of WikiWikiWayback. While this would still not cope with deleted pages (would it?) it would make tracing the history of some article cluster a lot easier. I suppose one could write a tool to do this. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a strawman. The "links in history" does not mean we can never delete, only that we ought not to delete without good reason - a reason that outweighs the harm created by linkrot. While you can wish that external links would use a permalink, they do not. Regardless, that wouldn't solve the problem I was trying to describe. Even a permalink still refers to an actual title. If you delete that title, the external link breaks. And, by the way, the stats engines are known to do a poor job of finding external traffic. Too many ways of reading our content do not trigger the stats trackers. Rossami (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than what? A bird enthusiast could want a comparison between the Mandarin duck and other ducks, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other what? Oranges? Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "other" is a bit vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2016 (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.

Nike Elite[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete all per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:REDLINK, still not at target. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situation is different enough now that material is added, so I no longer think speedy deletion is appropriate. As such, I shall remain neutral. -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, for some reason I discounted that. Will do. Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. These links redirect to Nike, Inc. because there is currently no separate article about Nike sportswear in popular culture. When I find good enough sources I plan to add a paragraph or two describing Nike Elite, Nike Tempo etc, and their relevance to today's popular clique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 April 2016
    • Well you would, you created them, but I haven't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would make more sense to create the content first and the redirects afterwards. Si Trew (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See updated redirect from Nike Tempo to Nike, Inc.#Street fashions. This now contains a description of what these shorts actually are, and their relevance to modern fashion. More sources will be added when they can be found.
    Peace and love - Ossie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs)
  • I've withdrawn Nike Tempo and Nike Tempo shorts as they are mentioned at the new section, and marked those as {{R to section}}. Nike Elite is still not mentioned at the target, though. Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now. Nike Elite is apparently a brand of basketball socks with unique padded soles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep all. Redirects from a non-notable child topic to a more notable parent are routine and often encouraged since it discourages the creation of inappropriate content. It is usually helpful but not strictly necessary that the child topic be specifically mentioned in the parent article. There is no real potential for confusion here and no better target suggests itself. Rossami (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are also routinely deleted on the grounds that it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing or at least disappointing to type an exact phrase and find no information on it; a reader may reasonably (but wrongly) assume there must be some difference between "Nike Elite" and plain "Nike Inc." in their auto-populated list. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, withdrawn. Si Trew (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (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.

House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 12#House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)

Version 2[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) 16:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several encyclopedic subjects, most dealing with software, have "Version 2"s. The redirect's title in relation to its target is that it seems that its second season was called a "version" instead. This redirect is too ambiguous to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a World version W5. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closely related to what concept? It's the name of an album. Si Trew (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that the "2.0" in that title is so distinct that it is very unlikely that anyone would look it up without the ".0". Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I wanted to offer an alternative to deletion, especially since search results for "version 2" are clogged with unrelated redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that the search function now does autocorrect ... that must have been implemented within the last month or two. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, it does autocorrect? I searched, for example, for grante and got results for things with "Grante" highlighted, even though it asked at the top of the search "Did you mean grande (linked as another search)? It would be too far, if you ask me, automatically to assume that a typo was a typo for a particular thing (in the absence of an exact title match e.g. an {{R from misspelling}}) – for example to assume I meant grande and not granite. Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it could be Version 2 of any book, song, theory, religion, work of art, haircut, recipe, ... —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (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.

Mandarin language[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 Mandarin Chinese. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #Mandarin (linguistics) below. Si Trew (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lysimachi:, this isn't the place to request article moves, there's a move discussion going on here that you may want to be aware of.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisencolin: it's perfectly reasonable for someone to suggest remedial action to a redirect by moving something over it, or by moving it without leaving a redirect. Since this particular move request involves neither the source nor the existing target, though, it is moot. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but it would be more effective if a real move request were made on the talk page--Prisencolin (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2016 (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.

