Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6

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 Walrus#Reproduction. Deryck C. 12:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Walrus milk → Milk  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no discussion of walruses at the target page or milk at Walrus, so this is misleading. BDD (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but sounds tasty. Ever try camel milk? Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, but that led me to Camel milk and the other types of milk listed in {{milk navbox}}. I don't know if walrus milk is notable, but there may be a WP:REDLINK case here. My WP:BEFORE searching suggested that Inuits consume walrus milk, but, um... how would you get it? --BDD (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very carefully [1] Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any truth to that, then retarget to Walrus#Relation to humans, with a line and a cite describing that aspect of the relationship. bd2412 T 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Retarget to Walrus#Reproduction. I've added 2 cites about the milk in that section--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could do. I think I'd prefer not to do a section redirect, though. The milk could be discussed in other parts of the article in the future, and probably no one will be aware of the redirect and go change that later. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a Keep as well --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Walrus#Reproduction as {{R to section}}. It's WP:NOTPERFECT (sorry Lenticel) but better than nothing (thank you, Lenticel). I could find no better. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Walrus#Reproduction as that appears to be where the topic is covered. As an aside, wouldn't {{R to subtopic}} be more appropriate than {{R to section}}, since the section is concerned with walrus reproduction and not just walrus milk specifically? Wow... I never expected that I would ever find a need to write the phrase "walrus reproduction". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:41, 14 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 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 and retain authorship notice. @Tavix: Please add the notice - I'm not sure which format is best. Deryck C. 00:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Electric Retard → Muslim Massacre (video game)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a redirect to Muslim Massacre (video game)#Electric Retard but there is no longer any relevant content on that page, and discussion at Muslim Massacre (video game) suggests this redirect is no longer appropriate/useful. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to deleting redirect if the history is preserved for attribution; otherwise oppose deletion. Although there is no longer any Electric Retard content on the page, the page history of Electric Retard must be preserved per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright because of this merge I made in 2010 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Even though the material I merged is no longer on the page, it is still in the history of Muslim Massacre (video game) so attribution is still necessary. Cunard (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to preserve attribution, per Cunard. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tavix, any ideas here? You've come up with some very good solutions to such problems in the past. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll put together an attribution notice per WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history like I did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 29#Qantas Flight Numbers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6. If closed as delete, just add that notice to Talk:Muslim Massacre (video game) (or ping me and I can do it). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:17, 15 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 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. Deryck C. 12:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ex patria → Expatriate  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A Neelix redirect, speedy delete denied by User:Spinningspark. Ex patria is not the same as expatriate, and ex patria seems like a common phrase in medieval chant. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am rubbish at Latin, but doesn't that mean "the country one is from", a property likely to be assigned to, or asked of, an expatriate? In any event, this seemed marginal enough to need a discussion, my understanding of the Neelix CSD criterion is that a rationale of more than created by Neelix was required. SpinningSpark 19:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, theWP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the target gives it as "ex#latin and wikt:patria", both piped. Not all Neelix redirects are harmful, some are beneficial. ex patria sum, Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind, this comes down to whether or not the phrase can be found in English texts, but I don't know the answer to that. We don't generally provide redirects from translations of the target unless the foreign phrase is found in English sources. SpinningSpark 00:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll agree with you there, and I should admit a bias that I am an expatriate Englishman and know a little Latin. I didn't want to admit that bias earlier because I expected someone would kinda say well that is just your own opinion, but to me this is a fairly common term in English and I am an expatriate in Hungary right now, but have been an expatriate in other places too: and there is a differnce between being an expat and going native.) Quite right to insist on sources, although another editor here disagrees that we should have reliable sources, I shall try to find this exact word. If not, it should go as either WP:NEOLOGISM, {{R from other language|la}} (but it is la to start with) or {{r from something I just thought of}}. expat I would have thought would be primary to expatriate with the other two dabbed, which shows my bias. Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources only come into it if we want to write something in an article about the phrase. For the purposes of a redirect, it is merely enough that a reader may realistically be expected to want to look it up. SpinningSpark 01:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I put that badly. In another discussion about a month ago, I accidentally said I can find no reliable sources, when I meant I can find no sources (reliable or otherwise) – which of course does not mean that nobdoy else could. I think if we can't online find any sources that is a suspicion – no more than that – that something is afoot. Which is basically arguing against WP:RFD#K5 "someone finds it useful", and User:Tavix and User:BDD have had a discussion here at RfD about that lately, and I think the concurrence is that just because a redirect exists doesn't add any weight to someone, not even the creator, finding it useful. Anyway I better get checkign to see if I can find this exact form of words, might need the woodware but I don't have too many latin texts of relevance. Si Trew (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closest I could find with this exact wording (with the space) was [iTunes for Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 2, Op. 18 - Montero: Ex Patria, Op. 1 & Improvisations]. To target Rachmaninov on that basis would be absurd, of course. I'm surprised that it is not used in the wild with the space; search engines (Bing, Google) seem to assume I mean expatria without the space, even when explicitly say I want results the space, but other people are better at searching than I am. As a complete irrelevance propatria is an article about a genus of moths, but Pro patria is red, although I felt it might be an R to Dulce et decorum est as the famous last couplet. Pro patria mori also red; ex parte is (rightly) an article about the legal term, but would be a stretch to target there, I think: but it gives us some clues about what the consensus is for spacing of foreign-language titles, because exparte redirects to it. