Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

November 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 29, 2014.

Sufism in Karachi

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. -- Beland (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV redirect to a related but different topic. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget. The only mention of "Sufism" in the article is at the "See also" section to this very redirect. But Sufism#Timeline says in 2006, on 11 April, a suicide bomber attacked a celebration in Nishtar Park, Karachi. (The park is not linked in the article.) The target there leads me to Nishtar Park bombing, which may be better? Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nishtar Park bombing. Clean up the ref at the "See also", obviously, as general maintenance. I should just do this per WP:BOLD but don't like to do when it is being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: Sufism is a widespread movement in Pakistan. Redirecting to a bombing would be incredibly inaccurate. There's also a distinction between Sufis and Barelvis. As for the link to this redirect, it was a redlink before someone had the genius idea of filling it with a redirect to the article it was found in. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case it's not clear to those unfamiliar with the topic, my "POV" concern is that this redirect seems to be supporting the popular (in Pakistan) bigoted view that Sufis are the only real Muslims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sufism in Pakistan as the most NPOV target. Nishtar Park bombing is itself a redirect to Jamaat Ahle Sunnat, which mentions Barelvis but not Sufis, then briefly details the bombing. Redirecting there could also be a POV issue. Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. I did look, but didn't find that one. Obviously better target. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sufism in Pakistan per Ivanvector --Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, I'm going to have to dissent here. There's only one mention of Karachi at Sufism in Pakistan, and it's fairly trivial. Thus, retargeting there is likely to mislead and disappoint readers. If we don't actually offer an article on Sufism in Karachi (or at least have a substantial discussion of it somewhere), we do a disservice to readers by implying otherwise. Alternatively, keep, as the target article at least has a couple of mentions of Sufism and would be a more natural place for such content. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It targets to "Islam in Karachi" already. Nom is concerned that doing so is a POV concern (see Sammy1339's comment from 7 Nov). I suggested retargeting to Sufism in Pakistan only because Karachi is in Pakistan, and there is no more specific info available here, so at least readers see something about what they're looking for. Ivanvector (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Not sure how I overlooked that. But Sufism is a subtopic of Islam; I see the nominator's POV arguments, but I don't find them convincing. We redirect from subtopics all the time. Now, if we had an article called "Sufism in Karachi" that actually discussed Islam as a whole there, absolutely, then we'd have such a problem. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 19 November 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) 19:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Alright, I'll go with BDD on this. There's no real reason to delete the redirect, it's not misleading and not obviously supporting the POV notion, but it is discussed in more geographically specific detail at the current target than at the Pakistan article. The see also link can be changed to Sufism in Pakistan for better information and to break the circular redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 21:18, 4 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.

False equivalency movement

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to. It originally pointed to Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, but it isn't mentioned at all there or at the current target article. "false equivalency movement" -wikipedia returns 11 unique results, most of which seem to be quotations from the same place. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if one believes that comparing Nazism and Stalinism is a "false equivalency", or that discussing the worst aspects of Communism is one (somehow), there's no evidence of any "false equivalency movement" or anything called a "false equivalency movement" connected to this or any other topic. It's unlikely to be used for searching or linking, and even more unlikely that someone searching for "false equivalency movement" is looking for one of the target articles. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are RS that use "False equivalency", including here at thecivilrightsmovement.com, but they are not themselves "false equivalency movements". I don't know what it would mean either. Perhaps surprisingly, False equivalency redirects not to False equivalence but to False balance – but this is probably correct because false equivalence covers the logical fallacy whereas false balance covers reporting bias. Hatnotes would help, though. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 1 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.

Template:LandmarkForum

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) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an inaccurate redirect, the title "LandmarkForum" and the target are not the same thing at all (one is a course that appears to be derived from works of the other, but there is ample referencing at both main articles to suggest that they are unrelated in time and substance). There is only one article that links to this redirect, Landmark Education litigation, and that article does not reference Mr Erhard at all. Tgeairn (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this redirect is the result of a page move in 2007 and has been pointing to the current target since then apart from a single day in 2008. Thryduulf (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I would say that generally, Thryduulf's argument would be a solid one for keeping. However, the redirect must be seen as somewhat misleading, and perhaps taking up space that another template could exist at. I'd prefer to see more discussion before closing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: I'm not immediately finding any other options for retargeting this redirect. The only other possibility in regards to overwriting the redirect would be looking through the article Landmark Forum and figure out some way to build a template; the template may contain links to other articles such as Panda Express, as referenced in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and simply replace it with the target in the Landmark Education litigation article. That is a link in the navbox, and is referenced as a {{main}} in Landmark Worldwide#Litigation (was Landmark Education#Litigation). I don't see any problem if we break external links to the redirect: it is not in user-facing space. Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 2 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.