Multiple redirects to EBSCO Information Services[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 as WP:TRAINWRECK. No prejudice against more targeted nominations for individuals or batches from those named below. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

almost all the redirects are either general phrases or the names/name variants of specific services the company provides. Most were created by User:Elonka in a short time frame.

  • America: History & Life, America: History and Life, Art Index (which even was an unrelated article before), Art Abstracts, Art Full Text, Clinical Reference Systems, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Education Abstracts, Health Source, Historical Abstracts, History Reference Center, NetLibrary, Primary Search, Professional Development Collection, USP DI are general phrases/terms, and the company is surely not a synonym for them (even if their management thinks otherwise). Thus they are probably subject to {{db-spam}}/{{db-error}}.
  • The majority of service references are not even mentioned in the article, thus their encyclopedic value is questionable at best.
  • The 3 entries with "Complete" are borderline case: they do look like official service names but are generic enough to be considered general phrases. — Vano 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User_talk:Elonka#April_2016 and User_talk:Headbomb#Speedy_deletions_of_redirects_to_EBSCO_Information_Services for prior discussion. — Vano 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. They are databases that are run or owned by EBSCO, but they are still well-known under their own names; see this, for instance, for a clear example that doesn't even mention EBSCO though it leads there. They are not "general phrases"; they are proper names.

    In addition, you tagged Elonka's talk page and warned them for "disruptive editing", which is a ridiculous charge--and for redirects made in 2008? I'll ping Randykitty as well, in case one admin telling you you're wrong isn't enough. And Headbomb, who has forgotten more about Wikipedia during their 138,162 edits than I will ever learn. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It doesn't matter when the edits were made, the result is all the same. Before Headbomb reverted my nominations, I coudn't imagine that someone would possibly consider them non-obvious, even less so controversial. Now that I know they turned out to be such, let's close this side topic. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does matter. Warning someone, in this case an admin who has been here since 2005, with a template, for a valid redirect they made six years ago? If you want to close it, apologize to her, if only out of common courtesy. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Dmries essentially. These are academic databases and services, not 'generic phrases', many notable on their own, and all likely search terms. And they are certainly not spam, nor created by mistake. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact they are "likely search terms" is irrelevant. WP is not a free SEO service for third parties, it only includes entities that are notable enough. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do read WP:N: "Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap)." Notability does not apply to redirects in the way it applies to articles. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per the above. Nothing promotional here. Many of these databases are mentioned in the "abstracting and indexing services" sections of our articles on academic journals. All of these databases are well known in their respective fields and most are notable in their own right and should eventually get their own articles. Until that time, a redirect to EBSCO is warranted without any doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's SNOW in the air! --Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it can stay in the air. None of America: History & Life, America: History and Life, Art Abstracts, Art Full Text, Clinical Reference Systems, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Education Abstracts, Health Source, Historical Abstracts, and on and on to Whitston Publishing, is at the target, and normally that is regarded as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, so in principle I would say delete.
    However, I don't believe it's reasonable to create an open-ended nomination listing a dynamically-generated "What Links Here" result. It makes no sense for all kinds of reasons, but if nothing else, deleting or retargeting the redirects will invalidate that result. Without them being tagged for RfD, how is anyone supposed to be aware that they are being discussed?
    The redirects for discussion should be listed properly so that they can be discussed properly. Procedural close as an ill-formed nomination. I'm quite happy to nominate each of them separately. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one solution might be to make a List of EBSCO publications and add the titles there. But we don't have similar lists for other publishers (that I could find). Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No need to create yet another useless list. I've included the databases listed above in the article on EBSCO Information Services. If any others are missing, they can be listed there, too. --Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion as too large to manage as a single bulk discussion. You could break out the titles that explicitly reference EBSCO in the title as a single entity (where I would argue to keep because redirects from a non-notable child title to a more notable parent are not only allowed but often encouraged) but many of the others have plausible retargets that deserve individualized discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2016 (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.

