Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 26

May 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2018.

1990s in msuic

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1990s in msuic → 1990s in music (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a particularly plausible misspelling. If this, why not every possible spelling with any two letters exchanged? Not a useful redirect. PamD 22:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible misspelling. Raymond1922 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible but too old for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2018 (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.

Selflang

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selflang → Self (programming language) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Term not found in target article: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 22:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searches are bringing up Python coding examples using "self.lang" [1] , but not strongly tied to the Self programming language. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:23, 30 May 2018 (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.

Stereogum Premiere

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 5#Stereogum Premiere

Mister (film) 2016

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mister (film) 2016 → Mister (film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very abnormal disambiguation method that was presumably a mistake. There's no value in keeping it. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weirdly-formed title, when Mister (film) lands you right on the button. Redirects are cheap, but badly-formed redirects just clutter up the project. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above rationales. Since the film didn't even get released in that year. It is purely ambiguous and against the WP naming conventions. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Raymond1922 (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (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:SOUL

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3#Wikipedia:SOUL

Intuition--philosophy

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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intuition--philosophy → Intuition (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely, WP:COSTLY redirect due to its formatting. Also, a related redirect, Intuition (philosophy), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The odd formatting of this makes me think that it's rather useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The double-dash formatting is used in library catalogues for subject headings, so the redirect is not completely useless. – Uanfala (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uanfala. There doesn't appear to be anything costly about this harmless redirect - it's not inaccurate or obstructing anything else and there is no more maintenance overhead than any other redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can a source be provided where this formatting is used? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this type of redirect seems worth discussing further
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed how most of the libraries in my life (including the one I'm in right now) have listed metadata about an item (i.e. Motion pictures -- Production and direction -- Drama), it's the Library of Congress Classification. Here's a link to the specific Intuition--philosophy usage within the LOC itself. I was going to close this as no consensus based on the above discussion with that message, but given that one of the delete !votes asked for this and nobody else answered, I thought providing it could be construed as offering evidence and weighing in too much. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 8 June 2018 (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.

Cuticle nipper/Cuticle pusher

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. Maybe go with the idea of the list/stub article? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cuticle nipper → Manicure (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Cuticle pusher → Pedicure (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems that both of these tools are used in both pedicures and manicures, but for some reason, redirect to two different articles and are not identified in either article other than being mentioned as a tool used in both procedures. Unless there is a good retargeting option for these redirects, delete both per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to manicure as Types of nail care tools redirects there. Somehow both of these tools are also listed in the article's lead paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but neither of the tools are exclusive to pedicures or manicures. A reader could look up one or the other and arrive at the wrong target. That's why I think WP:REDLINK may be the best way to go with these. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if the best solution here is to create a List of nail care tools (or List of manicure and pedicure tools) article that links to both manicure and pedicure and redirect the various terms to the list? Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The List of tools might be good if only to get them off the two articles. I just wonder if it will be rather stub-like, unless it's done like a glossary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:04, 26 May 2018 (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.

Parasceve

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 8#Parasceve

Sam Fischer

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Fischer → Sam Fisher (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This page was once a duplicate of Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell) with a mispelled name, and was later turned into a redirect to a DAB page. It is now linked from Morgan Taylor Reid, because there is a singer called Sam Fischer. I propose deletion to turn that link red and so encourage article creation (if justified). IDK whether the singer is notable or not (though searches suggest he may at least be getting there), but adding a qualifier to a unique personal name looks like a very bad idea. Narky Blert (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plausible misspelling, though I don't know if you would disagree with that. If there isn't someone notable named Sam Fischer, there's no problem. If there is, then yes, I'd like to see an article, but in the meantime, this is still helpful to users. If they're searching for someone actually named Sam Fischer, the results should signal to them that we don't have it. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't work. Sam Fischer. Different spelling, different person. Meanwhile, there's a worse-than-useless link in Morgan Taylor Reid to a DAB page. [2] Narky Blert (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, did you read my comment beyond the bolded "keep"? I realize there are peopled named Sam Fischer, but unless we have coverage of any, the term is still useful as a possible misspelling of "Sam Fisher". --BDD (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BDD or write an article about a notable Sam Fischer (this doesn't require the redirect to be deleted). Incoming links from articles can be premptively disambiguatied (i.e. change the link to Sam Fischer (foo)) and create that as a redirect to the article ({{R from unnecessary disambiguaiton}}) when it is exists. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2018 (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.

Princess Tarakanova (film)

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 Princess Tarakanova (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tarakanova (film) → Princess Tarakanova (1938 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This article was recently moved, as there is a second film with the same title. Princess Tarakanova is functioning as the primary topic despite being at the wrong title for two years. There is no disambiguation page; both films are dealt with via a hatnote and I do not see the need to create one just to give this redirect something to point to. So should it just be deleted? There are still wikilinks using this redirect so they would need to be fixed first. Xezbeth (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation with Red Wine (film), and I assume there are many more. I'm not sure if I should be deleting the redirect, making a redundant dab page just to retarget it, or pointing it towards the article occupying the base term despite it not being a dab page. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: I felt confident enough on seeing this problem to WP:BOLDly create Princess Tarakanova (disambiguation) and to retarget Princess Tarakanova (film) to it as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, after I'd sorted out the incoming links per WP:FIXDABLINKS.

There is only one question which needs addressing - could you, as a reader, now find what you want? Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: I've just done a similar sort of thing with Red Wine (film) / Red Wine. Tedious to do, but I consoled myself with the thought that it will never need doing again. There are lots of incomplete DAB links like these: qualifiers like e.g. (film) and (film, year), (footballer) and (footballer, born year), (footballer) and (soccer), and so on - absolute guarantees for confusion. Narky Blert (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll just do the same thing, though I don't think the dab page needs to be linked via the hatnote when there's so few entries. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to disambiguation as there are still two notable films. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (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.

Political group

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 Political organisation. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political group → Political faction (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Political groups → Political party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not sure about these, it appears to me that political organisation and political faction are somewhat overlapping, but political party is definitely too narrow. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - Besides the likes of 'political faction' and 'political party', a reader may also be looking for 'advocacy group' and 'political action committee' among others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to Political organisation which mentions the other options in the lead paragraph including advocacy groups and political parties. It doesn't mention factions, but faction carries a different connotation than group. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked to s since article is titled under the British spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both to Political organisation per User:AngusWOOF. That sounds right. bd2412 T 02:09, 30 May 2018 (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.