Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 19

March 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2016.

Bobby (given name)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move target over redirect. Deryck C. 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bobby" is rarely a given name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move target over redirect per Tavix and others. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand the argument, lots of people are named Bobby, even if it's short for something else, and they're listed on that page. Do you think it should target to something like Robert instead? (Robert (given name) is red) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is that if it is "short for something else" it's not a given name, therefore the redirect is incorrect. Very very people have the given name Bobby, so why even have a redirect? Might as well have Silver Lampost (given name) and have that redirect to Bobby (personal name); the numbers involved are very similar (at or near zero, that is). And having the redirect makes a false and incorrect connection between the two.
I'm guessing that's what the argument would be. I don't buy it myself. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Bobby" is frequently considered or called a given name; and even if it is rarely a legal name, it would still occur, so the redirect is correct. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sure there are a fair number of readers that don't understand the difference between a given name and a personal name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse redirect per WP:APOTITLE. "Personal name" is someone's full name, so that doesn't even work as a disambiguator. While "given name" has it's flaws, it has been taken to mean the same thing as first name, forename, etc. (Personally, I'd prefer the use of 'forename' instead of given name for this very reason, but that's a different discussion for a different day.) -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the page over the redirect per Tavix. This was an undiscussed move of a stable title for pedantic reasons, and it really should've come up at WP:RM#TR instead of here. I hope the closer takes this into account. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Tavix and BDD. - Eureka Lott 16:38, 22 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.

The booty

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. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The booty → Buttocks  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this be retargeted to Booty? Many things are named "booty". sst✈ 12:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Arrr me hearties -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:22, 25 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.

Tekir

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 - Been open for 11 days and although it could be relisted I don't thik it'd gain any !votes so closing as Keep –Davey2010Talk 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tekir → Knidos  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this be redlinked to allow the creation of an article about the modern-day settlement Tekir, at the same location that Knidos was? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while there is very little information about the modern settlement at the ancient village's article, it at least informs readers as to where it is, and is therefore at least marginally useful. Furthermore, the existence of the redirect is not preventing anybody from creating a page on the modern settlement if they so choose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 21 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.

Kasey Campbell

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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kasey Campbell → The Pussycat Dolls  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such mention in the article. No such connection found through Google. No one by the name of "Kasey Campbell" is even notable. The subject may be promoting themselves with mistruths. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention in the Wikipedia Pussycat Dolls article- read the article. Google Kasey Campbell. IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaseyinla (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing due to creator's justification above.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:35, 20 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.

Regions fo Spain

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) 20:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regions fo Spain → Regions of Spain  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Based on mistyping "of" quickly and mixing up the letters. "Of" is contained in many titles, there isn't a reason this is more likely to happen in this particular case, and the search engine already takes care of the typo. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we often keep redirects from common or likely misspellings. This is neither. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector and nom. Even I don't make this mistake. Meters (talk) 23:00, 22 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.

USHOUSE

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) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS, improper spacing, and vagueness. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think it's supposed to be an acronym like POTUS and SCOTUS. I've never seen it spelled this way, I usually just see "U.S. House," but that doesn't mean it hasn't been used (and its next to impossible to search for it, since search engines are caps insensitive.) -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without this redirect having an established official connection to its target, it's erroneous and ambiguous at best. Besides the fact that it doesn't fall in line with the somewhat unofficial standard of capitalized acronyms representing United States positions having each of its letters stand for a word, "USHOUSE" could possibly erroneously refer to the White House. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like the genesis of this may be a Twitter hashtag, #USHOUSE, which refers to topics associated with the the United States House of Representatives. However, I am hesitant to set a precedent where Twitter hashtags are searchable in this encyclopedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I certainly agree with your assessment, and I think it fits nicely with the longstanding precedent of creating redirects for notable nom de plumes. I also wouldn't be opposed to creating articles or redirects for hashtags that receive independent notability in secondary sources; you can find some interesting examples at Hashtag activism. I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of the search function, but it appears that there are no articles in the encyclopedia that begin with the "#" character, and any time I search for anything that is preceded by the "#" symbol, I am redirected to the homepage. If there is some technical limitation for creating articles that begin with "#", then that may also limit the ability to create articles and redirects about hashtags. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Wow, that was created just last month... Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I have now nomimated that template for deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And I withdrew it. I think my distaste that these redirects exist temporarily clouded my judgement somewhere. I'll probably revisit those redirects later. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too much potential for confusion with the White House. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indeed, it looks like someone on Twitter is trying to make this a "thing" in the same vein as POTUS/FLOTUS/SCOTUS, but I don't see it as meriting an exception to the practices we have in place. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, while this term is used a bit as a Twitter universe thing, the redirect still doesn't seem helpful. The redirect is also potentially confusing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. I also don't want to encourage people on using the wiki as a tool for marketing --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 28 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.

