Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 15, 2017.

Rapid City (disambıguation)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the dotless I makes this implausible -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - page has no back links, it is implausible, and recently created from a page move. CSD R3 should apply.--John Cline (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
R3 only applies to page moves when the moved page was also recently created, and that's not the case here. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct, I've stricken my error. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2018 Seattle Seahawks season[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 11:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is too soon, especially considering there is zero information about the 2018 season in every article I spotchecked. Someone searching for information about the 2018 season is going to be disappointed and confused by being redirected to the team article. Therefore, these need to be red until we have information on the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I agree that this is too soon. I would not be opposed to keeping some if the target articles had information about the 2018 season for that team, but I don't think the current targets have enough information to justify keeping these redirects. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Is there a proper time to create such links? And not just when they start trading draft choices? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When there's sufficient information about that season. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Less ripe (wine)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned in the target article. Also, side note: Less ripe doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Describing wines/grapes as "ripe" or "less ripe" is very common in discussions about wine, in tasting guides, etc. "less ripe" itself is not a fixed term but means grapes that are not as ripe as others - exactly as in standard English. Our article doesn't cover this very well, but it does cover it. Less ripe could be created to redirect here, but that would probably be better pointing to ripeness or ripening. Ripe wine exists as a redirect to the same target as this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I'm now considering withdrawing this, but before I do, I want to get some clarity on something: Are you proposing that Less ripe should have a different target than the nominated redirect? Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think discussion about where less ripe should point would be fruitful (sorry) as Ripeness (a legal term), Ripening (about fruit) and Ripeness in viticulture are all plausible targets (and there may be others). It may also be that a disambiguation page, possibly the existing one at Ripe, would be best. At this point in time I'm really not sure what I would prefer. Less ripe (wine) though is unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We haven't unripe, which sounds rather Newspeak but it is used and unripened in the wild, it seems. I am not sure what the antonym of "ripe" would be, really. "Unready" is really what it is, but Ethelred the Unready was not ill-prepared, but badly advised. Never mind. Si Trew (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Less sleep[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 no consensus. While there were some concerns about vagueness and ambiguity, others feel that sleep deprivation is the best target available for the term. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Less sleep" than what? Than normal? Than the average human receives? The target is about a specific subject, whereas the title of this redirect is vague. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So 142 over 700 days, ish, is about one every four days. Looking at the stats it is actually 1 or 2 a day on average. Since you don't know why it gets them, it makes little sense beyond saying that two hits a week is well below bot noise level. Those stats are largely from before bot noise was excluded. Si Trew (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tool only includse human viewers. If we include spiders and bots, it's 367 hits over the same time period. It's easy enough to guess why people would search for this. If someone searches "less sleep", they want information about the causes/symptoms/effects of getting less sleep, which the target article provides. There's lots of people who are constantly fatigued, work long hours, suffer from insomnia, or sleep apnea, but may be undiagnosed who could be searching for a relevant article, which we have. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Less red does not go to Shades of red, nor does greenisholives go to olive green. Headwords should be nouns, WP:NOUN. Redirect titles are titles and should follow the guidelines at WP:TITLE unless there is a good reason not to: this isn't a good reason. We haven't more sleep or most sleep or least sleep or most sleep, and WP is not a barometer. Si Trew (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "any definition of less sleep will involve sleep deprivation" is purely your own opinion. My cat sleeps about twenty hours a day, I sleep about six; I have less sleep than my cat. That does not involve sleep deprivation at all. Si Trew (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects, by their very nature, do not follow WP:TITLE (or else the redirect would be replacing the article proper). In any case, "less sleep" is a noun phrase, so that doesn't matter (i.e. You get less sleep. Less sleep is bad. You'll be less healthy with less sleep). I don't see how any of the last redlinks you're suggesting could have a target article which fits as well as "less sleep" to "sleep deprivation". Google the term. See how many deal with potential health issues related to getting less sleep and how many are about what animals sleep less than others. If anyone was searching for animals, they wouldn't search "less sleep" but something about animals as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment News articles and reports will talk about how certain people or animals require less sleep than others, but it isn't the same as Lack of sleep as with less weight not pointing to weight loss. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not seeing any harm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nom that this is a vague title redirected to a specific topic. People could reasonably assume it to point to insomnia or mania. PriceDL (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insomnia is not the only source of getting less sleep, and in any case, is mentioned in the lede of the current target. Mania is also listed as an effect of getting less sleep in the first section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. The target article covers what people will almost certainly be looking for. People looking for insomnia will far more likely to search for "no sleep" or "unable to sleep" while mania is something very specific that would be searched for using the term "mania" or something more specific of the cause. