Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 7

April 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2016.

Donald Bren Hall School of Law

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) 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term used in virtually no sources. Extremely unlikely search term; appears to be a misunderstanding of the naming history of the target article (see University of California, Irvine School of Law#History) Regards, James(talk/contribs) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search term, especially with the "Hall" in there, and WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY, since information about Bren's involvement with this school is also at Donald Bren#Education. It's also WP:RFD#D5 nonsense since the school is not a hall (and there's no mention of a hall) and his name is not Donald Bren Hall. I've nominated another on April 8's log, WP:RFD#Bren Law (perhaps unwise to combine). Si Trew (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We also have Donald Bren Law School, Donald bren school of law, Donald Bren School of Law and Bren School of Law to the same target, which are perhaps OK as {{R from incorrect name}}; I'm undecided whether to nominate them too. Considering that "it was decided between the chancellor and Mr. Bren" not to name the school after him, it seems a bit previous for Wikipedia then to name the school after him; but redirects don't have to be accurate, only useful.Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those names are virtually nowhere to be found in external sources; I don't think they qualify as incorrect names, as they were never used as names for the institution in the first place. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review of external sources, I withdraw my earlier comment. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Donald Bren School of Law" (without the confusing "Hall" qualifier) was used in early coverage of the law school ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), so I believe that phrasing can be kept. I am unsure about Donald Bren Law School and Bren School of Law. They seem like reasonable alternative forms of the law school's original name, but I can find no mention of these phrasings in external sources. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think they can be kept, considering that school of law → law school. I boldly tagged them with {{R from incorrect name}}, and {{R from former name}} would be wrong; but we could have {{R from other name}} or {{R from short name}}; school of law has no tags to guide us there. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2016 (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.

Get schwifty

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 Withdrawn/Keep - I actually assumed this was one of those baby shows hence the nomination .... Turns out It's the complete opposite , Plus I wasn't aware of the sources either (Had I been aware of both we wouldn't be here now), Anyway no harm with the redirect so closing as Withdrawn/Keep. –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was 2 days ago deleted and then today redirected to Rick and Morty (season 2),
Whilst "Get schwifty" is included in the article I don't believe every episode title nor episode song needs to be created as a redirect to the article(s), If the title or song was extremely notable then fair enough but it seems to be a run of the mill episode/song...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Pinging everyone in the AFD discussion: Knowledgebattle, DennisTheTiger/Dennisthe2, Bishonen. –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Can't imagine anyone searching the song title (improperly capitalized). Article was speedily deleted after brief discussion. No suggestion to make redirect during discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the information that a user is searching for with this redirect is at the target article, which means it's meaningful per WP:POFR. Since this redirect is both the episode name and a song that features prominently in the episode (unlike most other episode names), this is likely one of the more meaningful redirects for the show. These types of redirects are also suggested by WP:EPISODE, which says: "If the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." Granted, it appears that the original title was actually improperly capitalized, but that is easily fixed. I also don't see how the deletion of this redirect would qualify under any of the reasons for deletion at our redirect guidelines, WP:RDELETE. If not wanting episode titles w/o articles to redirect to their respective season/show pages is the main concern, you are always free start a discussion somewhere in a relevant forum to change this on a site-wide basis. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most if not all viewers aren't going to have a clue on what the song is and I'd imagine most aren't going to bother to find out either, (Granted they may search but if they were too they'd check Google and then the artist - Redirecting to the episode isn't helpful as it gives no info on the song if people did want to know the song info),
Also not every programme episode title needs to be created and redirected nor do songs featured in episodes need to be redirected to episodes (For instance tons of songs have been in Breaking Bad episodes but we don't start creating song names and redirect back to the Breaking Bad episode .... the songs are created as actual articles....), Anyway as I said above If the episode or song was notable in some way then I could understand but it's not ..... –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you've actually seen the episode, but the song as used in the episode clearly goes above and beyond the point where viewers would know that it's a song. The season presents a synopsis of events in the episode leading up to the performance of the song by the protagonists (e.g. "In desperation, Rick and Morty compose and perform the song "Get Schwifty"."), and if the reader wants to find more information, they can follow the relevant link to the show. If there is a song in Breaking Bad which shares the name of the episode, is sung by the two most important protagonists as part of a major plot event in said episode, whose title comes up repeatedly in the song's lyrics, and whose title does not otherwise contravene our guidelines on redirects, I would absolutely create the redirect, as I did in this case.
As further evidence that the song isnt' just a run of the mill song in a show: Paste magazine gave the song heavy praise ("Last fall, Rick and Morty might have composed the best song in any 2015 television show with “Get Schwifty,"), The A.V. Club acknowled its catchiness ("And thankfully for anyone who’s had the tracks stuck in their head for a few days, both of those songs are now available to stream and download to appease the giant heads within everyone."), and the song prompted covers that became the subject of more traditional news coverage). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously, makes total sense as an NN episode to redirect to the season article. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - someone typing this as a search might just be looking for info on the episode, since this is its title, and the target is where that info is. There's also some discussion there about the song. Far from useless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2016 (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.