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew:Ex patria is actually a piece by pianist Gabriela Montero, improvised as a memorial to Rachmaninov, and the piece is listed in her article, under discography. I'm not sure the single line in the Discography list makes for a good redirect, though. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be a little absurd to redirect to her too. Seems odd that it is never used unspaced except in that one piece and always otherwise unspaced, don't quite believe it, but that does seem to be the case. I am not a musical man but my general dictionaries. Someone more specialised in music could perhaps know whether the space is fused? Not sure if that would help us either way but we could be indecisive on a higher plane. Si Trew (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a source and not a likely search term. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The primary use of the term appears to be in terms of a protest song project related to neo-classical music (see here) by the aforementioned Gabriela Montero. There are also scattered other uses here and there in the vein of things such as personal blogs. Seems like the best thing is just to get rid of the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:12, 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.

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 SpinningSpark 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Drumpf: A Funny Label, but is it Fair? → Donald J Drumpf  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect from a New York Times article's title does not seem like a plausible search term. epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a plausible search term. "Donald Drumpf" is and will be a redirect, so there's no need for the full NYT title for anyone typing in "Donald Drumpf" in a search bar. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, WP:G7, see User talk:Potguru. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:19, 6 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 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 soft delete. Deryck C. 12:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cafrenbach → Kfar Nabrakh  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an implausible misspelling, which might cause people to think that it is a legitimate alternative spelling of the place name. "Cafrenebrach" is apparently an old German phonetic spelling of the name, but results for the Cafrenbach spelling seem to all be Wikipedia mirrors. The complication is that an article existed at Cafrenbach before it did at Kfar Nabrakh. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a history merge gone wrong, there's history in both places. @Anthony Appleyard: do these two pages need to be repaired? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that, see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Cafrenbach history merge - although I thought we'd managed to resolve the issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, looks like it's dealt with as well as can be expected then. I think we need to preserve that history, though, because of the cut and paste moves back and forth. I think keep, then. It does seem to be a legitimately attested German name for the settlement, although I don't know if that makes this pass WP:RFOREIGN as I'm not sure if Lebanese villages have any affinity for German, but I think this is a case where deleting the redirect will be more harmful than keeping it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cafrenebrach" seems to be a legitimate German spelling, but not "Cafrenbach", as far as I can tell. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 7 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 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) 13:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Long-bearded → Bearded axe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This target doesn't make sense, but I'm sure the proper target is out there. Maybe something about all those wizards with long white beards? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Beard, unless a more specific target can be found. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, you are all wrong, this is an actual thing The main weapon used by the Berserkers was the battle axe, skeggox, or long-bearded axe ... SpinningSpark 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a "long-bearded axe", not "long-bearded" which is an adjective for many things -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an ambiguous, incomplete and unused (0.4 daily views on average) search phrase. "Long-bearded" is just the first part of a title that could end with "axe", "melidectes", "person" or some other word. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:25, 14 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 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. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Perla krauze → Elvira Santamaría  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I moved "Perla krauze" to "Elvira Santamaría" per the author's request at today's Art+Feminism edit-a-thon. She wanted to keep the article content, but saved her draft under the wrong name. This redirect to the correct name is no longer necessary. Please delete. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:04, 6 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 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 soft delete. Deryck C. 11:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• XHTLA → XHNS-FM  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The XHTLA callsign is not in use on radio in Mexico, and it is not related to XHNS-FM which has never had any other callsign. Raymie (t • c) 04:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - From a quick search, there seems to be a Mexican station in Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca that uses the "XHTLA" call-sign.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it did at one point, but something happened to the permits for the CORTV stations (the ones owned by the state) and a bunch of their rural repeaters changed callsigns. There's XHTLJ-FM and XHTLO-TV there. Searching each of the IFT's recent tables (as cited in {{Mexico-inf}}) doesn't bring up an XHTLA, though there are unrelated XHTLAC, XHTLAN and XHTLAX stations. Raymie (t • c) 18:20, 8 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.