UEFA mafia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 11#UEFA mafia

Zelena Stranka[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 11#Zelena Stranka

Conjugal dictatorship[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 converted to article by User:Imfeldic (thanks!). (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:REDLINK -- this redirects to Mrs. Marcos, but the dictator of the Philippines at the time was her husband Ferdinand Marcos, so the term refers to them as a couple and not her alone, either this should be deleted as REDLINK or retargetted to her husband's terms in office. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2016 (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.

20??[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) 16:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any sense. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I created that and I'm pretty sure I've never heard of that meme, pretty sure it's not related :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though the first thing I thought of was Twenty Questions, that's just m crossword head on. Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. No particular opinion on keeping this or not; I created it ten years ago but I've no particular recollection as to why. 20xx, 20??, 20-- are all fairly generic placeholders for "a year starting with 20", which I agree doesn't perfectly map to "21st century" but is fairly close to it for most practical purposes. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible, both for "a year starting with 20" and for anything else.—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2016 (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.

The next millennium[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) 16:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As we are currently in the 3rd millennium, so the "next millennium" would be the 4th millennium. That aside: same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this. Varies with other calenders (e.g. Hebrew calendar and North Korean calendar). It will go out of date eventually. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:03, 1 April 2016 (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.

This millennium[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) 16:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this. Varies with other calenders (e.g. Hebrew calendar and North Korean calendar). "This" doesn't always mean "current". It will go out of date eventually. Age (1 million years), epoch (10 million years), era (100 million years), and eon (500 million years) don't seem to have any redirects of this type (bar current era which goes to common era).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:52, 1 April 2016 (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.

This century[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) 16:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Same problem as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#This year. These type of redirects go against WP:RELTIME, though as a MOS guideline it isn't really applicable to this. Varies with other calenders (e.g. Hebrew calendar and North Korean calendar). "This" doesn't always mean "current". It will go out of date; though I don't have a crystal ball, I have faith this encyclopedia will still be around in 85 or so years. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:06, 1 April 2016 (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.

Spinning records[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) 16:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be retargeted to Spinnin' Records as {{R from misspelling}} instead? SSTflyer 03:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment records also spin on record players, as they are played; and it can refer to etching record masters out in a studio -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could also refer to the history of thread spinning, or world records in plate-spinning, etc. But I'd guess this was primary - what about spinning discs, spinning disks? Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2016 (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.

Mandarin (linguistics)[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) 16:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion, it's not exactly clear what this would point to (other than a disambiguation page). Prisencolin (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target article serves as an overview article, so acceptable instead of a dab page. Ofcourse, if you have a dab page, we could retarget there. It should not be deleted. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed the target in the nom. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mandarin (language) and Mandarin Language > Standard Chinese. I'm tempted to list those, there might well be a good reason why they go to a different target, but it is, er, nonobvious. Mandarin language too. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB these, the ones below, and the ones I mentioned. Si Trew (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the recent history of the redirects I mentioned shows they've been retargeted yesterday. This is because of a move of Mandarin Chinese to Mandarin Chinese (group) by the nominator, leaving Mandarin Chinese as an {{R from move}} for a duration of around 12+3⁄4 hours (diff here) until it was moved back after a WP:RM by administrator User:Anthony Appleyard. During this time, I presume, it was retargeted to Standard Chinese (that doesn't show in the history, because the history will have been overwritten when the article was moved back). In that twelve hours, a bot "fixed" the double redirects, so that when Mandarin Chinese (group) was moved back they were left targeting Standard Chinese.
    Note that Talk:Mandarin (linguistics) has the RFD tag and not the R itself, which is fully protected and still functioning as a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment in this page's edit history refers to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Language.2Fdialect_NPOV, but that section no longer exists: I guess its content is now in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Languages or dialects. Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. The Talk:Mandarin_Chinese#Requested move 31 March 2016 started at 18:39 on 31 March by User:Prisencolin, but the actual move was done by Prisencolin at 07:39 that morning and moved back at 20:25. Am I missing something here, that it was moved before the move request discussion was started (let alone any consensus reached)? In the meantime, there's about 50 things that are targeting Mandarin Chinese (group), mainly because it was in {{Languages of China}}, I suspect. I've restored that template to how it was before Prisencolin's edits of 31 March, but the pages will all have to be purged before the links disappear. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mandarin (linguistics), Mandarin (language) and Mandarin Chinese (group). These are unlikely search terms and there is no page history worth preserving. The first was needed for a while to prevent people from moving the article back to that location, but I doubt that will happen any more. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the mess you created when you moved all the Chinese languages articles around a few years ago. At any rate WP:CHEAP they function properly, it is a language topic, a linguistics topic, and a group of dialects, so the redirects work properly -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the thread where it's being nominated but Keep Mandarin Chinese (group), as someone might type that into the search bar to specifically distinguish the family from the standard form(s).--Prisencolin (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nominated anywhere. I put it up for CSD but then removed it; lots of things were pointing at it, since on 31 March you modified the {{Chinese language}} navbox (reverted here on 2 April by someone else) and {{Languages of China}}, diff here, that I reverted. So any spike in page hits at the start of April is unrepresentative. Si Trew (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (including the ones that Kwami tried to shoehorn in immediately above). It's a plausible alternative to the article title and creates little potential for confusion. I might expect the "linguistics" title to be a more technical discussion of grammar or history but until such an article is created, the current parent title is sufficient. Rossami (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2016 (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.

