Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2017.

Barophobia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#Barophobia

Antlophobia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#Antlophobia

West Shore Railroad (current)[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 (procedural close). Deleted by creator. (non-admin closure)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no current West Shore Railroad. No incoming links. An existing redirect West Shore Railroad (Pennsylvania) is sufficient for this non-operating railroad. MB 15:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per MB. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:40, 11 November 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.

To be precise[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 19#To be precise

Talk:MOS:TENSE[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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pointless cross-namespace redir, in a form no one would use. The proper talk shortcut for this would be WT:MOSTENSE, but we generally don't even create those, for a MOS:FOO that's just a section in the MoS page in question, or we'd have over 100 new such redirects. We really should have Talk:Whatever to Wikipedia_talk:Whatever redirects be speediable. There is probably never a case in which we want that kind of redirect. Talk namespace talk pages are attached to articles (or are subpages of talk pages that do so, e.g. talk archives, assessment pages, and article drafting sandboxes). They are never Wikipedia talk namespaces talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or replace page with {{Talk page of redirect}}) since page titles that start with "MOS:" are in the "(Article)" namespace, meaning any page's respective talk page's title would behind with "Talk:MOS:". "WT:MOSTENSE", also known as Wikipedia talk:MOSTENSE, would be the talk page associated with "WP:MOSTENSE", also known as Wikipedia:MOSTENSE. (However, I do agree with the nominator that we should not be WP:BOLDly creating such redirects in the future.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the point of this rationale. We all (I hope) know that the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace is technically part of mainspace, but it's only because no one's bothered to set it up as not being one any longer, as has already been done with "WP:" (which was once its own namespace and now is an alias of "Wikipedia:") and, much later, "WT:" which was once just in mainspace and is now an alias of "Wikipedia talk". There is no purpose at all for a talk page for the MOS:TENSE redirect. "Talk:MOS:TENSE" does not perform any actual function, but was simply a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There isn't even an accurate way to categorize and tag this; we have no rcat template for such a thing ({{R to talk}} not used in the talk namespace itself), and even Category:Redirects_to_talk_pages is only for redirs to [any] talk namespace from [any] subject namespace. We just don't do redirs from one talk space to another, especially for weird, empty cases like "Talk:MOS:TENSE". The only reason we'd ever need this is if a discussion ensued about the MOS:TENSE shortcut, on its own talk page, and even in that case it would make sense to move that discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since no one watchlists shortcuts and we wouldn't get any input in the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are a bunch of pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:MOS:; some are redirects, others got created to hold WikiProject tags and "this page was previously nominated for deletion" tags. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The ones that have tags on them are (at least in theory) legit to exist. This one has no reason to exist, nor do any others that are just redirs from Talk:MOS:Foo to WT:Manual of Style[/Foo] since it is not plausible that people will use them to try to find an MoS talk page. They're just weird accidental artifiacts of MOS: not being a real namespace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 14:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a "gray area" in the WP:CNR realm, because both redirect and target are in the talk namespace. Having said that, a quick look at the page history of the redirect shows that SMcCandlish is correct, and that this redirect evidently was not created for any good reason. Thumbs down. (Tagging with the Talk page of redirect template is an option; however, that would just turn the page into a not-so-cheap soft-redirect.)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but wanted to deal with one issue at a time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:48, 12 November 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.

History of the Democratic Party[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Democratic Party as the simplest option. No prejudice against someone creating a disambiguation page to directly link to the various history sections of the Democratic Party articles. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for there are other Democratic Parties outside the US, clear case of systemic bias. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - agree that there are other Democratic parties so it may serve best as a dab. Atsme📞📧 22:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there are no other articles on the "History of the Democratic Party in XYZ" so dab will not change anything. Rjensen (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 14:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to DAB page if possible. "There are no other articles on 'History of the Democratic Party in XYZ'" doesn't mean there are no other articles on things named Democratic Party, some of which are likely to have history sections which are valid entries in such a DAB page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do something per nominator & SMcCandlish. One possible option is simply to retarget to Democratic Party (many of those articles have good "History" sections, e.g. Australian Democrats and Democratic Party (Bulgaria)). Not sure that disambiguation or deletion are the best options, but still they'd be better than the current situation. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 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.

U. S. security[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, could also refer to National Security Agency etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I don't know how likely it is as a search term, but the target article notes that "homeland security" is an umbrella term. So yes, a reader could be looking for the NSA, but they could also be looking for another subtopic. These are rough equivalents. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete between the odd spacing and the vagueness (and the possibility that a reader might be searching for a definition of "U.S. security (finance)"), I don't think the current target is very helpful. If we had a United States security disambiguation page I'd probably support retargetting there, but I'm not certain that such a page is a good idea. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meh, whatever redlink issue I was presumably solving on the cheap here back in 2007 is no longer around as nothing links to this anymore. Possibly National security of the United States, which was created more recently (in 2010), would be a better target, but 59.x.x.29 above is right about the odd spacing; meanwhile U.S. security doesn't exist. :shrug: -- Kendrick7talk 06:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to National security of the United States I don't think the spacing is that strange. Also, WP:CHEAP. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 13:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Security" means too many radically different things, and the spacing in the acronyms isn't something people normally do; seems to have been a typo by whoever created the page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. too many possible meanings, and I don;t think it is even the primary meaning. The concept of US military security in a traditional sense is more likely, and there are many others. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 20 November 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.

Alexis Reich[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete, or perhaps just blank it for the time being (since "redirects are inexpensive") and it might get reused later? Reason: The target section no longer exists; the term 'Alexis Reich' does not occur anywhere in the article (although it occurs once in the Talk archives). Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless. If this person comes up again in sources, with new and actual relevance, the article (or some other page) might become a plausible target again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:46, 11 November 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.

Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States)[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 Talk:Factions in the Republican Party moved to Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States). @HapHaxion: For future reference, such move requests can be suggested at WP:RMTR. Also, I left a redirect at Talk:Factions in the Republican Party since Factions in the Republican Party was a former name of Factions in the Republican Party (United States) per the page's log. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have two pages or a redirect. Talk page name and article name should be the same. There are many parties that hold the "Republican Party" name, so the talk page should be moved back here and this page deleted in preparation for that move (WP:G6). HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 01:26, 11 November 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_November_11&oldid=1138581953"