This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2015.
- 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
Wrong. --
BDD (
talk)
14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
Vague. "Wrong" might also refer to
breaking legal rules, not just divine rules. There are other redirects similar to this, like
Wrongdoing.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Also, there is no easy way to find
Wrongdoers (album) since we can't put a hatnote at
Wrongdoers R, which may suggest a reasonable exception for a
WP:TWODABS there instead of the R (with a redirect at
Wrongdoers (disambiguation)). What a mess. @
Mr. Guye:, would it be better to add these to the nom formally?
Si Trew (
talk)
04:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- @
SimonTrew: Yeah, add them into the nomination formally.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
21:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that placing a hatnote to
Wrongdoers (album) on the
Wrong article is the best solution.
Neelix (
talk)
19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not entirely convinced with that, I can see the merit having
Wrongdoer and
Wrongdoers going to the same place, but
WP:SMALLDETAILS (section in
WP:TITLE) and
WP:PLURALPT allow and even mildly encourage them to differ, as far as I read them. Nothing links to
Wrongdoers, so there's no problem with breaking existing (internal) links.
Si Trew (
talk)
04:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think we're disagreeing about the what the guidelines say but rather about what a user is most likely to intend when typing "Wrongdoers" into the search bar. I tend to think that users are likelier to be looking for an article about the concept of wrongdoing (the
Wrong article) than an article about a Norma Jean album.
Neelix (
talk)
19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, that's the fun of RfD, it is a bit of a guessing game in that way. I would say the opposite: Someone typing that exact term (in plural) is more likely to be looking for the album so-called than a general topic on morality. But who can tell? On balance, redirecting them to the same place and having a hatnote is probably the better option. So struck my exception, above.
Si Trew (
talk)
04:33, 3 June 2015 (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 keep. Rarely do I find consensus for the position of a numeric minority, but this time, I do. Keep voters clearly had a stronger argument. "Rep of ire" may be ambiguous in a general sense, but lacking any other topic on Wikipedia it can refer to, combined with evidence that this is a common abbreviation for the Republic of Ireland, the redirect is appropriate. --
BDD (
talk)
13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
The abbreviation creates ambiguity. "Rep" could abbreviate a lot of things (representative, reputation) and "ire" is a word referring to anger. Is a recipe for a
WP:SURPRISE disaster.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
22:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The official name of the country is "Ireland": "Republic of" is really more there as a DAB term, since
Ireland is the geographical island, and I have no doubt long battles were fought over the naming of this (rather than, say,
Ireland (state) or
Ireland (country), which also exist as redirects to
Republic of Ireland).
WP:NOTDIC, we don't have abbreviations for everything like this. (
talk)
17:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Well we shouldn't have abbreviations for everything, but we should have abbreviations when they are frequently used and helpful, which I believe this to be. Check out EamonnPKeane's link and you should see what I'm talking about. All of the uses for "rep of ire" I've seen unambiguously refer to the Republic of Ireland in some fashion.
Tavix |
Talk
15:14, 2 June 2015 (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, without prejudice with respect to other redirects to the same article.
Der
yck C.
08:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
Redirect fails the standard naming conventions for television characters
livelikemusic
my talk page!
12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. Per
this search, I am unable to immediately find any other redirects or titles that utilize the disambiguator "(Y&R)". Also, since
Y&R is a disambiguation page, this disambiguator could be seen as ambiguous. However, I am "weak keep" since no other topics on the disambiguation page have and connection to a subject by the name of "Kyle Jenkins", as far as I can tell, meaning that the redirect itself is not ambiguous.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- This one, to me, just screams laziness. In my opinion, if it's going to be bracketed, it may as well have the full name of the show or not exist at all.
Cebr1979 (
talk)
16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:CONCISE. @
BDD:, why do you think having the reader type out the "(Y&R)" unnecessarily saves them time, when the target manages to be unambiguous without it? If anything, surely if using a search drop-down they then have to make the choice between what appear to be two topics but in fact is just one (depending on which search tool is used, some filter out redirects, I believe). There's no internal link in reader-facing space, and stats are well within bot noise level (20 in the last 90 days, excluding the peak when this discussion started).
Si Trew (
talk)
22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "Kyle Jenkins" is hardly an uncommon name, and it's not unreasonable for a reader to expect disambiguation to be necessary. From there, "Y&R" certainly saves time compared to "The Young and the Restless". Remember, the question is not whether this should be the title of the article—just whether it's a plausible search term and unambiguous. --
BDD (
talk)
13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- We don't seem to have "(Y&R)" for any other characters though. Were it to be deleted, the name without it would be unambiguous. As it stands, "Kyle Jenkins" looks ambiguous depending on how one searches, but isn't: the redirect is laying false scent by making it look as if there is more than one topic about Kyle Jenkins. Because of that, I think it is confusing.
