Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 13

October 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 13, 2014.

Kim jong 2

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. While the disambig argument does have merit, there is not consensus for it in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with Kim Two as a redirect, or Kim The Second, as he has occasionally been refered to as that. (as can be seen here) This redirect is confusing as the "Jong" is not equivalent of a middle name in most Western languages. - TheChampionMan1234 23:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Turn into dab(per discussion below) This seems to come from the typographical confusion between II and Il , which look similar to the point of being indistinguishable in many sans serif fonts: John Paul II vs. Kim Jong Il. {{r from typo}} seems appropriate. Paradoctor (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The "il" in "Jong-il" looks like Roman Numeral "II" when spelled as "Jong Il", therefore a possible typo. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crazy thought Since there is a Kim Jong-Un, should Kim Jong 2 refer to him? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At risk of violating WP:BEANS: "il" also means "one" in Korean (though that's not the "il" in Kim Jong-il's name). Furthermore, "un" sounds kinda like "1" too. (Google "Kim Jong-one" and you can find jokes about this.) So both Kim Jong-il and his kid could either be Kim Jong 1 or Kim Jong 2. And that leaves the question of what to call KJI's other kid Kim Jong-nam - Kim Jong 1.5, Kim Jong 3, or maybe Kim Jong 0? In fact there's dozens of notable Kim Jong-somethings, and due to generation names they probably have brothers who are also Kim Jong-somethings ... 61.10.165.33 (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oiyarbepsy's comment & my facetious response point to the problem: this title is ambiguous for multiple different errors. And at least in my view, disambiguation pages for misnomers are firmly into the territory of WP:BADIDEAs. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAB "important aspects to disambiguation:" ... "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." So this is actually a good reason for a disambiguation page. Paradoctor (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While some disambiguation pages with multiple correct entries do include typos & other erroneous entries in the "see also" section, WP:DAB says nothing either way about disambiguation pages consisting entirely of mistakes & misunderstandings. Do you know of any existing examples? 61.10.165.33 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be confusing something here. All entries in a dab page conforming to WP:DAB are valid entries, evidently. I was reading your comment to mean a dab page with a title that is not a valid article title, but a typo of several valid topics. A hypothetical example would be "iStream" for "EyeStream" and "iStreme". Paradoctor (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you think I'm confused about. MOS:DAB#Misspellings says typos/brainos go under "See also", but it (and the rest of WP:DAB) says nothing about a disambiguation page consisting solely of typos/brainos. I asked you for an existing example of a typos/brainos-only disambiguation page not because I don't understand the concept, but because I was wondering if there was previous discussion or consensus on this topic. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if it's technically a mistake, it's a likely mistake. I don't see the need to disambig; I think this is mostly sending readers to what they're looking for, though I could be convinced otherwise. WilyD 10:47, 22 October 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.

Shake It Off (Network News)

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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. I don't see why this redirect exists. Natg 19 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 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.

Apex Web Technology

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) 21:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apex Web Technology → Teen Top Rising 100% (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Since everyone will ask - the target article was vandalized back in February of 2013 to say the TV show was called Apex, instead of Teen Top Rising. Then, a couple weeks later, @Roroke: moved the page without checking its history, resulting in the page having the vandalized title. I undid the vandalism and fixed the page title, but the speedy delete of this redirect was declined. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic company, apparently just a storefront[1] for the services of a single freelancer focusing on SEO.[2] Keeping would only serve to promote the company. Paradoctor (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment that seems like a rationale to delete the article rather than to delete a redirect to it. Notability is not relevant to redirects, nor is promotionalness, all that matters is whether the redirect is useful for people looking for the article. If you think the company is not encyclopaedic you need to nominate it at WP:AFD. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That impression seems to stem from a confusion between a topic being encyclopedic and it being notable. I established that the company is not encyclopedic precisely because notability is not at issue here. Furthermore, you apparently do not realize that the redirect's topic has nothing to do with the target article. There is nothing the redirect can point to. Purely promotional content is harmful, so that redirect is neither useful nor harmless. Does that clarify it for you? Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually investigated this redirect, I was just commenting that I read your rationale as having little to do with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you have realized your mistake now? Paradoctor (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not discussed at target. WilyD 10:49, 22 October 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.

