Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

April 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 25, 2016.

Wasabi (website)

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. 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned in the target page or in the list of social networking websites. It was created as an article then redirected because of lack of coverage. Peter James (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (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 SpaceX private launch site

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 SpaceX launch facilities. Several good arguments have been raised for not deleting the redirect: somebody found it useful and deletion is not cleanup. But there is also a desire to change the redirect because there are now multiple SpaceX private launch sites, so retargeting to the superset article would be appropriate. There is also a desire to retarget the other redirect, SpaceX private launch site, to the superset article, but that's left open as an editorial decision since that redirect wasn't formally included in this discussion. Deryck C. 09:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless double redirect now that target page has moved to a better name — JFG talk 21:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2016 (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.

Passado

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 Redenção (album). --BDD (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D1, as it inhibits search. There are a few mentions of the word throughout the 'pedia, but nothing substantial enough where a redirect would make sense. No mention of 'passado' at the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly delete. I must admit I was thinking it may be a fused word -> combined form DAB) -> Compound (linguistics) (in English) for the Pasodoble, and if so would see it as being more likely than an obscure (to an English audience) Spanish song, so perhaps WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I have hit on a can of worms since I misspelled the dance but Passo Doble and Passo doble (Italin I imagine) redirect to Pas în doi (Romanian) which seems all mightily confusing to me for the three English terms to refer to two different articles. May list. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (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.

Body of work

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 The Complete Works, which looks as close as we'll get to consensus. However, I strongly encourage expansion of that article, because right now, this will be an {{R without mention}}. A rename might address this as well. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A work of art, as EN:WP has it, is a single work and not a collection of work. I suggest that these be retargeted to collection (artwork). Apologies to the creator of both, Widefox, who asked at the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Oeuvre "don't ping me", but Twinkle does that automatically; I've removed the notification at the user's page. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion concentrated on Oeuvre and Body of work was mentioned only incidentally, so I think it is fair to nominate it here considering that discussion closed. The caps variant Body of Work was not listed or discussed there, but I'm not quite that pedantic to suggest they go to different places. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Body of work" is a very general phrase that I don't even imagine someone looking up in an encyclopedia. A body of work is generally not a museum's art collection; the term generally refers to the work produced by an individual or group over time. Its use isn't confined to the arts: A scholar or a journalist or even an athlete can have a body of work just as much as an artist, an author, a choreographer, a musician, or a film director can have.
    • "Detroit Lions GM Bob Quinn will judge Jim Caldwell on his body of work."[1]
    • "Ravens guard Kelechi Osemele feels good about his body of work entering contract year."[2]
    • "Hearst took Pulitzer’s body of work and pushed its limits, just as Thompson pushed the limits of Hearst’s body of work."[3]
There is no one appropriate place to redirect this. It's pretty much a WP:DICDEF. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, Body of Work (album) (but not Body of work (album) can be moved over the redirect as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it stands, it is a kinda {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} were it not for the redirect, and articles beat redirects ten a penny. We'd still have to redirect one to the other as {{R from incorrect capitalization}}, and mark that one as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, but that is just procedural stuff. Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The very point is whether they are synonyms, and that is what we are discussing.
  2. Irrelevant what Body of Work (album) has to this, nobody claimed it was speedily done anything with. I remind you of
WP:RFD first sentence: "Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted."
That does not suggest that we act on anything particularly speedily at RfD. The only thing I did almost nearly speedily was list these two here because they were not in any way synonymous with the redirect titles. Whether they are synonyms of their current or any other targets is exactly what we are discussing.
The title of this page is Redirects for Discussion. It is fair to mention that their are similar pages that could hold claim to being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so that contributors to that article, or other discussions, can find this one. For example that we could find the PROD that was so helpfully linked by the contributor above. (Somewhere it is, I guess, but I don't see any helpful link to it.) Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Widefox proposed the deletion of the album article with this edit of 16 April after I listed this here on 15 April. Make of that what you will. Widefox moved the album at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC from Body of Work to its current title Body of Work (album) on 19 July 2015 with this edit and edit comment "WP:DABSONG may way for much more likely titles" (Widefox' typo not mine). Nobody seems to have imagined any more likely title, so it could quite possibly be moved back. There was no WP:RM, it was boldly moved, which is fine, but then it can be boldly reverted, just as fine, after that we discuss. (We can't boldly revert because now it has history, so we must discuss.) I contested the PROD at Talk:Body of Work (album). So that's not a procedural close of that PROD, sorry. I've referred back to here and over to Talk:Oeuvre (disambiguation) in a vague attempt to inform anyone who is interested in any of them to link them together; I have informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2016 (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.

Schlaf

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 Johannes Schlaf, {{R from surname}}. Consider this withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Sleep is a worldwide topic and has no special connection with the German language. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are! I must have missed that between all the Schlafly's. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2016 (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.

Jonathan Kent (fictional character)

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) SSTflyer 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This currently redirects to Jonathan and Martha Kent, Superman's adoptive father and mother. "Johathan Kent (fictional character)" is not a plausible misspelling of the intended search term, and "Jonathan Kent (comics)" already redirects there. Unless it is as reasonable to also have redirects such as "Jonathan Kent (Superman's adoptive father)" and "Jonathan Kent (adoptive father of Superman)", I'd like to suggest we lose this particular redirect and retain only one redirect from an entry that clearly suggests his fictional nature ("Jonathan Kent (comics)"). Or delete that one and keep this one. Either way seems fine to me. But not both. KDS4444Talk 07:55, 25 April 2016 (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.

Taxation in Singapore

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) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section does not exist; the topic is notable and should be red linked, see box in Taxation in North Korea for example for other existing articles of that level. PS. Category:Taxation in Singapore exists but has no parent article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 25 April 2016 (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.

Girls' Invasion (Studio Album)

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 procedural close. This has been converted to an article, so it's up to AfD at this point, if anyone wants to take it (back) there. In accordance with an existing CSD tag, I'll be moving this to Girls' Invasion. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Invasion is already a redirect to Lovelyz, so I'm not sure this is needed. Random86 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While it is a duplicative article, it was created by in apparent good faith by a relatively new user who seems to know about our naming conventions (which often include parentheticals after the name). Redirects such as this point new editors to the page where their contributions will be more appreciated and inhibit the future creation of duplicate articles (keep reason 2 above). It shows no potential for confusion of our readers and does no apparent harm. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as just about plausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No other titles of this kind to disambiguate. Also it shouldn't have Studio Album in caps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Creation in good faith" is not a reason for retention; neither is "doing no harm by existing." ("Duplicative" not a word.) See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. KDS4444 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Creation in good faith" is not a reason to keep all by itself but it can be (and in my comment was intended to be) a rebuttal of any assertion of bad faith. "Does no harm" also is a rebuttal to arguments to delete. In an RfD discussion, "harmless" is shorthand for "none of the enumerated reasons at RFD:DELETE apply" (and presumably that at least one of the KEEP reasons applies, though that should be spelled out separately). Redirects are deliberately held to a lower bar than article content. Redirects really do have to be harmful in some way before we are supposed to delete them.
      Finally, re: "duplicative", Merriam Webster begs to differ. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see why this wouldn't be helpful for people just getting the hang of the Wikipedia naming processes and who think that searching has to be specifically detailed into "X (live album)", "X (studio album)", "X (single)", etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_25&oldid=1138580808"