Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 26

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2016.

Fidél Castro

[edit]
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. 16:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid alternative spelling. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While it seems a likely typo, my quick Google search reveals that it's not actually made very often, and when it is it's usually in languages other than Spanish. While it does little harm, nothing links to it beyond notifications for this RfD, it averages one hit a month, and the search engine is ignorant of diacritical marks so deleting it will do no harm: keeping is mildly harmful in that it means editors can link through it unwittingly, although presumably from time to time those of a gnomish tendency look through the category for {{R from incorrect spelling}}, with which I have just marked it. Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2016 (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.

Fishing Creek (South Carolina)

[edit]
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. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect, with one incoming link, to a DAB page on which there is no relevant entry other than a circular link. I suggest deletion to turn the links red, or the article will never get written. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternatively - and better - someone could write the article instead. I wouldn't have the first idea where to start. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2016 (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.

Round table tennis

[edit]
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 all. Deryck C. 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round-cornered table tennis tables do exist, but there's not much to say about them, and in particular the target article says nothing. A reader searching for rounded tables specifically will be misled and disappointed; a reader who isn't searching for that style of table specifically will simply search "table tennis". 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2016 (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.

Bta drill

[edit]
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 and create BTA drill. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. According to the section, it's sometimes called a BTA drill, but the caps here is wrong, and that's red... Si Trew (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2016 (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.

Drag bit

[edit]
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) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. No mention of drag at the target. Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2016 (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.

Forstnerbohrer

[edit]
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) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFOREIGN. No particular affinity to German; WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. An article exists at de:Forstnerbohrer (which IW's to Drill bit#Forstner bits, not via this redirect: that's done the old-fashioned way and not via Wikidata). Si Trew (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've IW linked the German article to this via Wikidata but I can only do so because it's not a redirect... I tried to link it to the redirect {[-r|Forstner bit}}, but Wikidata won't have that. Si Trew (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2016 (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.

Concealed hinge drill

[edit]
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) 01:51, 9 December 2016 (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.

의식동원

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 3

Ghair muqallideen

[edit]
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 Taqlid. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (nor at its previous target, Non-denominational Muslim). Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2016 (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.

Muslimites

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Muslimites

Wikipedia:FILMOGRAPHY

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 9#Wikipedia:FILMOGRAPHY

Partnerschule

[edit]
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. 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for German. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:24, 26 November 2016 (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.

Hospital,

[edit]
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. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not linked from anywhere, not plausible for a typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:22, 26 November 2016 (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.

Caroline Scott

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 3#Caroline Scott

WikiProject Olympics

[edit]
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. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per all the other similar redirects, (I can't seem to find that nomination now). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:08, 26 November 2016 (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.

Template:(country) redirects

[edit]
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. Someone needs to clear this trainwreck. I'm going to delete them all after cleaning up remaining transclusions, but I will leave it to other parties to request salting, implement Steel1943's suggestion, or whatever other further action is desired. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations
[edit]
Nominations
Discussion
[edit]

These whole lot of redirects are very inconsistent with one another for some are WikiProjects, others redirecting to a template on the topics, yet others to administrative divisions, and worst of all, some point to a template about a narrow and certain topic about the country, thus, these should all be deleted. PS, some of the entries at the list I have at User:Champion/Template:(country)_redirects are actually templates rather than redirects, so I'm not sure what to do with them, anyway, they are beyond the scope of RFD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:While technically not a redirect, I have also listed Template:Iceland here as it only transcludes another template and would be a hassle if discussed at TfD separately. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just make it a redirect before nominating for deletion? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: This is a confusing mess and has been one for years, and worsening all the time. After bot cleanup of the use of all of these redirs, it might make sense to replace these with disambiguation pages that present all the templates with each country name in the title, and which throw a big red error (the way broken citation templates do) if one attempts to transclude the DAB page. Even without that suggestion being implemented, these confusing redirs needs to go away.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be better off as an RfC. At the very least, the relevant WikiProjects should be notified of this RfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One site-wide process like TfD, in which anyone can participate, and which is relevant for the issue at hand, is already appropriate and adequate. An RfC, or an RM, would not be any more or less likely to reach a satisfactory conclusion; they're all exactly the same kind of general consensus discussion intended to draw in a broader, not narrower audience. Canvassing country wikiprojects will just artificially narrow the input to that from parties with a penchant for special exceptionalism and against consistency. These redirs are being used totally randomly, often counterintuitively, and many were created without any wikiproject input of any kind, and in different periods (e.g. before {{WikiProject Foo}} was a standardized wikiproject banner naming convention, after the invention of navboxes, during the creation and spread of ISO country code templates, and on). It's routine for our namespace issues to be cleaned up toward consistency without begging buy-in from particular special interests.

      If you invite commentary from 100+ country wikiprojects, as input that is somehow especially sought over that of Wikipedians who actually focus on template and redirect naming as a systematic matter, it's very likely to be unhelpful. Many wikiprojects consist of only 1–3 active editors (if that), often resistant to anyone messing with "their" pages, so we'd probably get a boatload of unproductive bickering. This is not a country-related matter; it's simply coincidental that this batch of messy template redirects happened to be about countries (the next one could be about something radically different). This is a namespace cleanup and template logistics and infrastructure matter, like many multi-redir noms are, and as we commonly see at CfD and other venues where internal page naming consistency arises frequently. That's an all-Wikipedia issue, not a "will parochial wikiprojects, that often have scope-overreach and proprietary-behavior problems, all agree with each other and will that voting bloc in turn agree with everyone else?" matter. PS: I say all that as founder and co-founder of numerous wikiprojects; I'm simply aware of their limitations and territorial tendencies, especially when they're geographical, ethnic, or linguistic in scope. It's no accident that a high percentage of ArbCom cases are centered on politco-cultural topics.
       — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and salt all of them. editors frequently use these instead of standard wikilinks or flags and get unintended results in the articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all because they are confusing. Such redirects could refer to various kinds of templates, as demonstrated by nom's list of RfDs. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of these redirects have transclusions, some in the article namespace. The transclusions will need to be resolved prior to these redirects being deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt to prevent further errors. — JFG talk 14:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to their respective wrapper templates of Template:Flag to call a link to the country as well as its flag. See Category:Flag template shorthands for more details. This alternative seems more useful than straight out deletion. However, if this option is pursued, I would recommend that all of the redirects received template protection afterwards. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These are basically niche template shortcuts. I don't see why standardising them or deleting them will be of overwhelming benefit over just letting each of them point to a relevant template of a slightly different description. Deryck C. 16:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Steel1943. This solves the nominator's issue of inconsistency without the nuclear option of deletion. My second choice would be keeping as-is, since I don't think inconsistency alone is an argument for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (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/2016_November_26&oldid=1088108782"