Emo metal

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) 16:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emo Metalcore → Melodic metalcore  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects should be deleted since there is no evidence presented in any Wikipedia article that would suggest any connection between emo and melodic metalcore; from my experience, the genres are compared by people who dislike both. The closest thing that exists to "emo metal" would be emoviolence which carries some influence from metal through grindcore, so the term could alternatively redirect to that. --MASHAUNIX 22:57, 7 April 2016 (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.

Work of art essay

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) 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing links to this and it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Hits well below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (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.

Oeuvre

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. This would probably be better settled with a new RM for Oeuvre (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oeuvre → Work of art  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Œuvre → Work of art  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Body of work → Work of art  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure. A person's oeuvre, in English, usually means his or her life's work (or lifework apparently; Life's Work is a sitcom). It may be a bit WP:RFD#D5 to direct it to a concept article about works of art generally. It is at the target, but only as a WP:DICDEF. But I don't know if there is anything better. output (economics) is too broad, collected works perhaps too narrow, but perhaps better. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just add collected works to the DAB at Oeuvre (disambiguation)? And perhaps move the DAB over the redirect too? I'm not sure that work of art is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; mentioning someone's oeuvre almost always means the sum of their output. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to dab page and add collected works to the dab as you said. Occasionally we have a term that has multiple meanings, but the primary topic has no article, only a dicdef. I thought this was the case long ago, and I still do. I think the main target of all these redirects should be the dab page, unless an article about the primary topic can stand on its own merit. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SteveStrummer: thanks for that. @Widefox: you seemed to think that "work of art" was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and said so at Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation)#undo move when moving it back with this change, but Widefox and SteveStrummer were the only participants in that discussion. Really the "discussion" consists of two statements separated by three years, because SteveStrummer's was in 2012 and Widefox's in 2015; the talk doesn't make that clear because Widefox's statement starting "disagree" is above the "Undo move" section and thus looks like an unsigned comment, even though it was added with the same edit and so technically is not. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what we are discussing at RfD, the right place to discuss a redirect at, er, Redirects for Discussion. Since you said in your previous comment that you considered the matter closed and that if anyone else wanted to comment on your remarks they should reply at your talk page (not at an RM discussion or anywhere else), you have implied you wanted the discussion moved to your talk page or somewhere else; now you can't then continue moaning here if you say I don't want to continue moaning here. I suggest next time when you just place your comment rather than picking me out for a ping in particular, you address it to the argument; because it might look like WP:HOUNDING. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a straw man argument to say I 1. wanted discussion moved to my talk 2. anyone is moaning. This is a mess and accusations of hounding add heat not light. Please withdraw it, as it's obviously baseless. Widefox; talk 00:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if a straw man argument is presented I shall knock it down. Most of mine have hypotheses on another and I have drawn logical conclusions from strawman arguments. That is just Reductio ad absurdem, I didn't present those arguments. Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Nowhere did I say 1. I wanted discussion moved to my talk, 2. anyone is "moaning". straw man "...refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent". Care to withdraw all this heat (essentially WP:NPA as requested on my usertalk) so we can get back to the light? Widefox; talk 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Disambiguate: The term "oeuvre" may refer to a single work, or to a whole body of work of one individual. It may refer to works of art, music, or literature. So, Work of art is wrong both on limiting the number of works to one and on limiting the work to art. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not every noun needs a Wikipedia entry. As for Body of work, it's wrong to redirect that to Work of art, when it means something altogether different.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except the current primary topic covers that scope, so is fine, and there's a clear edit consensus for all three redirects. Widefox; talk 08:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show us the clear consensus? It is not at the move request page, which was for one editor moving it and another, three years later (yourself) moving it back. Consensus in dictionaries is that its primary meaning is the body of work, not a singular work. That depends on how dictionaries are arranged; most use what they consider the most popular usage first, but some etymological dictionaries list bu the earliest usage first, the OED for example. WP:NOTDIC, but if the consensus of dictionaries is that the primary meaning is the collection, not a singular work, we are foolish not to follow suit. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EDITCONSENSUS & WP:SILENCE 1. The three redirects have held for years as primary topics and 2. the scope of Work of art has oeuvre (didn't check how long). Widefox; talk 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:Consensus can change. 2. The two uses in the target are essentially dictionary definitions with no further content (as I said in the nomination). Were they not, I'd suggest refining to a section in that article. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SimonTrew 1. Yes, there is no WP:consensus must change so until a convincing argument is made per, say, the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it is the consensus, and it should not be flipped. 2. OK, it must be said that I'm not against a rearrangement, just unconvinced by the argument above. We obviously will not redirect to the dab so this is all moot here per WP:MALPLACED. Switching the dab is a WP:RM. This is going nowhere here, sorry. Widefox; talk 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a logical fallacy here - the burden to change things (i.e. a primary topic) should be by consensus, rather than a burden to show a consensus. Widefox; talk 00:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Gain broader consensus for change to the primary topic (PT) for these three redirects - this has been flipped before without broad consensus (which is what I undid). WP is not a dictionary, so just because "Oeuvre" != "Work of art" "oeuvre" = "Work of art" and "oeuvre" = "The complete body of an artist's work" wikt:oeuvre that isn't to me a strong policy based argument to change the PT. The term is bold in the article and so far I see no other candidate to rival it as Collected works is a dab, and no strong case being made yet. @SimonTrew: Suggest nom puts note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT likely to be resolved only by consensus. @SteveStrummer:: add done, I've added "Redirect from related word" to the first redirect, so await other opinions. Widefox; talk 08:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: I have no idea what "Suggest nom puts note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT" means. I don't mind if you put a note in dab project as this is cross language and per PT, and refer back to here. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify/Comment: procedural close to do a WP:RM with broader participation including notifying dab project @SimonTrew: I don't see any convincing argument above based on policy/guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT) so see no need apart from the danger of limited consensus, sorry, I don't get it. Widefox; talk 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, RfD is a reasonable place to have the discussion. Were I to have the initial intention of requesting a move, then this would have been the wrong forum; at least one thing I think we all agree on so far is that we don't want this to be deleted (WP:XY), so we are left with either keeping it as it stands or retargeting it, (assuming that we couldn't write encylopaeidic article content about "oeuvre" as such, which would probably be WP:NOTDIC). Since a DAB already exists, it makes sense to move it over; which is the same as !voting for retarget to Oeuvre (disambiguation) with the exception that the likely outcome is that the two would be swapped; that's just a technical thing. Were I to just write DAB content at the redirect, then technically it would also fall out of RfD and I could ask for a procedural close; I think you and I are agreed that we need to discuss this more fully somewhere, and since the discussion started here, it might as well stay here: no use comes of moving it. Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cross-language; this is an English word via French from Latin: opera, work (singular opus in English WP s a DAB, I don't know if that helps anything). fr:oeuvre -> fr:Œuvre is actually an article, that distinguishes four meanings in its lede, but all of them talk about a single work, which is not the case for the English word. The Wikidata language links for fr:Œuvre have a "please create this article" placeholder for English. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've left notes pointing to this discussion at both WT:WikiProject Disambiguation and Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. (by "cross language" of course I mean shorthand for a borrowed/obscure word). Widefox; talk 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense of one work (its original sense) it is borrowed; in its wider sense of a life's work, it's a false friend, because that meaning does not exist in French. Si Trew (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would wiktionary benefit?, this is WP. (see below) Widefox; talk 09:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I see I haven't replied to some points above, although somewhat below...) wiktionary lists both meanings, so the whole dictionary argument seems incorrect to me. Considering that, all we're talking about is the legitimacy of the scope of the target (which can be expanded by normal editing) and not a disambiguation issue which is the issue here, rather than just a redirect ...ie a primary topic. As to whether it needs further discussion, I conditionally agree - I'm of the opinion it will do if there's a persuasive argument, which I don't see yet. The bottom line is it is correct per wikt, and a legit bolded primary topic with no obvious rival (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline). Widefox; talk 00:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - since there are competing articles matching (either variant spelling) of Oeuvre (Work of Art and Collected works) it is fitting they should land on a disambiguation page. Put another way, I think there are sufficiently different things that people would be looking for when they enter the word that a DAB page would be more useful to all people than the annoyance to that subset of people who would find what they want on the Work of Art page. I think that would meet the goals of the primary topic policies. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not that happens, the disambiguation currently at Oeuvre (disambiguation) could be a good candidate for an Interwiki link from the French fr:/Œuvre, because that is a kinda-dabby-listy-set-indexy article listing the various meanings in French (and not much more). The definitions in French are broadly similar to those in English, except that oeuvre is not used in French to mean the collection of work. Through that circuitous route I also found that we have chef d'oeuvre -> Masterpiece (which is mentioned in the opening of its first sentence), which is not at the DAB. (Chef d'œuvre and Chef d'ouvre redirect to it too). Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My procedural close point is because the discussion of changing/removing a primary topic as detailed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:D / MOSDAB is often / usually about what's most likely (the actual arguments listed at PT). The fact that there's several ambiguous articles means yes there should be a dab. There is. There should be hatnotes. Yes. A wider consensus may be useful. Is the PT more likely than others? Common PT arguments have not been made yet. Simon, have I not seen one of these discussions before from you, where it went to several venues? I can't remember the outcome? I find a PT argument based on dict def rather not convincing. User:Jwy Collected works is a dab. There's no article, maybe we're missing one, don't know, but we only disambiguate current articles. Widefox; talk 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there's a disambiguation for current articles at Oeuvre (disambiguation). Patently the term is ambiguous by its existence. You cannot have it both ways. Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't do due diligence. This is a tough one. More thought... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a WP:RM of the dab, ie removing a primary topic. It would benefit from a better venue and arguments based on the guideline. In the mean time, I added Chef d'œuvre which is a WP:PTM but arguably worth adding to the dab. With that, I see nothing wrong with the current setup - the PT is bolded in the article and I see no rival articles for the PT. I consider this closed, ping me if you want any more discussion. WP is not Wikt User:SimonTrew. Widefox; talk 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the target essentially gives a dictionary definition, but no more, for the dictionary's primary meaning of Oeuvre to mean a collection of works, (not just Wiktionary) it does not help someone searching for a Wikipedia article about collections of works who happens to use a perfectly common English word to describe them; they will find nothing but a dictionary definition at the current target. Si Trew (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topics are only about the relative merits, so it is futile to expend so much effort on dictionary based arguments for just one side of any comparison. The scope of the primary topic target actually covers both dictionary meanings (so the somewhat tangential dictionary based argument for a primary topic is a strong keep - it has both meanings!), and so as no other article has been compared above, is by lack of argument a good primary topic status quo. Widefox; talk 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Removing a primary topic" is a little wide of the mark. While Work of art is patently the primary topic for works of art, it doesn't mean it is the right target for the redirect we are discussing at, er, Redirects for Discussion. I'm sorry, but it's the "procedural close" that is moot; patently we are discussing it, I have done my best to notify other fora as requested, and no good comes of moving the still-open discussion, whether others think it closed or not; they might as well contribute here, as indeed they have been doing. Moving the discussion is just makework; it also precludes other results such as deleting the redirect or turning it into an article. Si Trew (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SimonTrew Oeuvre is a primary topic - as shown by the dab being at Oeuvre (disambiguation). That is a fact. (I did say I wasn't coming back, but let's keep this factual at least). "Wide of the mark" is describing it in any other way Simon. Embrace that, and realise this is the wrong venue due to MALPLACED as the focus is on the wrong aspect - the redirect rather than a primary topic (ie disambiguation), hence the discombobulation. Widefox; talk 09:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikt:oeuvre has both meanings so I'm guessing that is technically not correct to mark as a misspelling. Not that it is of primary concern in deciding on a primary topic (I've not seen anyone argue dictdef before, may be someone has though). Widefox; talk 09:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (struck through as yes it was a misspelling rather than one of the redirects above - my mistake) Widefox; talk 00:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more a question of WP:COMMONSENSE. If someone saw "oeuvre" in a printed work, I think by context they would know if it meant one work or the collection of work, or be puzzled by what it meant (leaving aside whether the knew what the French meant. If they're puzzled by the word, they should of course look at a dictionary; but what to do if the dictionary guides them to work of art unanimaously? Certainly Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but by the same token it should not direct the secondary meaning to the primary one without comment. It is a tricky one, and possibly the current target is the best, but as demonstrated the redirects are a bit of a mess (such as Work of Art redirected somewhere else before I nominated it here at RfD). Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - this is less about dict def than about issues like Apple vs Apple Inc.. What's the rival article? Looking at the dab, there isn't one, and there's absence of argument above based on the relative likelihood of readers desire. The arguments above are based on dict defs. Dabs are not wiktionary entries to list the definitions but meer navigation aids. That is policy and guideline to help readers get to the article they desire. That's practical and commonsense. We have primary topics that aren't in dictionaries, and from misspellings - it really is a red herring. A dictionary primary meaning != a primary topic. Period. Widefox; talk 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is all just WP:BRD bold, revert, discuss. Widefox boldly changed the target last year; skip the revert because that would make no sense but even if it had we would end up here doing the discuss. Si Trew (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If using "BRD", then the timeline is actually B [7] SteveStrummer, R [8] Widefox D (talk page and here). Although I would describe it just as a contested move. Simple. As a primary topic I agree it's currently not a very good article, but as there's no rival it's the best we have. Disambiguation isn't about the article, just navigation. I can see why SteveStrummer created it one way and changed it. The original was preferable IMHO. Widefox; talk 08:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MALPLACED means: Retarget isn't an option. Delete isn't proposed, so Keep is the default. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 19#Body of work . The merits of this primary topic discussion may be more clear in a WP:RM. One in which I offer to not attend due to the above. Next time please don't ping me. Widefox; talk 08:37, 14 April 2016 (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.