Epli

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 Employment practices liability#EPL insurance. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect possibly creates a WP:FORRED issue. Also, from what I research, this term could also mean "potato". Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Although confusing at first glance, this probably has to do with the French term for potato, pomme de terre, which means "apple of the earth" or "earth apple". I wouldn't be surprised if other languages had very similar names for apples and potatoes, perhaps even one word whose meaning is dependent on context. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak retarget. According to Wiktionary this is a word in Old Norse, Icelandic and Faroese. In the first two it does indeed mean "apple", and can mean that in Faroese but in the latter language the primary meaning is "potato" (the "apple" meaning I think being poetic or Biblical). There is no connection to French that I can determine. The redirect is ambiguous and there would be no value to the English Wikipedia disambiguating between meanings in Icelandic and Faroese, so there is no good target for this as a foreign language redirect. I also looked for other uses, the only one I found was an acronym for "Employment practices liability##EPL insurance". However, the acronym appears only in the title of an external link at present, but Google suggests that "EPLI" is a term that is used and could justify a mention in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Employment practices liability. It seems that Employment Practices Liability Insurance, which is briefly discussed at the short article, is abbreviated as EPLI.--Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Employment practices liability#EPL insurance as above. My gsearch gives me nothing but this meaning. EPLI should probably be added, then, as an {{R from alternate capitalization}}, and (EPL) changed to (EPL or EPLI) at the target. But I guess that's implied. Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 2 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.

World's Largest Apple

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#World's Largest Apple

August 9 1974

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974

Talk:CAT:ENFORCEMENT

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. Under the circumstances, I don't think an {{oldrfd}} is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no consensus that talk pages of WP:pseudonamespaces may be used as redirects. I cant say this is the only one of its kind, but it is one of a select few. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Anyone without Javascript enabled could see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAT:ENFORCEMENT in their URL bar. In such circumstances, it isn't entirely impossible they would end up on this talk page. In any event, the redirect is exactly as harmless as its mainspace counterpart. --NYKevin 23:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this nomination now prevents this working as a redirect - the RfD template breaks the hard redirect while it is being discussed. If it is deleted it obviously wont be a redirect, and if it isn't deleted then it will host an {{old rfd}} template. Just put a {{Talk page of redirect}} template on there and save everyone the time. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to editor-space talk page that is rarely used. Evident by the fact that it only has a single comment, from 2008. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a harmless talk page shortcut in the same spirit as [[WT:]]. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:48, 7 November 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) 14:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implement Thryduulf's suggestion since CAT:ENFORCEMENT exists. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 29 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.

Ronald Reagan/Inaugural Speech

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. Redirects from subpages. -- Beland (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ronald Reagan/Inaugural Speech → Ronald Reagan (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
  • Ronald Reagan/Inaugural Speech 2 → Ronald Reagan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Both of these redirects were created as a result of an editor pasting the entire transcripts of the inaugural speeches in 2001, and another editor converting the pages into redirects to Ronald Reagan in 2002. Intricate details of either subject are not currently present in its target article. Also, the redirects are set up to look like subpages. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 29 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.

Pretzel incident

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was in the news at one point in regards to the subject. Also, this redirect has history as an article. However, this redirect's subject is mentioned nowhere in the article, and has seemingly been deemed non-notable per the redirect's edit history. Also, the redirect's title is somewhat ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see that the minor choking incident is ever referred to specifically as "pretzel incident", and surely there have been other incidents involving pretzels. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's simply a trivial item on a slow news day --Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 1 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.

Team Lotus (current)

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 Lotus F1. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no team that is currently called "Team Lotus", the redirect is now unneeded and potentially misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.179.10 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence of Lotus F1 being referred to as "team Lotus"? They are sometimes referred to as "the Lotus team", but that's not the same thing - there was an extensive legal battle over the use of the name "Team Lotus" - see Team Lotus (2010–11)#Use of Lotus name, in particular the "Result" subsection. DH85868993 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is simple to find, since people are not stuck on official names, but use standard speech patterns. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It seems apparent that some people do in fact refer to Lotus F1 as "Team Lotus". My preference is still for the redirect to be deleted, but if the consensus is that it should be retargeted to Lotus F1, I can live with that. DH85868993 (talk) 07:55, 4 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.

Caking

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 Caking (chemical engineering) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Caking (chemical engineering) over this redirect, and hatnote each at the other. The current target (Pieing) doesn't mention "Caking" at all (not even in a hatnote). Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've left a courtesy message for the main contributor, User:Martino3. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per nom. I don't think it's necessary to place a hatnote at Pieing - anyone who ends up there when they're looking for information on mechanical properties of powders probably should get a pie in the face. Ivanvector (talk) 15:04, 30 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.

Tiang Chirathivat

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left over from moving an article that was created under the wrong title. Paul_012 (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 or G7. Page was only created on November 24. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as non-controversial housekeeping. --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not seeing how it is speediable. The nominator didn't do a single edit on the target article, and I'm not sure how it is uncontroversial enough for it to be considered housekeeping. However, the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so I would consider it deletable as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 4 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_November_29&oldid=1047709484"