Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 17

February 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2016.

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) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is not the best place to redirect. How do we know that "Hillary" refers to Hillary Clinton? And even still, the redirect asks about the logo. (If the rules allow) can we redirect this page to the file specifically? And how do we know that the reader is looking for the 2016 logo? She ran a competitive campaign for president in 2008 as well (so WP:XY). All in all, this redirect is far too vague. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many uses -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Various iconography have been associated with her various political campaigns. This is too vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:08, 21 February 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.

User warning templates

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) 17:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently-created WP:XNR, which is a reason to delete at WP:RFD#DELETE. Izno (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used for any new editors who may be unfamiliar with adding WP: to the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promotional Attack (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NAVELGAZING, not an encylopedic topic, not suitable for reader space. We already have Wikipedia:User warning templates as a redirect serving this redirect's purpose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete XNR to pipework that is not useful to the readership; and has nothing to do with the general topic of user warning templates. These things exist outside of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's is not built as an encyclopedic coverage of the topic. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10 XNR to backstage. Warning Sign (disambiguation) is too far away, I think. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 20 February 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.

January 2014 deaths

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 WP:SNOWBALL keep. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is superfluous; there are no redirects for March 2011 deaths or November 2015 deaths, et al. --Neve–selbert 18:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per bleh. It points at the right target and is a plausible search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's an intuitive search term and there's nothing wrong with "superfluous" redirects unless there's another issue. The nom's argument sounds more like a reason to create March 2011 deaths and November 2015 deaths. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IV & T. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CHEAP; redirects are functioning correctly. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 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.

Template:Footer

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) 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Footer → Template:Navbox  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A footer is not always a navbox. If there are no better retargeting options for this redirect, I'd say delete. (Also, the redirect currently has no transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wouldn't the footer be at the bottom of every page where it lists the privacy policy, disclaimers, contact information, etc.? If so, is that maintained as a template? If so, retarget there. If not, delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's something in the MediaWiki namespace or in the MediaWiki configuration. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of what I thought, but wanted to make sure. Delete it then. -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. I don't see value in redirecting it at this time, since footers can be ambiguous and so to make the redirect make sense would require some qualifying noun-phrase. --Izno (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Izno. I can imagine creating a substitution-intended template, at this name, that auto-inserts standard page-bottom material for new articles, for example. But there's nothing presently appropriate to redir this to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:07, 17 February 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.

Template:Header

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) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Header → Template:Redirect  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Simply put, a header is not always a hatnote, yet alone a hatnote that has to be set up stating a note about a term that redirects to the page which {{Header}} is placed. If there is not a better target for this redirect, I'd say it should be deleted. (Also, this redirect currently has no transclusions.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per SMcCandlish, who makes some good points I hadn't considered earlier. This is sufficiently confusing and there isn't a perfect target, so deletion is the best action. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. I don't see value in redirecting it at this time, since headers and headings can be ambiguous and so to make the redirect make sense would require some qualifying noun-phrase. --Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Izno. This is a"good" enough name it might come in handy for something later. Having it redirect to {{Redirect}} doesn't make any sense, and a lot of us distinguish between headings and headers; the words are not synonyms except in a few particular contexts, and in sloppy usage (the things we mark up == Like this == are headings, not headers). Even the redlink Template:Heading doesn't (and arguably shouldn't) redir to {{Sections}}, nor does even {{Section}} (a totally different kind of template), so this shouldn't either. The WP:HEADER (plus MOS:HEADER and MOS:HEADERS variants) shortcuts go to the wrong place, and should retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Captions and headers. Same with WP:HEADERS which goes to an essay for some reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to {{hatnote}} which is used to construct header-type text ({{redirect}} is most definitely the wrong place to point it) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 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.

