Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 8

May 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 8, 2017.

Tanya Adams

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) 18:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not point to any information. I traced its history. It appears the information this redirect targeted was moved/merged into different articles and was ultimately erased into oblivion. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we do not appear to have any information about this character (sometimes it seems just called "Tanya" or "Agent Tanya") on Wikipedia and there is no other notable person or character with this name. Note that if this is deleted the entry should be removed from Tanya (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any news articles that list her last name, however, she is a character as Tanya or Agent Tanya in the Command & Conquer: Red Alert series. If desired this could move to Tanya (Red Alert) and redirect to the franchise. Also there used to be a List of Command & Conquer characters article,[1] but it's been redirected to the main franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AngusWOOF: Okay, so now you are saying the last name is totally made-up? All the more reason to delete it and don't look back. If you want to risk restoring the old deleted revision, I won't stop you. Just a warning: Editors working the video game's area can be very mean and abusive. I myself think that revision is ... to put it politely... very unencyclopedic. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last name is probably real, but sources would need to be dug up to prove it. The given name however has sources that can be used right away. And no, I'm not proposing the old characters article be restored, that's a can of worms. ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the Red Alert, Red Alert 2, and Red Alert 3 manuals refer to her either as Tanya or Agent Tanya. Also checked some videos on the net, there is one where they refer to her in-game as Tanya Adams. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 17 May 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.

Mark (singer)

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 Mark (name)#Music. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is ambiguous as to what it should be targeting as there are several Marks in the world who are singers other than Mark Lee. Marky Mark comes to mind, for instance.

Note that I declined a speedy deletion proposal that didn't specify a valid criteria and fixed the redirect that, after a series of page moves, had somehow ended up targeting itself. –Grondemar 04:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved the page from Mark (singer) to Mark Lee (singer) (obviously because the surname had to be included), but the intended target redirected back to Mark (singer). Hence, I performed a page swap. I didn't think the left over redirect at Mark (singer) was a plausible/nessecary redirect so I marked it for speedy deletion with words to this effect. Sorry for any confusion. —Frosty ☃ 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:44, 8 May 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.

Fürst, Bibl. Jud.

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. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wew are not a concordance, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. When deleted as I strongly suggest there will be two redirects left to this very notable scholar, but not seven hundred variations that don't conform to WP:ARTICLETITLE. I know we don't have to for redirects, but we could maybe have a stab at it for making people to be able to find what they are looking for. less is more. Just, we are not a concordance, Talmud, Bible, Koran or otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, I have a feeling the author of User:Eubot was Jewish. Like User:Neelix was Christian. Neelix apologised for his sins and I think we all said you don't have to apologise to us you have to apologise to yourself, find your own peace. I feel the same with the author of this bot. I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The admins who let iUser:Eubot run after a trial of forty, yes, forty edits never got it wrong? You don't see them here apologising do you? They are probably still admins. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take RfD today for "Fürst, Bibl. Jud". I will quote exactly what i said there:
I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things. Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I'll switch to neutral on them. If anything, that looks to be a good reason to create Bibl. Judaica as they still look completely separate to me. -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 11 May 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.

P2008

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 P2004 to Tecnam P2004 Bravo, P2008 to Tecnam P2008, P2012 to Tecnam P2012 Traveller, and delete the others.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen this before. Also, might refer to a specific entry using a specialized nomenclature. Might also be used in coding. But I pay a lot of attention to my country's politics, and this is not something I've seen.

After doing research, I see this number primarily used in reference to a notable Italian aircraft vehicle, and a trouble code for a part in various vehicles. The only reference to the campaign/election is this site by Democracy in Action, a website (organization?) operated by the George Washington University. But the "p2008" seems to have been chosen for simplicity, and not because it is a common term. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ketiltrout's retargeting to periodic comets. Delete all the others. If only a specific group is using it for political years then that's not Wikipedia appropriate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ketiltrout's proposal for selective retargeting to the aircraft articles. If the comets can be searched for using strings like "P2006" (can they?), then 1) the redirect targets would need hatnotes pointing to an anchor within the table at List of periodic comets; and 2) P2016 and P1996 could be targeted to the same list. In either scenario, P1988 and P1992 would get deleted. – Uanfala 16:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. All potential targets a only tangential matches, at best. Let the search engine and the user's ingenuity do their work - Nabla (talk) 13:42, 1 July 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.