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Migros Tuerk[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. Evidence of usage has been found. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Not Germanic but Turkish. Clue's in the name. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This does get a few uses, not many but enough to make me think it work keeping normally, but the uses I'm finding seem to be exclusively in German and Croatian-language sources, hence I'm neutral (at the moment). Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Toegroeg, Govi-Altai[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. Evidence of usage has been found. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Not Germanic but Mongolian. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. Google seems to indicate this spelling is sometimes used but the redirect doesn't appear to be. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Buttel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate Buttel, keep Buettel. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Both Eubot) The target, pretty much an autogenerated geo stub, has a tag, {{see also|Frederick H. Buttel}}. Since these two redirects were generated by a bot, and it's the wrong tag (should be {{for}} or {{redirect}}) my guess is that an editor on Fred's article has been spooked by the presence of these redirects, i.e. that their creation was downright harmful to the creation of the article for Frederick H. Buttel. Since Fred has some content, the geo stub doesn't, but Eubot has redirected two titles to it. Suggest making both an {{R from surname}} to fred, and fix the hatnote. This happens because "redirects are cheap"; or rather, "bots are cheap" and "approvers of bots are... not expensive". Si Trew (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both as valid redirects to the same page name with diacritics, (and without the word Frank Fred probably the primary topic), but fix hatnote per Si. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think ideally {{Buttel]] should redirect to Fred as {{R surname}} and Büttel should stand where it lies; that is correct but might be confusing. Fred is the primary topic for Buttel, but the article with no information at all beyond a geo scrape and bot edits (never a human edit in its ten year history) should frankly be deleted, but that's out of scope of RfD. There is little point in having a geostub that says "we know nothing about this place beyond what we scraped from a geographical database", the last time I looked, Wikipedia was an encylopaedia, and if we have nothing to say on a subject, we should say so. The article fails WP:N and tens of thousands of other geostubs do too, but the ill-informed attempt to import over 2,500 non-WP:N Hungarian villages and over 25,000 non-WP:N French communes was, er, ill-informed.I expect the same applies to voblasts and parishes and whatnot, but French communes and Hungarian villages are the ones I tend to encounter on my own travels. I am an accomplice in this, for adding templates for the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, and I plead guilty, your worship, or your honour, dependng on which. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article and this discussion were without the word "Frank" until @Shhhnotsoloud: mentioned it sotto voce. Not sure what that means. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Oops, sorry, Fred not Frank! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NP @Shhhnotsoloud:, pizzicato. Thanks for cleering that up. My fault really for just abbreviating from "Frederick" to "Fred". Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig Buttel. Google results show there is no clear primary topic for this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Buettel. The primary topic on Google here is clearly Cameron Buettel (a Christian author of some sort I think), but we don't have an article for them and I'm unsure if they are notable (I've not looked in-depth). Of uses where we do have articles, the primary topic is the settlement and not the professor. If an article about Cameron is written then we can reevaluate at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think I'd get far with nominating the settlement for AfD, but it just annoys me that we have these geostubs with no encyclopaedic content. WP:NOTDIRECTORY really. I realise that Google etc uses them in its search results, but we are not here for Google's convenience. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what Thryduulf says. Also, for those wondering, the professor's article was created in 2002 [5], while the town artcile was created in 2007 [6] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Presidential candidate[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 no consensus to delete. I'll retarget it to candidate as the alternative to deletion as no one supported the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: This term is not restricted to the United states and B: a presidential candidate is not necessarily an actual president. Presidential nominee should probably be moved to Presidential nominee (United States) or someplace similar, but I'll leave that for later. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I could see a refine to President#Presidential systems which is the only section that mentions the word candidate. But given that the title of president isn't limited to country leaders, for example, student body president or an organization president, this isn't that helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidential Candidate should best redirect to Candidate, not any of the above. Same as Congressional Candidate, etc. Nominee and political candidate also redirect to Candidate. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget both to Candidate per Nicole Sharp. The key thing we have encyclopaedic content about is candidacy not what the candidacy is for. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this make sense as a search term? Retargeting to candidate would only make sense for those users who don't know what "candidate" means. I see that it receives a fair amount of incoming links and I'm not sure these links make sense. I'm inclined to believe it's best to delete the redirects to alert editors who try linking these terms and to allow them to link to something more appropriate. – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_15&oldid=1088108177"