Massimo Antonio Doris

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 may become an WP:XY situation if Doris is notable for something else, however. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massimo Antonio Doris → Banca Mediolanum  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It make no sense to redirect a name (the CEO) of the bank to the bank (and nothing inside the bank article for that person) Matthew_hk tc 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's in the infobox. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Redirects from a non-notable child-topic to a more notable parent are not only allowed but often encouraged because they send an implicit signal that we don't want an article at that title. It might be different if there were potential for confusion or ambiguity but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that they send that implicit signal; "Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged" (right at the top of RfD). If anything, they can encourage article creation, because unregistered users can edit pages, but not create new ones. Of course, most readers don't edit Wikipedia anyway. Keep. Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (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.

Professor of Politics

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) 15:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor of Politics → Daniel arap Moi  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-neutral, implausible redir, serving no valid purpose. Not recently created, and not a typo, so not subject to R3. DES (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I would also be fine retargeting this to Politics in education. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search per WP:XY. Category:Professorships by subject does not have a subcategory Category:Professorships in politics, though. I suppose many of the universities listed at Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics#List of universities offering PPE must have such professorships. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would guess most searches on this term are not looking for Daniel arap Moi. For what it's worth, I did a Google search for "professor of politics" (with the quotes) and of the first 200 results, only 3 mention Daniel arap Moi, the first of which is the 74th result. That result happens to be "Moi: Professor of politics at 90 years", Daily Monitor, Uganda, September 7, 2014—and notably the headline does not use "Professor of Politics" with a capital P, nor is the alleged sobriquet used anywhere in the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that Dan's would be an Honorary professorship (-> Honorary degree), then. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2016 (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.

Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge

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) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target article, and not a synonym of Olde English Bulldogge; it's a WP:NFT "backyard breeder" attempt to invent a new dog breed by crossbreeding. We have no article on it, and surely will not unless some day a major kennel club (probably UKC, being the most permissive) recognizes it as a standardized breed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It was added on 13 March 2010 by User:Ranveig with this edit. It was removed on 26 May 2015 by User:Oknazevad with this edit as promotional. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Simon noted I removed it as promotional. Looking for sources, as it had none, I only could find other promotional websites, and as SMc mentioned, it isn't a breed as recognized by any major kennel club. Not notable and no redirect needed. oknazevad (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2016 (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 padlocks