Current prime minister of Canada

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. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current prime minister of Canada → Justin Trudeau  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada, where the current prime minister will be listed for as long as the position exists, removing the need for this redirect to be updated. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Prime Minister of Canada per nominator. The current target is easily subject to going out of date. Agree --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete (do not retarget). Only one person is ever the current prime minister of Canada; if it's not useful as a link to that person, it's even less useful as a link to the position generally. I'm kind of neutral on whether or not it actually is useful, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: Compare this to Current President of the United States or Current president of Argentina. (I'm in no way advocating the creation of similar redirects, but rather pointing out the ones that currently exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: noted, but I see retargeting due to future maintenance issues as poor service to readers. Someone typing this in is clearly looking for information on the current prime minister, and while they'll find out who that is at Prime Minister of Canada, there is no substantive information there unless they click another link. I would prefer these not exist at all rather than require the reader to find another link to click through to get to the information they're looking for. As you know, our mission is to provide as much substantive information as feasible, not to be a question-and-answer site. I was on a phone call this morning with a vendor's sales department - I called their published sales phone number, was taken into their menu system, and the very first question I was asked was "for sales, press 1". It was not the only time I was asked to press 1 for sales before I got through to sales, by the way, after having dialled the number for sales already. That's what this retarget proposal is doing - when a user calls our "current prime minister of Canada" line, we're going to take them to page that asks them to press 1 for the current prime minister of Canada. That's silly. "Current prime minister of Canada" couldn't possibly refer to any other page than the current target. At some point in the future there will be a different, discrete target, and this redirect will need to be updated, but asking users to push more buttons because of a maintenance issue in the indefinite future is just bad design. </rant> Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that there aren't any "[ordinal] prime minister of Canada" redirects, nor are there for any other countries with prime ministers (as far as I can find), so deleting this one wouldn't be terrible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to deletion, in fact I prefer it on this type of redirect (i.e. "current"), but consensus hasn't generally gone that way often on these in the past that I've seen. At least it won't go out of date and need an update with a retarget, which is my concern, because readers will then harmfully be led to the wrong information. There is no good way to ensure these type of redirects get updated in a timely manner or at all currently (a system could be set up with a bot). Bottomline: redirects that go out of date within a short cycle or period of time and will need updating shouldn't exist.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:43, 21 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.

Ancient rome.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#Ancient rome.

NFL Bowl

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#NFL Bowl

Mr. Roker

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 Roker (disambiguation)#People. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Roker → Al Roker  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Roker (disambiguation) or alternatively delete. Mickey Roker, Raymond Roker, Samuel Roker, Wally Roker... Ambiguous with no clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (unlike what the consensus held at Mr. Obama). Ms. Rodham as a precedent. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Multiple misters Roker -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one named Roker notably uses "Mr." as part of their name (like Mr. Rogers, for example) so there's no affinity between the title and the name. People don't search that way because of this and the stats prove that this redirect isn't being used. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree Tavix, deletion would be my first choice. However, community consensus seems to be leaning another way on these type of redirects at this time, and I do think retargeting is better than keeping the current target in this case.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless, of course, Al Roker is the primary topic of those with the name, and I think one can make a case for that. Overall, I'm not too bothered by the existence of a few of these here and there, and there have been some good points made about them. I just don't want someone to take this as an invitation to create these en masse. -- Tavix (talk)
  • Retarget to Roker (disambiguation). In some news outlets, it is common practice to refer to individuals by the formal "Mr. X," even if they are not commonly known by that name in popular culture. Additionally, a reader who is unfamiliar with the English language and English naming conventions may want to learn more about the family name "Roker" by searching for "Mr. Roker." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget per nom. I'm not okay with the "Mr." term but they can generate plausible synonyms with the entries at the dab page--Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 22 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.

Dancing Banana

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 Buckwheat Boyz since I'm assuming everyone's in agreement here. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Dancing banana. Lacking a mention at the target, suffering from the same problem that the un-capitalized version did. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Buckwheat Boyz. I don't know why I didn't think of that last time. It is discussed there, though more information would be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright with me as well.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:50, 28 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.

Damn, Daniel

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 Damn Daniel. It looks like we've actually had an article on this meme since the 12th. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, Daniel → Internet meme  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target or at list of internet memes. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 25#Internet meme redirects and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Merged to List of Internet phenomena but no longer mentioned there as precedents. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. If there's nothing mentioned at the target, there's no sense in redirecting to it, since someone looking for information about "Damn, Daniel" isn't going to find it. However, if information about "Damn, Daniel" is ever added to the article, we should reestablish the redirect, as it will then be relevant. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the lack of Damn, Daniel content on the memes page. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Damn Daniel. Downwiththesyndrome (talk) 13:28, 31 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.

Elee

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. At several other targets generally as a name, though I noticed a place in Hawaii with an article that is a partial match, and a group named that in a book article plot summary as well. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's plenty of vagueness here, but it seems clear that there's not a particular association with the current target. I could maybe also see a redirect to Port Allen, Hawaii as that's alternately known as "Elee Landing, Hawaii". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:30, 25 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.

Recalcitrants

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#Recalcitrants

Nutrition Party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 4#Nutrition Party

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_19&oldid=1037903304"