Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17

December 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 2014.

Musée des beaux-arts de Quimper

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 an article. Fram (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably deserves an article, but doesn't make sense as a (double) redirect, as the target has no information on the subject. Redirecting a specific subject to a general disambiguation rarely is useful. Fram (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub for this museum, and added it to the dab page. PamD 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, @PamD:, constructive as ever! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC).
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.

San Francisco Sharks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 31#San Francisco Sharks

Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 6#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa

National Anthem Act

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 the redirect, allow a dab page if a suitable set of targets can be agreed. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not restricted to Canada. - TheChampionMan1234 03:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate to all articles covering national anthem acts of law. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, are there any examples of other nations is an act of the same title? Chillum 08:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there are specific examples of competing destinations I say it is fine as it is. If there are specific examples with articles then we can do something like at Constitution Act. Chillum 18:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the examples given I suggest we Disambiguate. Chillum 04:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at the moment, but disambiguate if you find any other National Anthem Acts. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Singapore has a similarly named Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act. Zambia has a National Anthem Act but it seems to be part of some larger legislation. British Columbia also has a National Anthem Appreciation Act which refers to the federal law. And here is a page talking about a Malaysian National Anthem Act. Oh, and Kenya's National Flag, Emblems and Names Act appears to be commonly called the National Anthem Act. My browser of course brings up mostly results for the Canadian act, but I'm using google.ca so that's to be expected. My guess is that similar names occur throughout the Commonwealth; there are probably others. Disambiguation would be appropriate here, but I have no comment on dab targets for these. Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Google finds mentions on Wikipedia at Negaraku referring to (and citing) a Malaysian "National Anthem Act 1968", Stand and Sing of Zambia, Proud and Free with the phrase "In 1973, the National Assembly passed the National Anthem Act", Tautiška giesmė (Luthuania) "confirmed in the National Anthem act (21 October 1991.)", Majulah Singapura (Singapore) "The use of the national anthem is governed by [...] the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act.". The Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan) would appear though to be the only article we have on the actual act rather than the anthem though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above.--Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if someone could draft what this disambiguation page would look like below the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: I have created a very rough draft at Draft:National Anthem Act (disambiguation). Ivanvector (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but this somewhat confirms my fears. How many of those meet WP:DABMENTION? It's all well and good to say other countries have laws regarding their national anthems, but if we don't discuss those topics, what's the point? Navigation aides, like redirects, should be only concerned with what we already cover, not with what we should. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most do, though most are also very brief mentions. Still, that's the info we have, and the dab page points readers to the info they're looking for, either the page on national anthems generally, or the page on the anthem of a particular country which uses this name for its defining statute. It's worth noting that all of these articles have informative external links. In other cases, for example Star Spangled Banner and God Save the Queen, the statutes defining their status are not known as "National Anthem Act", so I didn't include them. I doubt we'd actually be able to write articles for any of these Acts separate from the anthems they refer to. Japan seems to be an exception. I wouldn't write an article about Canada's National Anthem Act, it makes more sense to discuss it in the O Canada article (which we do). Ivanvector (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of redirects that point to only trivial mentions. And I don't think this is a good candidate for a WP:CONCEPTDAB. But perhaps a short section at National anthem (#Legislation ?) on the legal establishment and recognition of national anthems? We could then redirect this there, and link to articles where the concept is better developed as a way of giving examples. --BDD (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think readers are best left to search terms here, unless we can address the idea of legislation on national anthems more broadly. I'm still concerned that a lot of these ideas fail MOS:DABMENTION. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first time round I had a good look for alternatives, but found none. I tided a couple of specific national anthem dabs etc, but this one is best left to the search engine. Si Trew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 10 January 2015‎
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Virginia State Route 638

