Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 9

October 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 9, 2014.

Oldest Higher Education Institution

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 List of oldest universities in continuous operation, which appears to be the best option for now. Note that List of oldest universities already redirects there; I suggest that these two should continue to point to the same place in the future. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-reference exists only as a WP:BOOSTER for college. It is interesting, but does not excuse the creation of a redirect, merely as an almanac or Guiness pointer without any citations within the body to demonstrate this claim. We need to stop this sort of thing early on or we'll have a redirect for everything in Guiness and none of it citable with WP:RS. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 9 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.

Tombstoning

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 moved draft over redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tombstoning → wiktionary:Special:Search/tombstoning (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is a draft article Draft:Tombstoning that I wish to accept at WP:AFC in place of this soft redirect. That draft links to the Wiktionary definition too, so nothing is lost. It is a net win all round. Fiddle Faddle 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I chose the discussion route over the technical route because the redirect is not a simple redirect. It is not precisely clear what to do with a soft redirect that is 'in the way'. Fiddle Faddle 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In most cases I would say just be WP:BOLD and overwrite a soft redirect with an article. However in this case the soft redirect is the result of a 2008 AfD and so discussion is appropriate (although I would have no objection to an early close if consensus is clear). I agree that an article is better than the soft redirect we have - the existing talk page should be preserved though (as an archive is fine). Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Request If the outcome is to delete, please would the deleting admin preserve the current talk page as an archive. The AFC script will overwrite the talk page, and it may not be done my my hand, thus archival may be forgotten. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept the draft and histmerge. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC).
Thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:06, 11 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.

Federal Republic of America

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. There's really no consensus here except against keeping this redirect as is. It could've gone either way; I'll let the search function help any readers who may search for such a term. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are several federal republics in the Americas. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or delete It's possible, though rather unlikely, that someone looking for Federal_Republic_of_Central_America could find the redirect useful. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Federal Republic which includes a list of contemporary and historical federal republics, including the Federal Republic of Central America. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. I note American Federation and American Federal Republic do not exist (nor should they). Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 13 September 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) 15:49, 9 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.

A Madness Shared by Two

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 5#A Madness Shared by Two

Balkan bulgars

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 Bulgars. Frankly, I found the arguments for deletion and retargeting about equally convincing, but a no consensus defaulting to keep wouldn't please anyone, and we are encouraged to look for alternatives to deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vague synonym. - TheChampionMan1234 07:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Bulgars or delete to encourage article creation. An ethnic group name should point to an ethnic group article rather than a modern state article. There are various sources discussing the migration of Bulgars to the Balkans, e.g. [1]. However the existing Bulgars article has a very broad geographical focus and only touches on the Balkans in a number of scattered paragraphs. I'm not sure whether this topic should be covered in a standalone article or by improving the Bulgars article. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment sorry, just noticed the lower-case title. Hmm. Balkan Bulgars was deleted in 2010 with a very strange edit summary: Speedy deleted per (CSD G8), Redirect to deleted page "Bulgaria". If Balkan bulgars is kept, Balkan Bulgars should be recreated to point to the same target. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the anon. I find that deletion summary referred to very odd indeed, as there is no record of the Bulgaria article being deleted in 2010 (although the title was deleted in 2008 as part of a repair to page move vandalism). Pinging user:SpacemanSpiff (who performed the deletion) to see if he has any recollection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The hatnoting at Bulgars seems a bit odd, as it does not mention the DAB at Bulgar (for which it is the first entry). It's a bit odd to have a plural title when I thought the standard form was eg. Hungarian people, English people, etc. Perhaps at the DAB, we could also add Burglar (R to Burglary) as a likely mistype. (Burgle, R to same target, is a back-formation: like edit). Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 14 September 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) 15:29, 9 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.

디지털 포트리스

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 15#디지털 포트리스

Caudron C.450 Rafale

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) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created because target article mistakenly identified the C.450 as the Caudron Rafale. The name is used for a number of Caudron aircraft, but the C.450 is not among them. TheLongTone (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better still would be an article on the Caidron C.362 as they were all similar, and the C.362 was the progenitor of the series. My original assertion that they were entirely separate may have been incorrect, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It seems that this is quite an easy mistake to make (either as a typo or thinko of "5" for "6") or as a misunderstanding. Is there an article on the series of aircraft that this could point to, or perhaps as list or disambig? Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 1 September 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) 15:03, 9 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.

粥

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 as plausible search term and mentioned at the target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General topic with no affinity for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 06:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep this is explicitly mentioned in the article, and so is a good search term. It is a notable part of Chinese cuisine. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems that the sign is used by different Asian cultures for this dish. --Lenticel (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or refine to Congee#China. (Taiwan also use the character but it is only mentioned in China section) (Japan has added honorific). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:05, 11 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.

Ὁ ὁρίζων

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 12#Ὁ ὁρίζων

인해전술

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) 14:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic is not especially related to Korean more than any other language. Gorobay (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this tactic isn't usually used by Korean forces according to the target article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may have been used during the Korean War, but that doesn't seem like a strong connection between this topic and modern-day Korea. - TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No rationale has been presented for deletion. The goal of this project is to write an encyclopaedia, and trying to make the content harder to find is hostile to that goal. WilyD 11:08, 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_9&oldid=1050183255"