Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2015.

Randi Mossige-Norheim

[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 Speedied G7. [Additional comments.] Peridon (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. Tavix  Talk  19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must have made this by accident. Djbclark (talk) 02:58, 24 April 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.

Baja Canada

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this redirect be deleted. Firstly, "Baja Canada" is a colloquialism of trivial importance that is better suited for such sites as Urban Dictionary, not encyclopedias. Secondly, the term refers more commonly to the contiguous United States rather than the Pacific Northwest and is therefore incorrect anyway. - SweetNightmares 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - meaningless colloquialism. Also, frankly, as a Canadian it offends me somewhat that Wikipedia just outright states via this redirect that British Columbia or any part of the Canadian west coast is or could be part of the United States. Ivanvector (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector, meaningless. As a British person, it is patently obvious that British Columbia belongs to Britain: says so in the name, can we have it back please? But joking aside, if this is WP:OFFENSIVE it should go. I don't see it as offensive myself, but useless and WP:HARMFUL as a mix of Spanish and English. gtrans translates it as Lower Canada but not in those caps: I don't think that's a very good translation, if anything Hudson Bay would seem like a better target. Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't have it back. Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. You don't happen to know the Queen's phone number do you? We could do a three way call to sort this outm or maybe have a game of poker or something like that. she's fond of the horse racing and I think Goodwood must be coming up soon, so perhaps stick a lump on a nag there, all or nothing and we get British Columbia back. (You can keep Vancouver, awful place). Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, your queen or my queen? Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and not done very well there. Without prejudice, I'll make a See also section for now with that article, but I think that's a bit ridiculous, someone's just been too keen on whacking in references without checking. By the way it never occurred to me is Bayou cognate with Baja? Its article (the first-named) says it is Franco-English, but I might doubt that, the Spanish were not far away and in French the word is baie so I guess they are cognate, but it would seem more likely to me to come from Spanish than French. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No; "bayou" apparently comes from Choctaw whereas "baja" is just the Spanish word for "lower." - SweetNightmares 02:12, 28 April 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.

MacacaGate

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#MacacaGate

Rakesh Jain CEO Reliance General Insurance

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me. Just "NO!" Surely that is sufficient? Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but isn't there a speedy for unlikely redirects? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a typo. Your mileage may vary Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO and unnecessary disambiguation. Rakesh Jain, a different fellow, hatnotes over to the target at the top of its article, so there is no need for this. You can try taking it to WP:CSD but I do that sometimes and rarely succeed. I'm assuming (just from the point of view of RfD) that it's established which one is WP:PRIMARY, but that would be an argument for their two talk pages, and something beyond our jurisdiction here. Si Trew (talk) 03:00, 24 April 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.

Intentional Flooding in Manitoba

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo, possible negative connotation. I'm not claiming to be too familiar with the event, but everything I read (and the current revision of the target article) indicate that it was a necessary call to prevent more catastrophic damage. Maybe it's just me, but the redirect seems more likely to imply some conspiracy where the government did it for no justifiable reason. The redirect's been viewed 6 times in the last 30 days [1] (12 in the last 90). 1 of those was me. So it's unlikely to actually be linked from anywhere or useful. I found it through the autocomplete in the search bar, which also indicated that there were few pages beginning with 'intentional', and these types of decisions are made often in disasters, so there also doesn't seem to be precedent for a redirect as such. ― Padenton|✉   15:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - conspiracy nutter nonsense. This was a 300-year rainfall event; at some point a decision was made for a controlled breach to direct flow into another river's watershed so as to prevent an uncontrolled breech in a more densely populated area downstream. That is a pretty normal disaster scenario: mitigating damage in a planned and controlled fashion in order to prevent much greater damage. Saying that the river was "intentionally flooded" implies a conspiracy to destroy property by the government or some other shadow organization for no apparent reason, and such implication has no place on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with Ivanvector. Never heard of it myself but where I lived in Cambridgeshire, in The Fens, there was lots of intentional flooding (blame Cornelius Vermuyden bloody foreigner, even South Cambridgeshire District Council's motto is in Dutch, Niet zonder arbeit, Nothing without work, his family's slogan). He came over to England in the 17th century and drained the Fens like they did in the Netherlands, but that "intentional flooding" was to protect land and make it useful, not to destroy it. Where I lived in St Neots there was a nice big area of land that I am sure builders would have loved to grab, next to the River Great Ouse, you'd make a fortune with houses overlooking the river, but was done because that is a tidal river at that point (I know, I have fallen into it!) and all the canals and drains pour into it, and it floods that land, that is intentional flooding (mind your feet), but not harmful. Si Trew (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others. Controlled levee-breaches are often undertaking during floods to prevent worse damage. Pax 08:24, 30 April 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.

