Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 29

October 29

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 29, 2017.

Floral Park,Surat

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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floral Park,Surat → Surat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is mis-formatted (no space after the comma), and on a closer look it redirects to an article that doesn't mention it. Searching finds there is a public park in Surat by that name (with lots of flowers). Probably not notable. Unless/until it is mentioned in the article, the redirect is not helpful. MB 22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and scrub other circular redirects It's mentioned in List of tourist attractions in Surat but so are a bunch of other links that redirect to Surat, especially when it's just a list and not detailed beyond that as a paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:TRAINWRECK. Most of the links on List of tourist attractions in Surat and Surat#Points of Interest are redirects to Surat. Many of these suffer from the lack of comma as well. It looks like the WP:YELLOWPAGES the way it currently is. The article section needs to be rewritten into prose, and the specific attractions moved to the List of tourist attractions so it's more like List of tourist attractions in Kochi. Each attraction's link should be evaluated and then removed if useless or orphaned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AngusWOOF: Looking at the list of redirects that target Surat, I'd have to assume that most of the incoming redirects are an attempt at SEO, possibly to promote Surat as a tourist destination since pages in the "(article)" namespace are indexed. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

History of the Democratic Party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 11#History of the Democratic Party

Dinichthys telleri

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 the typo redirect, noting the other one has been withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinichthys telleri → Dunkleosteus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Dinichthys terrelli → Dunkleosteus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly misleading and/or erroneous, considering that Dinichthys is a different genus than Dunkleosteus. (Also, The term "telleri" seems to be a misspelling of "terrelli"; see Dunkleosteus#Diet for related information. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Update rationale. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The typo might be problematic, but alternative combinations (or new combinations) of genus and species names are extremely common as junior synonyms of many taxa. In this case, the species terrelli is currently classified in Dunkleosteus, not Dinichthys, therefore Dinichthys terrelli has to redirect there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Pardon my ignorance here, given that taxonomy is not a specialty of mine in the least. So, here's my question: With Dinichthys vs. Dunkleosteus, was this a case where only one genus was declared at first (Dinichthys), and then later, another genus was declared and then some of the former's species were moved to that genus (Dunkleosteus)? (I'm trying to determine if I should withdraw discussing Dinichthys terrelli.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dinichthys herzeri is the type species of the genus Dinichthys. In 1873, a new species, Dinichthys terrelli, was also assigned to that genus. But in 1955, D. terelli became the type species of a new genus, Dunkleosteus, where that species is currently placed as Dunkleosteus terrelli. So as long as that species is placed in the "new" genus Dunkleosteus, the name Dinichthys terrelli will be a junior synonym of the name Dunkleosteus terrelli. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That essentially confirms what I was thinking. I'll withdraw Dinichthys terrelli. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparently a misspelling, with zero hits on google books. – Uanfala 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

U. S. security

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 11#U. S. security

Still in the Game (song)

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 retargeted to Talking Back to the Night by Ss112. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in the Game (song) → Carly Rae Jepsen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. feminist 10:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Again, I don't know how "unlikely" this is. (Granted, we could look at page views for redirects, but I don't think that's the barometer we judge the reason for their existence off of.) It is an outtake from Emotion; someone may be searching for said outtake as they know it exists—just as you must have to come across this and nominate it for deletion. It's just a shame that the article for Emotion doesn't discuss this (as, I'm assuming, there is currently no reliable source discussing its existence that I am aware of), as it was not included on the album—then there may be a stronger case for keeping it. Ss112 10:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've repointed this to Talking Back to the Night now, where it is mentioned, as it is a Steve Winwood song. Ss112 11:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Talking Back to the Night as done by Ss112. The Jepsen song would need a single release or album release and then it would be a two-dabs situation. There's also "Still in the Game" song by Lyrik, but that's not mentioned in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC) updated 20:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Still in the Game (Carly Rae Jepsen song)

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) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in the Game (Carly Rae Jepsen song) → Carly Rae Jepsen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. feminist 10:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep if only because, similar to the above, a reader may not know the amount of disambiguation necessary to specify if they want to find an article relating to Jepsen's song "Still in the Game". Ss112 10:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreleased song, not on the Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album). Reconsider if it gets released as a single or some extra track where it's attached to an article, otherwise it wouldn't even pass WP:DABMENTION AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target, and not mentioned at Emotion (Carly Rae Jepsen album), the album that supposedly has this song or outtake on it. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Runaways (Carly Rae Jepsen song)

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 retargeted. to Ballerina (2016 film) by Ss112. -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Runaways (Carly Rae Jepsen song) → Carly Rae Jepsen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. feminist 10:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've repointed this to Ballerina (2016 film), as that is the film the song is from. Based on that, I don't think it is an entirely unlikely search term and thus redirect. If someone knows Jepsen has a song called "Runaways", and types it in the search box along with her name, it will take them to a related article. I think that's a plausible scenario and a justification for its existence. If this is unlikely, then basically every redirect any user has ever created for a song is "unlikely" too, and how are we to judge that? Ss112 10:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This also fits the {{R from song}} tag about redirecting to the film instead of the artist when mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Haj