Y&R itself is a DAB, so the disambiguator is apparently ambiguous!
Si Trew (
talk)
05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, Steel1943 already pointed out about the DAB.
Si Trew (
talk)
05:06, 2 June 2015 (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.
Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address
- 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 between retargeting and deleting, default to delete.
Der
yck C.
08:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
There's only one sentence about Van Buren's inaugural address at the target page, so this redirect is highly misleading. It was created with the full text of the address, but that belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. (It's there, in case you were wondering.)
BDD (
talk)
17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Inauguration of Martin Van Buren. The suggested retarget has a link to the Wikisource page and, though an unlikely search term in this format, having this appear in the search drop-down when someone enters Martin Van Buren looks very helpful to readers enabling them to find the information they are seeking.
Just Chilling (
talk)
01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Delete. As Steel1943 alluded to, this was created as a
WP:SUBPAGE. This redirect is no longer useful because its intended purpose has been disabled and I don't find it a likely search term at all. I also find it interesting that the prose of
Inauguration of Martin Van Buren doesn't mention his inaugural address, a reader could get confused into thinking that the article has information about the inaugural address when the only mention of it is in an external link. While I agree with most of Just Chilling's rationale, I differ in that I don't think it's necessary to use this redirect to do so, noting that
Martin Van Buren 1837 presidential inauguration appears before this redirect in that dropdown menu and any combination of "Martin Van Buren" and "Inaugural address" brings up
Inauguration of Martin Van Buren as one of the top results in the search engine.
Tavix |
Talk
18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- His inaugural address surely is
public domain and can be included there? Not only for its age but also the general rule in the US that anything done in the name of a State, or the United States, is
public domain. So we can quote it. But I still don't think you can beat the
Gettysburg PowerPoint presentation.
Si Trew (
talk)
13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Legally, yes, we could include the whole thing, but as a matter of policy,
we won't. --
BDD (
talk)
13:54, 4 June 2015 (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 move draft article over a redirect. At a glance, the diplomat certainly appears notable. --
BDD (
talk)
13:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Target contains no information on
Anthony Vincent. Incoming links refer to a Canadian diplomat with no obvious connection to
YouTube.
Tassedethe (
talk)
18:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. We do have
Anthony Peter Strascina →
Tony Vincent, birth name (and I've marked as such), but I don't know if he has ever been known as Anthony Vincent;
Anthony Strascina is red.
Si Trew (
talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Updated after Lenticel had replied immediately below
Si Trew (
talk)
06:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- delete Since the target article doesn't discuss this youtube artist. I don't know if the guy's notable enough for an article yet although there are some articles on the net about his viral videos. --
Lenticel (
talk)
00:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Tassedethe is right, I don't know "incoming links" is quite the right term but a search with My Favourite Search Engine for "Anthony Vincent" fills in the search box for me with "anthony vincent canadian ambassador". I think I shall create a
Draft:Anthony Vincent if I can get enough RS, and submit it to you) for your consideration. Excuse me for updating inline but I don't think it affects Lenticel's comment in any way.
Si Trew (
talk)
06:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry, wife
intervening. I got distracted by my wife. I made a stub
Draft:Anthony Vincent as a stub for the ambassador.
Si Trew (
talk)
12:31, 2 June 2015 (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 keep. Whether ADMASK or ADMASQ becomes more common, both seem unambiguous and legitimate shortcuts for the target. --
BDD (
talk)
13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
I love this redirect (which I just learned of) however it occurs to me that
WP:ADMASK might be an even clearer way to spell it, with the benefit that "mask" is a real word, and related to the root meaning that is at the heart of masquerade.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
14:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Looks like a lot of these WP: redirects are not marked. That is a
Herculean task to fix them if I ever saw it. But
{{
R from shortcut}}
is betteralso applicable, I shall go back and fix, gotta start somewhere.
Si Trew (
talk)
06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I think it best to continue the discussion in one place, and I have suggested that be this forum, at
Wikipedia Talk:Spam#WP:ADMASK instead of WP:ADMASQ.
Si Trew (
talk)
06:55, 2 June 2015 (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 closed as
WP:R2.
Just Chilling (
talk)
01:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
Redirect from articlespace to usepage
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
12:19, 31 May 2015 (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)
13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
Depends on what happens to
WP:RFD#White Sux. - This should follow the outcome of that. Hits well below bot noise level (4 in the last 30 days).
Si Trew (
talk)
02:01, 31 May 2015 (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.