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) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly misleading WP:XNR. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - on one hand it's not a useful redirect if there's no encyclopedic coverage of Wikipedia's protection system. It's possible there's a case for having such an article, but I'm not sure where it would be. On the other hand, you can already click on the padlock and be taken to the protection policy, so maybe this is actually harmless. I'm leaning delete because clicking on the padlock icon is already a better shortcut. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to find this by typing a search term, rather than clicking a small or nonexistent icon, might offer greater affordance to some users. (Does the icon appear on mobile versions?) Si Trew (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew, excellent point on the PADLOCKS bit. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to non-encyclopedic content. The padlock has no effect on the readership, it only affects editors -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not part of the article space of this encyclopedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we need to somehow make the redirect Wikipedia:Padlocks work, even if no capitals are used. Fine with your deletion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC) I will be adding the redirects that SimonTrew had suggested. Fine with your deletion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest adding those, merely noted their nonexistence; but no harm in having them. Since WP's search is case-insensitive it probably doesn't make much difference. Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:XNR. I don't buy 70.51's argument that it leaks into reader space, though; loads of other things do (thing like {{unreferenced}} for example, that really are only signposts to editors or potential editors), yet other things like {{translated page}} that could genuinely inform readers are banished to the talk page (I believe that there is an article-space template for this that can be put into the references section, but can never remember what it's called and is used neither frequently nor prominently). Si Trew (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XNR and above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all solved. Just get this whole thing out of me by just deleting it. Whatever. Just delete it. I don't care. I have made this long ago and I have evolved while I have been editing the wiki. I constantly evolve to become better and better in this wiki, as well as anywhere else. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2016 (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.

Criticism of Jimbo Wales

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) 15:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism of Jimbo Wales → Jimmy Wales  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be too negative to be appropriate, especially considering that Jimmy Wales is a BLP. Also, this redirect seems to meet WP:R#DELETE criterion 10: this could be expanded into its own article, and the article about Wales has very little information about how he has been criticized. Everymorning (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" itself isn't necessarily a negative term, although I doubt in this case we were expected to find out that Jimbo dabbles in literary criticism or somesuch.
It's not a particularly useful search term, but it's not harmful either. But, it hasn't any incoming links in article space (stats page seems dead at the moment). Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticism of..." pages are usually either break-outs or companion articles to a main topic. They are frequently merged back into the main article. When that happens, we should emphatically keep them as a record of the history. This "criticism of..." page, however, was never anything more than a single, vague sentence. It was turned into a redirect within minutes of creation and nominated for deletion shortly thereafter. That nomination was rejected on procedural grounds but the escalation to RfD was inexplicably delayed for 8 years. So while I agree with Si Trew that criticism articles and even redirects are often allowed and that the negativity of the redirect title is irrelevant, I nevertheless think that it's finally time to clean up this irrelevant not-even-a-stub-leftover. Delete. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of incoming links, I think we should be led by the fact that there are several sections of the article that address this topic. Someone should just read the article and there is no reason to need to be redirected here via that link when the subject is really just the general article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stats are back, and apparently nobody finds it useful. Since the criticism is scattered across the article, we can't target a section, so it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing: someone searching specifically for criticism would be disappointed or WP:ASTONISHed that they don't get spoonfed the information that is there. Si Trew (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2016 (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.

Poochie dog

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 Poochie. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be confused with a type of dog breed. Music1201 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget both to Poochie (The Simpsons), which I found on the DAB at Poochie (disambiguation) → Poochie, which I found on the DAB at Pooch. But at Poochie, there is only one entry that is not a dog (the Peanuts character), so that is a good if not perfect fit, too – we can split the DAB into sections for dogs and others. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've refined my !voted rbelow,to be to the second one; so I'm striking the one here to avoid double counting. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've taken the liberty to add Poochie the dog to the nom, with the section they both target. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Poochie -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Retarget I don't get the logic that a redirect to an informative article might lead to confusion with a type of dog breed. I would have thought such confusion would result from the lack of such a link. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So which is it, keep or retarget? If retarget, where? Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Keep which is the most important part; but I worry that if someone feels the Retarget is the better option...and someone feels it is not...my keep vote will be used to argue that age old fallacy that there is no consensus to move. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested moving anything, and an argument that there is no consensus to move is not in itself a fallacy. Sometimes I find it difficult to follow your logic. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To clarify, the question is: Should these titles point to the breed of dog, or the character in The Simpsons?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 03:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poochie is a disambiguaiton page, it lists all those topics. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relisting comment doesn't clarify the question at all, it begs it. The DAB to which some wish to retarget does not list any breed of dog. The original nom didn't have a question. Si Trew (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Poochie given that every page option is presented CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Poochie. Other notable dogs have been presented with the same name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Poochie#Dogs. Three of the entries there are not dogs, but we can split into sections "People", "Dogs" and "Others". Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need such a subsection? Many of the notable dogs are toys / robots, and the number of entries hasn't grown that large. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 10 April 2016 (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.