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 retargeted by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haj → Hannover Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose to retarget this back to Hajj, where it pointed from 2008 until 4 October this year when it was boldly retargetted by an IP user. There has been a bit of back and forth about this redirect over the years, so I feel a discussion is warranted. "HAJ" is the IATA for Hannover Airport, the all caps HAJ redirects there and I do not propose to change that. However, the Hajj pilgrimage not the airport is primary topic for "Haj" based on Google results and on Haj (disambiguation). Hajj (dismabiguation) also prominently that it is also transliterated as "Haj". I have just now added the hatnote at Hannover Airport, and I propose adding a direct link to Haj (disambiguation) at Haj if this is retargetted (presently only accessibly by a see-also at Hajj (disambiguation)). Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This RfD has broken the first line of Haj (disambiguation) "The haj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca" so I've piped hajj|haj. And I've tagged Hajj (disambiguation) for cleanup. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Lance Bulen: bands, Baton Rouge , Puzzle Gut and Kingbaby . In the 90's he recorded 3 full length albums; two with Baton Rouge on Atlantic and East West Records which broke Billboards top 200 and the 3rd with his band Puzzle Gut on Interscope Records.

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 deleted, G6, by Dlohcierekim. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:Lance Bulen: bands, Baton Rouge , Puzzle Gut and Kingbaby . In the 90's he recorded 3 full length albums; two with Baton Rouge on Atlantic and East West Records which broke Billboards top 200 and the 3rd with his band Puzzle Gut on Interscope Records. → Draft:Lance Bulen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible, LONG redirect that appears to be copy of page content. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Drafter entered the description into the article title instead of the person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Miramax/Hyperion(Publisher)

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) 21:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miramax/Hyperion(Publisher) → Miramax Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unlikely search term / with typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Miramax books/Hyperion(Publisher)

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) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miramax books/Hyperion(Publisher) → Miramax Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unlikely search term with typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gay (Magazine) (Toronto, Ontario)

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) 21:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gay (Magazine) (Toronto, Ontario) → Gay (magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an awkward disambiguator, but we do need a similar kind of redirect as there are other magazines with the same title: one published in Montreal (ISSN 1195-2938) and one in New York. – Uanfala 12:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect resulted from a page move, because somebody created it at this awkward and non-compliant title in the first place. I don't know if we still follow this practice today, but it used to be the case that if a redirect represented the original title of the page before a move, we had to keep it for WP:GFDL compliance reasons even if it was otherwise implausible that it would actually get used at all, and could delete it only if it violated some other policy (such as WP:BLP for containing libellous or loaded implications such as dabbing an accused but not convicted criminal as "rapist" or "murderer".) So I have no strong opinion either way — I agree that it's not strictly necessary as such, but we at least used to have a policy that we still had to keep it anyway because it was the page's original title, and I don't know for sure whether we still do or not. And as Uanfala notes, the target may have to be redabbed with Toronto again in the future, as there are other magazines with the same name that might also qualify for articles — so even if this isn't kept, some form of title that's inclusive of the geodis "Toronto" may still be necessary as a preliminary step toward the possibility of a future renaming. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't be needed for GFDL/CC attribution, since the page history is moved with the page move. Even if we needed to DAB it further, it would be more like Gay (Toronto magazine) or similar. So I would say unnecessary, delete. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly why I always thought the rule was a bit silly, but I just wasn't sure whether the rule still existed in that form or has since been deprecated in favour of a more rational practice. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If Gay (Toronto magazine) is needed it can be added, but right now that's the only notable magazine with the title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistc Theory (Journal)

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 deleted by Anthony Appleyard. I presume G6? -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird leftover from a copy-paste move, I think. It's an implausible typo / unlikely search term, so it should be deleted, but this might be in need of a WP:HISTMERGE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was recreated at its proper title 12 minutes later, by the same user and using the exact same text. I don't know if a history merge would really be needed, but let's see what Anthony Appleyard would say. – Uanfala 12:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Headbomb and Uanfala: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistc Theory (Journal) has no useful incoming links and no history worth history-merging: one text edit and several redirects. I have deleted it. Both pages have edit history going back to 14 January 2007. Merely a 7-years-ago typo. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corsica (Journal)

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corsica (Journal) → Corsica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There doesn't appear to be any journal with this name, there's nothing relevant mentioned on the target (either now or at the time of the redirect's creation). The closes thing I came across is "journal" as part of the subtitle of An Account of Corsica, but that's way off. – Uanfala 12:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if there is a journal that's actually called Corsica (which, per Uanfala, is far from confirmed), redirecting its title to the geographic Corsica still wouldn't make any sense. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_October_29&oldid=1088106006"