Second Sino-Indian War

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 to delete. I'm going to follow Patar knight's proposal as I don't feel comfortable retargeting this to an unsourced article that seems to advance a non-neutral point of view. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second Sino-indian war never happened. This is term never used to describe these incidents and the page was created with no prior discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi source clearly mentions "Sino-Indian War of 1967" ("युद्ध" translates to "war") See at: http://hindi.revoltpress.com/featured/know-about-1967-india-china-war/

The conflict certainly amounts to a 'war' as the source also clearly mentions. I think some users are looking at it in view of the First Sino-Indian War and therefore are termining it 'minor' due to comparitively lesser casualties. However, the numbers among themselves are still staggering and do fit the definition of war (complies with the definition from any source). The territorial changes were also significant with Nathu La and Cho La seeing a withdrawl of Chinese troops which eventually led to the accession of the Kingdom of Sikkim into India! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut1002 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English news source clearly mentions "1967 Indo-China war": http://www.merinews.com/article/indo-pak-war-like-situation-why-china-will-not-dare-to-wage-a-war-against-india-in-support-of-pakistan/15919724.shtml -coconut1002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut1002 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had this before, but struggle to find it. Would it help if I tried to search for First Chinese-Indian War or Second Chinese-Indian War? I suppose what I am asking is how many readers are going to see "Sino" and take as "Chinese"? I dunno the answer to that, and I am not going to rely on stats for that; that is the job of the indexer to make an intelligent guess. My guess is Delete. Si Trew (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
might be worth asking at WP:MILHIST. Usually is. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asked advice at WT:MILHIST referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term does not appear to be mentioned here: [8]. I couldn't get the full view of this book to check: [9], but it seems like it might offer something one way or the other. I wonder if someone else might be able to see if Second Sino-Indian War is mentioned in it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hahah User:Zanhe. "We are not at war. We are in armed conflict". Anthony Eden, wasn't it? Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newer options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:03, 8 May 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.

🦔

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. (non-admin closure) feminist 12:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense Peter Rehse (talk) 08:37, 8 May 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.

Soul Special City

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. No consensus after relisting. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I don't think most English speakers spell the capital of this place as "Soul". They certainly won't then spell it as Soul Special City. Redirect to Memphis, Tennessee if you must. But this is nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:51, 8 May 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.

WP;RM

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) 18:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly formatted attempt at a shortcut winds up in the article space UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:COSTLY. No more affinity for the error of a semi-colon instead of a colon than any other shortcut. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete relatively new cross-namespace redirect (CNR) with no appreciable benefit. Although we might keep a CNR, where it could arguably help a very new editor, the best form is not "jargon", (only the more proficient editors would be mistyping WP:RM), but plain text, (the best for new editors). For example, we can anticipate that new editors may desire information about editing articles, or creating an article, or even Wikipedia policy, and these plain text CNRs have long served that purpose. Indeed they may even desire information about moving a page, and this is covered as well.--John Cline (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to make the same argument that John Cline has just done, but probably not as eloquently. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a common typo for me, and I'm not the only one[10]. I read WP:COSTLY. I get the point about problematic redirects. But what problem does this one cause? --В²C ☎ 16:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Born2cycle: For an error to have what we call affinity to a title here at redirects for discussion, it must be an error that does not equally apply to similar titles, otherwise a decision here to retain it is an implicit endorsement that creating it for other similar titles is acceptable. All of the innumerable titles and shortcuts outside of the mainspace include a namespace prefix and colon (i.e. X:), so unless a specific connection between this one and a semi-colon can be demonstrated, the error is implausible. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I get that. I suppose we can't make all WP;* redirects to their WP:* counterparts. Are can't we? I mean, why not, really. In one sense it would clutter article space, but article space isn't really perusable, so who would be affected by such clutter? I wish wiki search/Go software would automatically substitute WP;* with WP:*. It's so easy to mistype ; instead of Shift-; (for :). --В²C ☎ 23:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects for a broad summary of the problem but basically links from reader facing areas to project space areas should be minimised to avoid confusion between encyclopaedia content and working spaces. You can propose the search engine is adjusted to automatically treat WP; as if it were WP; if you want, but I'm not sure where you would do that - WP:VPTECH would be my first thought. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. There is no benefit in encouraging the creation an maintenance of thousands (literally) of WP; shortcuts that duplicate WP: ones. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indent and strike unintentional !vote duplication.--John Cline (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: Thank you for that, and apologies for the accidental double !vote. I evidently wasn't as awake as I thought I was when I wrote that at breakfast time this morning! Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ideally the software should handle something like that, but for now this creates a slippery slope for stuff like WP;AFD. feminist 12:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the semicolon makes this shortcut live in article space, which makes it a forbidden WP:CNR. I too miss the shift when quickly typing stuff (wp;afd is my most common) but there's no reason for us to pollute article space with editors' typos. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 17 May 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.

Wikipedia:NONPOV

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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view. There's no consensus to delete, and this was the most widely supported retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is a shortcut created a month ago which targets an essay created a month ago. I think this should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the target of shortcut Wikipedia:NPOV. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the shortcut or linking it to WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality would make more sense, the first if we agree that this essay can have such a redirect, the second if not; because that one tells the reader what to do when you have no NPOV.Burning Pillar (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget. I'm not comfortable with the current target having a WP shortcut at this time in its life when there is no evidence that it holds widespread acceptance (or even widespread knowledge of its existence), or has been the subject of significant discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 8 May 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.

Georgia State Route 393

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. 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 393 never appeared on GDOT's state maps. According to the Madison County maps, "393" was a county route number, NOT a state route. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:12, 8 May 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_May_8&oldid=1142586829"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 8, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.