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 all the county-specific redirects. Virginia State Route 638 (and VA 638/State Route 638 (Virginia), which now redirect there) was converted to a disambiguation page by the nominator, and there's a consensus to delete the rest. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These redirected to a section of the list that listed seven different routes as if they were one continuous route (and which I spent several minutes trying to locate before I realized they were discontinuous). I removed the section because all but the one in Scott County are very minor roads (in Virginia, practically every public road has a state route number, and numbers over 600 are only unique within a county). So now these redirect to nowhere. (I wrote a better description for the one in Scott County, so did not list those redirects here.) NE2 04:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Virginia State Route 638 to List_of_secondary_state_highways_in_Virginia#SR_638 (Scott_County); Delete the rest. Add courtesy comment and anchor at target per WP:SPECIFICLINK. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other potentially important ones in Clarke, Fairfax, Hanover, and Westmoreland Counties, some of which might not end up redirecting to this list. The best solution would be a disambiguation, but some do-gooder would probably redirect it because it only has one blue link. --NE2 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is the a scope for a Virginia State route 638 list or set-index article? This is the sort of information that Wikipedia can provide well. I'll drop a note for the folks at the US Roads Wikiproject about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - List of secondary state highways in Virginia is currently a sloppy mess incomplete RCS list of secondary roads in Virginia. These secondary routes are generally not notable enough for individual articles in the same vein as most county routes. What should be done, however, is to create by-county lists for secondary routes as these routes are notable enough to be covered in a list. List of county routes in Camden County, New Jersey can serve as a model for how the lists can look like, as the notability and numbering pattern of the Virginia secondary routes is very similar to New Jersey county routes. For the record, some CRs in New Jersey cross county lines but are covered in the seperate county lists per county as opposed to being lumped together. Dough4872 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - splitting multi-county routes by county is a silly practice that should not be done here (and actually isn't in New Jersey for the 5xx routes). --NE2 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference between the 500 and 600 routes in New Jersey is that the 500 routes are a statewide system while the 600 routes are only unique to a specific county. It just happens that some counties coordinate their numbering to have like-numbered routes meet at county lines. Virginia appears the same way with secondary routes. Dough4872 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not exactly. Virginia deliberately made the secondary numbers match at county lines, to the point of renumbering routes when they were extended (over a former primary) into another county. --NE2 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          1. The notability of secondary state highways in Virginia should be discussed in its own thread at WT:USRD instead of piggybacking here.
          2. The List of secondary state highways in Virginia has a lot of non-notable routes because I did not take the time to think about the notability of these routes when I merged them into the list a few years ago; my goal was only to get rid of stubs. I suspect most of these secondary state highways are not notable, but we can discuss more elsewhere.  VC  00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • ?? The whole point of merging into lists like this is to avoid questions of notability. --NE2 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all road names should be accounted for72.24.156.34 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Most refer to roads which aren't discussed on Wikipedia, and the ones without qualifiers are problematic, as explained by the nominator. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do like Si Trew says, except keep Virginia State Route 638 (Lee, Russell, Scott, Washington, and Wise Counties) because it mentions Scott. Especially delete the (Washingtom County) one, because it doesn't even spell the name the right way. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tadsch Mahal

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. Number 57 22:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No connections with German. - TheChampionMan1234 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Champ. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 09:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that there is no affinity with German, and I think it's consensus now that WP is not a (translation) dictionary.
Additionally, it is not mentioned at the target. So anyone using this redirect unexpectedly (e.g. if hidden under a pipe) wonders how they got there. Those using it expectedly might be surprised, too. Even the German de:Tadsch Mahal is an R to de:Taj Mahal, so presumably the correct German term is indeed "Taj Mahal".
Which readers? Stats show a mean average of three hits a week. The redirect de:Tadsch Mahal exists with a mean average of 4+1⁄3 hits/day. The article de:Taj Mahal has a mean average of 385+3⁄5 hits/day. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument, that's a statement of fact unrelated to the discussion at hand. Similarly, although it's true that Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, that statement has nothing to do with this redirect. Three readers a week is not a ton, but that there's only a few of them is no reason to make the encyclopaedia harder for them to use where there's no apparent encyclopaedic benefit. WilyD 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Taj Mahal has an inherent connection with some languages of India, and perhaps Arabic, Persian, or some other regional languages. German is not one of those languages. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep not everyone knows how to spell these exotic names, please don't delete...72.24.156.34 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a plausible misspelling if you're trying to use English, and nobody's going to know this spelling unless they know German. If you know how it's spelled in German, you can search the German Wikipedia. 65.210.65.16 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject is located in India, an English-speaking locality in a region that was not under German control, therefore there is no affinity for German. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. The target is not exclusive to German/Germany. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete. User:WilyD,, "that's not an argument, it's a statement of fact": I base my arguments on facts. What do you do? Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yumiko Fukushima

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 2#Yumiko Fukushima

List of Valley of the Sun Bowl

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) 02:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Valley of the Sun Bowl → List of Cactus Bowl broadcasters (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Improbable search term. Only history is double redirect fixes. Tavix |  Talk  05:31, 17 December 2014 (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/2014_December_17&oldid=1138579473"