Hundreds-and-thousands

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 dabify Hundreds and thousands, with hundreds and thousands of thanks to Si Trew for the legwork, and retarget the others there. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hundreds-and-thousands → Sprinkles  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Hundreds and thousands → Nonpareils  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Hundreds & thousands → Sprinkles  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • 100's and 1000's → Sprinkles  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • 100s and 1000s → Sprinkles  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure per WP:XY, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Both targets mention both "hundreds and thousands" and "hundreds-and-thousands"; nonpareils also has "hundreds & thousands" (not linked) in the infobox, but Sprinkles, which it currently targets, doesn't use the "&" form. Hundreds & Thousands is an album; Hundreds And Thousands and Hundreds-And-Thousands are red.

I've cross-refed the merge discussion (at Talk:Nonpareils#Merger_proposal_with_Sprinkles_and_Muisjes) with this one. Personally I'd merge the two targets and split off chocolate nonpareils, but it doesn't look like the merge discussion will finish any time soon. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hundreds-and-thousands (-> sprinkles) is at Glossary_of_British_terms_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States as "coloured sugar sprinkles used for dessert decoration (US: sprinkles, non-pareils, jimmies)". (non-pareils -> nonpareils.) Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American. British English also has "sugar strands". American English has "jimmies". To clarify, the "new one" was created at 100s & 1000s, not hundreds & thousands. If the pictures at both the targets are what you recognise as 100s & 1000s, why would you prefer one article over the other? Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fond childhood memories of Sprinkles which came in a container from the cake baking section - Nonpareils used to come on white chocolate buttons which were never my favourite. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate choose one and turn it into a disambiguation page for the two current targets shown, and all other uses (such as "many", as in the first two choices found at many) ; and redirect all the others to the new disambiguation page. Also indicate hundred thousand in the see also. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three issues: typography, lexicography, and the culinary basics. It is clear how to settel all these for the best:

  • for typography, have an article with title (exactly, mind) Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) and list every last variation, capitalization, and/&, punctuation. DO the usual with music albums, book titles, movies, anything else, and links.
  • for the lexicography, give the article now called "Nonpareils" (which is definitely useless) the title Sprinkled confectionery nad begin by stating that this means a range of products known by a variety of names, then list all the names. Yes, ALL of them, and I mean the other European ones too because this is international cookery, people!! So: sprinkles, nonpareils (North America only), hundreds and thousands (British at least, with spelling & punctuation variations perhaps in a later note not here), strösseli (just in Wikipedia Finland is not enough to justify giving this but paste it into Google, click Images and just see the images you get!!), Muisjes (the aniseed core can be explained below), and any other terms by which English speakers may come across multicoloured sugar-coated stuff to be sprinkled on desserts or anything with sweet or sugary content as part of a fun sweet dish or snack.
  • for the culinary stuff, base the new on the existing page called "Nonpareils"; integrate the page now called "Sprinkles" because the only difference in the items discussed is that the latter are described as "strands"... Here some may quibble because the two definitive shapes are distinct, where the "Sprinkles" shape is the one in the top photo in the box called "rainbow sprinkles". But the 2nd photo there has much fatter, often shorter coated sugar particles that are often not geometrically distinct from the "nonpareils" in the photo in the box top right on that page though literalists might argue that these are by nature spherical and with a glossy finish. That is really just a detail. Then integrate also the page Muisjes.

92.21.221.68 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is all probably better off stated at the merge discussion, since it doesn't really affect the redirects. But I think we should convert to a DAB per 70.51, at Hundreds and thousands, and retarget all the others to it. Hundreds and thousands (disambiguation) can then be created as a {{R to disambiguation page}}; to put the DAB itself at (disambiguation) would imply a primary topic, which is exactly what we do not have right now. (If we did, we could just redirect all of these to that topic.) Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've created a draft DAB below the redirect at Hundreds and thousands. I don't think we need list every permutation of spelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 03:52, 7 April 2016 (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.

Section header

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 15#Section header

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7&oldid=1138580832"