Northern Chinese[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 North China (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-target. Prisencolin (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Prisencolin: can you fill out these RFDs properly? Both your nominations are missing the target information. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have any particular target in mind, so I just left it blank. I'm not sure there's some other way of doing this?--Prisencolin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter what target you have in mind, it only matters what target it had before you touched it, per the instructions -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the linguistics people seem to think all terms only mean the linguistics meanings, without any other meaning (as can be seen elsewhere, where there are cultural and ethnic meanings). This could refer to the language, culture, people or adjectivally to the region -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate given the multiple meanings CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB with those in the listing above too. Considering that e.g. mandarin language goes to a different target, there seems no clear primary topic of Mandarin Chinese or Standard Chinese for a layperson. Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment target was changed yesterday, with other redirects to Mandarin Chinese/Standard Chinese, see #Mandarin (linguistics), immediately above. Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Northern Chinese" is a reasonably common synonym for Mandarin. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the only meaning. This mess is created by considering only linguistics, instead of considering all uses -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the language and the people, at least. The "standard" way we manage that for e.g. the Elbonians is to have Elbonian language and Elbonian people as topics, and Elbonian as a DAB between them (and other things if necessary). (In many other languages this wouldn't be necessary because a grammatical marker would indicate which.)
We have Northern Chinese people -> Northern and southern China, but neither Northern Chinese language nor Northern Chinese languages – that's no problem because we could either create them as redirects and DAB via that, if we wanted the sttruggle to continue, or just include this target directly in the DAB. For consistency, if these targets discuss only language aspects they would be better to follow convention and have "language" or "languages" in their titles, but my consensometer indicates that that is unlikely to happen. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've put those entries on a draft below the redirect, although I prefer the redirect Northern Chinese people over Northern and southern China. Si Trew (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - The reasons given above are compelling. The language is not the same thing as the people, and neither are the same as the area per se (like the geographic nature of the various places within). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't have a Geography of North China or Geography of Northern China, but we do have North China, a geopolitical article, which {{-r|North Chinese}] redirects to. That article has See Also to North China Plain, Northeast China, Northern and southern China (and something else)... no doubt there are other candidates to add at the DAB. There are some other "Northern Chinese" titles but they are WP:PTMs. North China (disambiguation) currently ledes with "Northern China or North China may refer to"... Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2016 (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/2016_April_1&oldid=1142656052"