Kapilavastu (Shakya capital)

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars discuss both, Tilaurakot (Nepal) and Piprahwa (India) as possible locations of the ancient Kapilavastu (Shakya capital). Please see Gautama Buddha/Note 1 and Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes for details.

The redirect to Kapilvastu District (Nepal) should be deleted because it violates WP:NPOV. JimRenge (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)/supplemented: JimRenge (talk) 12:58, 23 April 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.

Trivia and Pop Culture References in Family Guy

[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. If Tavix's assessment of the second redirect was incorrect regarding a merge, contact me or another admin for restoration. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unhelpful redirect and an implausible search term. Per WP:HTRIVIA, this wouldn't make a good article, so why should it be a redirect? Tavix  Talk  05:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This is fallout from a "merge into oblivion" a long time back (see here for the last unmerged version if one's tolerance for extreme fancruft is high). There's no trace of the merged material and we don't need to support a long-winded search name for stuff we won't supply anyway. Seyasirt (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tavix makes a good argument, a redirect should be a potential article (of course misspellings/typos excepted) and this won't ever be: it doesn't meet WP:TITLE for example. Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While redirects are not required to meet article's notability standards, I don't see any usefulness of having this redirect. And if Wikipedia policy were to allow this redirect, I'm not sure how we wouldn't allow similar redirects for any TV series that makes frequent pop culture references, and it clutters up the autocomplete list preventing people from finding pages they're looking for. If someone's looking for 'pop culture references in Family Guy', I really feel no remorse about them having to re-enter their search query to go to the Family Guy article ― Padenton|✉   20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (technical) pop culture references in Family Guy because of attribution requirements of Wikipedia GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0 license. No comment on the other redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetCommand: can you elaborate on these requirements? Why is the redirect required? ― Padenton|✉   15:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's referring to WP:MAD. If something is merged to another article, that redirect can't be deleted for attribution reasons (as long as there is merged material there). However, as far as I can tell, there is nothing from Pop culture references in Family Guy that constitutes any part of Family Guy so WP:MAD isn't applicable in this situation. Tavix | Talk  20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had this undeleted so that I could check to see if there was ever a merge that took place. (Before, I had only checked the current version, but not the historic version.) In April of 2006, the article was redirected to Family guy and nothing from that page was merged over to Family Guy. I checked all versions of the Family Guy article from April and May 2006 and am now as positive as I can be that a merged did not take place. Tavix | Talk  16:03, 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.

Polarize People

[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. Not to be confused with the Polar Ice People, a terrifying race of humanoids who were apex predators in the last ice age and are the progenitors of creatures such as the yeti.
I don't know why I wrote that. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Linkin Park. It looks like someone tried guessing at an album title in 2011. Tavix  Talk  05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all I got are news where the band said that their future album will polarize people. As for the redirect itself, I thought that it would be a good redirect (as antonym) to Peacemaking but that might a bit of a stretch. --Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I said initially Weak retarget to Polish people but I don't really know how likely that is. The expression "to polarize people", I hear quite a lot, i.e. to try to swing their opinion, but I am not sure that would be helpful. We do have Attitude polarization, though, and that might be better. From my point of view as an engineer polarization (a DAB, to which we could also retarget) is to do with electromagnetism, but obviously is not being used in that sense here but a metaphorical sense. This is obviously used differently in the Hard Sciences and the Faculty of Arty Farty Stuff Human Sciences, so perhaps best to take it to the DAB? Si Trew (talk) 03:24, 24 April 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.

"Betray us"

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#"Betray us"

Wikipedia:Geo-Blocking

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more like WP:RANGE but I see now that that's not what the topic of the article is. Probably best to delete. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unuseful CNR. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_23&oldid=1138579975"