Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 21

November 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2014.

아이 드림드 어 드림

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) 20:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This French/English song has nothing to do with Korean. Gorobay (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only East Asian cover covered in the article is Japanese, not Korean; no particular affinity for Korean -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's the song I am thinking about (and deliberately haven't looked) from Les Mis, it is not even a French song in any meaningful sense, since the words were written on the bones of the tune for the English production. We don't have the literal translation J'ai revé une reve, par exemple, but I don't think it ever had a French title to start with. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, having looked up, the French lyrics were back-translated from the English. So the original libretto in French has nothing to do with this song, so the French literal translation would be bollox: therefore the Korean. QED. Si Trew (talk) 16:27, 24 November 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.

Atlas Network

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 resolved elsewhere. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a much more notable organization, recently changed its name to Atlas Network. This redirect should be deleted to make way for a move. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • On hold Please don't comment on this at the moment as I request clarification from the nominator. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:14, 23 November 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.

User/ NamParks Project

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 speedy delete per criterion G6. The page was obivously created at this title in error, and this redirect was created when it was moved to the correct title about a day later 14 months ago. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as we don't redirect user pages to articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 21 November 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.

Disco-pop

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 speedy delete. Given that the original editor has been permabanned and the only other truly substantial contributor has been User:C.Fred, who supports deletion, I feel that speeding it as G7 is reasonable enough. If anyone truly objects then drop me a note on my talk page and then I can re-create this and re-open the RfD. I'm going to make a note at the other RfD with the same rationale. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per below, this is a genre that re-directs to a similarly named genre. I can't find any description that this belongs here, not can I find anything online to suggest that these terms are interchangable. This is why I propose delete. Since I can't find anything suggesting that Disco-pop or disco pop are their own genres, I suggest that this term doesn't really mean anything to users and should be removed/deleted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and Disco pop. Another user had created this redirect, pointing it to "Moves like Jagger". At the time, that song was categorized as nu-disco, so that's why I redirected to the genre. There aren't that many links coming in to the title, so the cleanup should be easy. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: I listed both at CSD as Author requests deletion but technically you are not the creator of the article (you are in a sense the author since you changed the entire content, i.e. which target it redirects to, but we'll see what happens and know where we stand then.) Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 24 November 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.

Disco pop

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 speedy delete. I'm closing this along with the RfD for disco-pop. The original editor has been permabanned and restricted from e-mail, so there's really no chance of getting a response from them. On the other redirect the only other truly substantial contributor has been User:C.Fred, who supports deletion of the other redirect, so I feel that it would be reasonable to speedy this one as well. If anyone truly objects then drop me a note on my talk page and then I can re-create this and re-open the RfD. I'm going to make a note at the other RfD with the same rationale. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article points to an article that has no mention of "disco pop". What is disco pop? I've done a bit of search and I can't connect them. This re-direct stinks of WP:OR to me, so I think we shouldn't be using it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 21 November 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.

Directorate-General for Interpretation

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 move Directorate-General for Interpretation (European Commission) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another generic title used for a specific instance. Not as widely used as some of the others, but still generic. We ought to have a rule about not making such redirect. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and swap redirect and target. This is unquestionably the primary topic - it's difficult to even find unrelated uses in google! This is why there is rightly no such rule about redirecting generic titles - sometimes the generic sounding title has a primary topic, or maybe even just a single encyclopaedic use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have exactly theopposite approach to this. Titles are supposed to be of value in finding information. Someone looking for information about any one of the possibilities may come to WP--we may have an article on only a few, but theywil lcome here anyway, and be redirected to the wrong one. The criterion for a redirect is not notability but husefulness to the reader. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and swap per Thryduulf. If someone is searching specifically for Directorate-General for Interpretation (European Commission) then the swapped redirect will take them there. as opposed to any other directorate-general of or for interpretation, that may be true. But if they are, and know how we disambiguate pages and can guess exactly which way we disambiguated them or their exact title ("of" not "for", for example, in the title), they probably don't need the DAB anyway. Hence the useful suggestion to reverse it. For the rest of us mortals, a DAB and hatnotes might be handy. Si Trew (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not listed at the DAB at DGI, which is a bit of a rag-bag anyway (we have links to FR:WP in our DABs now?) SCIC is a DAB (first sentence of lede says the abbr is SCIC) directing here, but probably better served by hatnotes per WP:TWODABS. The French article for te taxman abbreviates it to DGI, I started translating it but why bother? Just delete it from the DAB. It seems reasonable to me as an outsider that I would whack in DGI and hope to find the target there. Si Trew (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: this is far from the only case where a generic title has a primary topic (e.g. BBC, George Washington, Parliament Hill, Department of Transport, etc, etc,). If people come to the article looking for other topics with the same title then they are served by hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of these (EC) ones; but there's no need to disambiguate since there's nothing to disambiguate from. Other disambiguating endings without parens spring to mind, such as UK railway stations ending in "railway station" and London underground stations ending in "tube station", but serve the purpose to distinguish the station from the area it serves (and why we have {{stnlnk}} and {{tubelnk}} to take it out for railway diagrams) but this is beyond the call of duty unless anyone wants to create {{eclink}}. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 24 November 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.

Directorate-General for Informatics

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 move Directorate-General for Informatics (European Commission) over redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is used for one particular directorate, but it's a general title. Not quite as general as some of the others I nominated, but still general. DGG ( talk ) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and swap redirect and target. I have been able to find exactly zero other uses of this term that are even potentially encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and swap per Thryduulf. List at DAB page DGI with the other above. As the above one is the translation section, and this one is the IT section, the last words are already clumsy translations, but that's the EC for you. Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 24 November 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_November_21&oldid=1039435488"