علاء الدين

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 first four (Arabic and correct Arabic romanisations), delete last two (no affinity to Japanese), procedural close the rest with recommendation to renominate in smaller bundles. Deryck C. 00:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • علاء الدين → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • ʻAlāʼ ad-Dīn → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • 'Ala' ad-Din → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • 'Ala' ad Din → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • 'Ala addin → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • 'Ala' addin → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Ala addin → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Alaaddin → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Alaad-Din → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Alaad Din → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Alad-Din → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ](deleted now, but recreated during the disussion)
  • Alad Din → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (deleted now, but recreated during the discussion)
  • アラジン → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (deleted now, then recreated during the discussion)
  • Arajin → Aladdin  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (deleted now, then recreated)

At least some of these Neelix redirects must be nonsense. Can someone use the tools that come up in the RfD listing to check if these are actually used somewhere or where just pulled from his head. Note there is also a DAB for this name. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment first one is the actual Arabic spelling of the name (though note that the target states: "No Arabic source has been traced for the tale"). Beyond that I'd say the transcriptions are roughly in order of decreasing plausibility, until Alad Din and Alad-Din which are just plain old random space-insertion misspellings like Ha-rold or Mi Chael. Definitely delete the last two, which are Japanese. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first, plus the next three which match the pattern 'Ala' ad-Din with different diacritics, delete the others. At least those four are valid WP:RFOREIGN redirects, the rest are implausible variations. I'm not sure if this has affinity for Japanese but I don't know why it would. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first. There's a clear connection between Aladdin and Arabic. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The first one, علاء الدين, is given as the Arabic name in the intro to the target article. The next three are variant vowel versions of the spelling used in the Harvard Classics, 'Ala-ed-Din (see volume sixteen), and Arabic being written with an abjad, the vowels tend to be fluid; see Romanization of Arabic as well as Osama bin Laden#Name. Finally, all the rest are vulnerable to other issues of this sort, so they shouldn't be nominated together; my "keep" for them is procedural, as I'd suggest that instead you nominate them individually. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disinclined to nominate closely related redirects separately as other find that annoying. Feel free to comment on specific ones, and as noted I don't believe all should be deleted but they should be looked at together. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the katakana one (アラジン: No special affinity for Japanese; the Japanese title is jp:アラジンと魔法のランプ. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also keep the second through fourth items, which are present in the lede (or modifications of what's there). Delete the Japanese one per WP:FORRED, and "Arajin", which I assume is also foreign. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Nyttend, アラジン translates to Aladdin (google translate). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Japanese... Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to Legacypac's query above, the only ones that have any significant activity in the last 90 days (other than Rfd noise) are علاء الدين and Alaaddin, barely. None of these have any on-wiki links other than the usual notification pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep علاء الدين and Alaaddin as the valid Arabic title coupled with a plausible mispelling but delete the others CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:52, 25 February 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.

Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri

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 / delete each as recommended by 58.176.246.42. Deryck C. 23:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus:

  1. Suggestive Indecent Hips
  2. Monzetsu!! Densha Otoko
  3. Monzetsu Densha Otoko
  4. 痴漢電車 挑発する淫ら尻
  5. Chikan Densha: Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri
  6. Chikan Densha: Chohatsusuru Midara Shiri
  7. Chōhatsusuru Midara Shiri
  8. Chohatsusuru Midara Shiri
  9. Monzetsu!!
  10. Monzetsu
  11. Monzetsu!
  12. Monzetsu! Densha Otoko
  13. 悶絶!!電車男
  14. Chikan Densha: Otakuna Kaikan
  15. Otakuna Kaikan
  16. 痴漢電車 オタクな快感
  17. オタクな快感
  18. 悶絶!電車男
  19. 悶絶
  20. 悶絶!!
  21. 悶絶!
  22. 挑発する淫ら尻

I'm not seeing the need or justification for this string of Neelix redirects to a short article on a Japanese porn film that seems to be about sexually assaulting women on trains. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was going to try to parse this whole thing, but that's going to take too long. Most, if not all, are legitimate {{R from short name}}s or alternative titles mentioned in the target article's lede. At a glance, I think that may apply to all of these. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones which are actually the full title (the one in the RFD template, plus #2–6, #12–14, #16, and #18), rather than just one of the series titles or subtitles . No opinion on most of the rest, but delete Monzetsu and 悶絶 and their exclamation-pointed variants (#9–#11, #19–21) as Wp:R#D8 confusing and unlikely synonyms; they're ordinary dictionary words which are partial matches for multiple creative works and certainly aren't most closely associated with some obscure porno. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent ありがとう Arigatou - we needed someone that can understand Japanese. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse 58.176's suggested action. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the full title ones and delete the rest (going by 58.176.246.42's comments) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:42, 9 March 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.

