Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 27

April 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2017.

Aqua Marine

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 Aquamarine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Marine → Cheung Sha Wan#Housing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The current target is a list of private housing developments, one of which is called "Aqua Marine" and the redirect points here because it is a {{R from merge}} but to say I was WP:SURPRISED to end up there is an understatement. I was looking for Aquamarine (colour), but as that's not primary I propose retarget to Aquamarine. The current target is listed at the dab page there (which I just cleaned up slightly). Aqua marine is currently a red link, but I propose to create it as a redirect to the same location as the title case version, whatever the outcome of this discusison. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would surprise me as well. Retarget. --Izno (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Aquamarine. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Aquamarine. A housing development that splits this word or capitalization stylizes the M isn't strongly notable. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_12#Rose_Quartz AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SMALLDIFFS apply here: the housing development spells it with a space and capitalises both words. The colour is generally spelled without a space. An obscure but correctly spelled topic ought to take precedence over a misspelling of a more prominent topic. Deryck C. 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The current target is not the primary topic for "Aqua Marine" -Wikipedia on google - it doesn't even appear in the first four pages (that's filled with various yacht and aquarium (equipment) suppliers, various resorts/holiday homes/b&bs in places like Ohio, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Texas and Greece, a diving instructor and a musical recording. The colour does get a lot of uses as two words, e.g. by Crayola and Max Factor, but note that the proposal is to target the disambiguation page not the colour. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, okay, retarget to aquamarine disambig page them. Deryck C. 09:09, 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 British Bombshells (professional wrestling)

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. 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British Bombshells (professional wrestling) → Florida Championship Wrestling (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target or in the previous target. Changed to target because of lack of notability Peter Rehse (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete group not mentioned, nor its members. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:02, 28 April 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.

President of the United States in the 2016 Democratic primaries

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. 09:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States in the 2016 Democratic primaries → Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Makes no sense, the President of the United States in 2016 was Barack Obama, and he was not involved in the Democratic primaries. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Hillary had won the presidency this might have made sense(ish) as a redirect to her involvement with the primaries but that would be a stretch and didn't happen anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be any precedent for this or reason it would be useful. It doesn't seem a likely search term and isn't used as a link onsite. It's not even clear if it should refer to the outgoing president or the prospective president. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had made it solely because someone had made such a redlink and I fixed the link to the appropriate article and made the redirect in case that same IP or anyone else made the same mistake. JesseRafe (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the searcher is trying to look for Obama's involvement in the primaries. So if this is a useful thing to search, then target Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#2016_elections_and_transition_period.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They weren't by context, but it's moot now as I fixed in situ at the same time. Delete it, whatever, thought the mistake could be made once and could be obviated were it made again with a redirect. JesseRafe (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we got this CSD by G7 then? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:48, 29 April 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.

MOS:STABILITY

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:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:STABILITY → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#stability ([[Talk:MOS:STABILITY|talk]] · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wikipedia:Stability → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#stability (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wikipedia:STABILITY → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#stability (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The corresponding policy has been deleted. This redirect is now useless. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added Wikipedia:Stability and Wikipedia:STABILITY to this nomination as they should point to the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles which is where the content that was formerly in the "Stability" section (see change by Tony1) now resides. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as above. Sandstein 09:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep as an article~~ If you'll look into the 12-year history of this page, you'll see what I originally wrote in it:
A stable article is one which any side in a controversy can look at and say, yes, this article describes my side accurately and does not give an unfair advantage to the other side.
Sometimes I want to propose a rule that, when someone goes on a POV crusade, they should be told not to edit any more until they can "state the other side's case to the satisfaction of the other side" (to paraphrase famous success coach Steven Covey).

This would be perfect advice for the current edit war over Gatestone Institute, where Snoogans and Factchecker are reverting each other left and right (no pun intended). --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stable" means "not changing", not "neutral/unbiased". An article can be stable (not changing much) even though one side of a controversy disagrees with it. Stability and neutral/unbiased are both good things, but they are not the same thing, and I don't think we should conflate them. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or anchor to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles per Thryduulf. Most of the history (since 2004) of WP:Stability has been as a redirect, not as a project page/article. Either a retargeting of all three or the installing of an anchor, such as {{anchor|stability}}, at the #Retaining existing styles section would work for me. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anchor to Wikipedia:The perfect article § stability because it's not about style stability; it's about the stability that comes when warring parties each agree that "their" side is no better or worse positioned/described that the "other" side. I think ending an edit war is important, and I don't agree that "stable" means "not changing". By stable I mean that you can make a contribution without it being reverted over and over by a POV warrior, not that the article never grows. "Stable" ≠ "static". (Don't worry, I won't mess with the redirect any more; if the vote goes against me, my work is done here: I'm just planting a seed. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't support retargetting this anywhere outside the manual of style as that would break the context of the great many incomming links - keeping shortcut links pointing to place people expect is particularly important as most people don't check the target each time. If it radically changed then people who first saw the shortcut before the change would understand the meaning of it very differently to those who first saw it afterwards. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I vehemently oppose retargeting a vastly used shortcut from a well-written guideline to a dumb essay. This effectively makes thousands of editors look like complete fools. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to WP:STYLEVAR or WP:GACR#The six good article criteria. In principle I agree with Uncle Ed - I was actually looking for a similar target but couldn't find one at the time. In general "stability" refers to more than just the style, eg item 5 of the good article criteria. However Thryduulf and FleetCommand make good points that retargetting an existing redirect (with somewhere of the order of 100 incoming links) may cause some confusion. Maybe the solution is to make the shortcuts a disambiguation page, eg:
On Wikipedia stability may refer to stability as a criteria of a good article, or maintaining the stability of an existing style.

I've deliberately put WP:GACR first, because it is a super-set of STYLEVAR. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A possible alternative to disambiguation would be for MOS:STABILITY to link to WP:STYLEVAR, and WP:STABILITY to link to WP:GACR#The six good article criteria, because MOS is about style and WP is about content. However it would probably be prudent for each to have a hatnote referring to the other, because the distinction between MOS: and WP: targets is not always clear cut. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles because this section seems to be a good-faith reproduction of what originally MOS:STABILITY referred to. I believe this should address the concern of not rendering a lot of old messages and edit summaries into nonsense. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:54, 6 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.

O Papagaio

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. 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O Papagaio → Portugal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a very strange one that I found when researching the sets below, "O Papagaio" is Portuguese or Gallician for "The Parrot", or Portugese for paper Kite. I am unable to work out any connection between that meaning or the target. Papagaio is "a Brazilian Steakhouse style restaurant, with 3 locations around Israel", which doesn't seem relevant, targetting Parrot or Kite would be a WP:FORRED problem. "O Papagaio" is the name of the unofficial newsletter of the US Embassy in Brasilia, but that's very unlikely to be notable. So I'm left with delete (and a plea for someone to make me less confused!). Thryduulf (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:07, 28 April 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.

Portugal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 5#Portugal