Wikipedia:BCH

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) 21:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike shortcuts of user pages. I appreciate the editor's concerns here, but I do not need this redirect. Tito☸Dutta 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - useless WP:CNR - TheChampionMan1234 04:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP: shortcuts to user essays are permitted as a general rule (so simply being a CNR is irrelevant) but they are not appropriate for every essay. In this case I have no problem with this essay being the target of a WP: shortcut, so other things being equal I would be advocating it being kept. However, we generally allow editors to exercise a limited degree of ownership of pages in their userspace, and this essay's author doesn't want a shortcut pointing to it. As the redirect is barely visited (no hits in August or September for example) and is not linked from any discussions there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this against the wishes of the essay's author. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 14 October 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:74.125.121.49

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. It may be argued whether this meets U1 (is it technically in SkyLined's user space?), but this is rather academic as it fits G7 unquestionably. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a redirect from an IP address to me, but I no longer use this IP address — SkyLined (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try WP:U1 to speedy delete it, as I can see you created the page, should be non-controversial. --Tito☸Dutta 16:00, 13 October 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:86.89.144.60

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 #User:74.125.121.49 above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a redirect from an IP address to me, but I no longer use this IP address. — SkyLined (talk) 07:35, 13 October 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.

Ebola virus disease cases in the United States

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. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listify this should be a list of cases of Ebola in the US, not a redirect to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in the US. There have been other cases in the US besides the 2014 outbreak, so this is misleading and wrong. Particularly, a strain of Ebola was identified from samples found in the US, not Africa, in 1989, Ebola Reston, so the most important cases in the US aren't even related to the 2014 outbreak. (NOTE: I tried converting it to a Set Index WP:BOLDly but it was reverted, so I'm taking it to RFD.) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy Listify. IP has a good point. This title suggests a different focus than the article it redirects to. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the redirect. The proposed "list" of cases would have only one entry: the current 2014 outbreak. What the IP user calls a "previous case" was not Ebola virus but Reston virus. Imported lab monkeys were found to be infected with a mutant virus strain non-pathogenic to humans that did not cause a single case of Ebola disease in USA or anywhere in the world for that matter. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the redirect. Reston virus was different and in animals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola Reston is a filovirus of the Ebola group, it's just not Ebola Zaire virus. And Wikipedia already documents zoonotic virus outbreaks (such as mad cow, CWD, etc; ie. 1967 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak) The title of this redirect does not restrict it to human cases. That a species of Ebolavirus was discovered from samples obtained in the US from a zoonotic outbreak is significant and important. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wanted to note that while we're having this discussion, a prominent "Wikipedia" link from Google News is pointing nowhere. There are hundreds of thousands of visitors looking up information on Ebola on Wikipedia every day and we're making a huge disservice to these visitors by leaving a redirect broken while this discussion is happening. --DarTar (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep or speedy listify, whichever has a list of cases of ebola or things that were called ebola. Thryduulf (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore the target article to this title - Another maverick change made by 5W3 5DL that goes against the convention of the other article titles. I am attempting to make this mess consistent and organised until the outcome of it is decided or the dust settles. Reston doesn't belong here, as there were no human cases. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. For if not Ebolyo cases in the United Kingdom, Ebolya cases in France, Ebolya cases in Italy, Ebolya virus cases in the United Kingdom, Ebolya virus cases in The Virgin Islands, Ebolya virus cases in Trindad and Tobago, [et cetera ad nauseuam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). Wikpedia is not an atlas of pandemics, and certainly not a speculative one. Lists need not be exhaustive, but should be better than minimal. Si Trew (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thins, this is a one-trick pony. The art Ebola virus outbreak in the United States lists one case in the US (if you do not know other countries that are not the United States, please see my list article List of countries that are not the United States) which hardly constitutes an "outbreak". An article well documented but not an outbreak or pandemic, for one person who got it abroad. Absurd. Delete, and I took the article itself to AfD under WP:NOTNEWS, with little hope of success. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not proper at all to PROD Ebola virus outbreak in the United States as it has just recently been through an AfD, and closed as Keep, per WP:SNOW. PROD is not allowed for articles that have been through previous AfD's. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect - but put the list at [List of Ebola virus disease cases in the United States]] and hatnote; most readers are likely to be searching for the 2014 outbreak. WilyD 10:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect, and do not listify per WP:TWODABS. Searches for this clearly intend to find the 2014 "outbreak"; a hatnote about the Reston outbreak in Virginia is more than sufficient. Ivanvector (talk) 18:40, 20 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.

36(movie)

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. This redirect is 9 years old and harmless. WP:RFD#HARMFUL is applicable. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect title, left over from move to 36 (film) Paradoctor (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a standard {{R from move}} and {{R from typo}}. This has existed uncontroversially and harmlessly since the page was moved in 2005 and gets more hits than background noise in at least some months (others are borderline), so deletion would be harmful while bringing no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mostly harmless, per Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 13 October 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Template:LandmarkForum

Ὁρίζειν

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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Ancient Greek verb means ‘to separate’, not ‘horizon’, and neither is a specifically Greek concept. Gorobay (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Horizons do occur outside of Greek-speaking regions. - TheChampionMan1234 04:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:52, 22 October 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_October_13&oldid=1083555940"