Asset-backed

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. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vague adjective. Securities aren't the only things that can be "asset-backed:" a quick search also provided Asset backed lending and Asset-backed risk. (Neelix) -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete same thought I had when I saw it on the list but I'd not gotten to it yet. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. If securities were the only thing that could be asset-backed, this would be a great redirect; the only problem is that it's ambiguous, and a disambiguation page can easily resolve that. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with a disambiguation page is that it'd solely be made up of partial title matches. Since it's an adjective, it's simply describing the type of x you have, whether it be a security, risk, etc. It's not something you would find unqualified. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these are all basically describing the same topic, and the current target does it better. Asset-backed lending is simply lending in which the collateral is an asset-backed security, and asset-backed risk is simply a discussion of variations in securities risk when the securities are asset-backed. Some merges are likely here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Ivanvector. All the variants are extensions of the core topic which is 'asset-backed securities'. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:54, 17 February 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.

Impossibility thorem

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) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, redirect makes it harder to locate impossibility theorem page in autocomplete. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I put "Impossibility" into the search box, this is several spots below "Impossibility theorem". The search function has gotten more agile lately, so it's possible the RfD tag is already affecting this. If this is kept as a typo, the better place to point it would be Proof of impossibility, where Impossibility theorem goes. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently page does not show in auto complete when it is RfD tagged. Before submitting request, page showed in autocomplete before "Impossibility theorem" when typing impossibility. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed (via manual testing), redirects for deletion don't show up in search autocomplete when tagged. Should have taken screenshot, really annoying when thorem shows up before theorem. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit Ethanol, I seem to be getting different results than you. When you say autocomplete, you mean the search box in the top-right corner, right? I still see both "thorem" and "theorem" listed when I have "Impossibility" in the box, with the misspelling a few spots lower. So you're not seeing thorem at all now? What were you seeing before? --BDD (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tested again after removing all tags from page (just #REDIRECT), in search box, when typing impossibility th thorem shows before theorem, which is misleading/unnecessary. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit Ethanol: what am I reassessing? I asked about the search engine's behaviour at WP:VPT a little while ago (now here). What I'm told is that for redirects, if there are several that match a search string that point to the same target the search tool will only list one, and uses some algorithm to decide which. So if "thorem" scores higher than "theorem", only "thorem" shows up. However, I'm getting the same results as BDD (and I think you are getting the same) so maybe there's something else going on. I don't know how it handles redirects that are RfD tagged, but my guess is that it's not seeing it as a redirect, and so it's skipping the "only one redirect to a target" behaviour. And when you remove the header and get the same results, I'm assuming that has something to do with caching. So ... I don't know what to say here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but either way, currently "thorem" and "theorem" point to different targets, so they would both be listed anyway. I'm going to boldly retarget and see what happens. I'm going to leave it for a bit so that you can see what happens on your end, and in case there's some caching going on, but my action shouldn't prejudice this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine when both pages redirect to same page, should stay like this. Thanks for pointers. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not working for me yet. KHAAAAAAAAche! On the other hand I'd be fine with deleting this one too, it's just ripe for causing confusion, and it got 17 hits in the last 90 days, never more than 1 in any given day. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see directly above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incorrect and causing problems. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 21 February 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.

Lego media

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 24#Lego media

ParaÍSo

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) 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete R3.Ueutyi (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? Are weirdly capitalized redirects (apparently stemming from some problem with diacritics) of Spanish common names for a plant something we need to keep around? Plantdrew (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many errors to be plausible misspellings --Lenticel (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - case error is too specific to be plausible. Not quite mojibake. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 17 February 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.

Vivan Charles

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, G7 by User:RHaworth Lenticel (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misspelling on my part, I apologise. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_17&oldid=1037901807"