Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 3

September 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 3, 2012

The Terrible Towers



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → The Penultimate Peril (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. This phrase has no connection to the book and is nowhere explained in the article. Seems to be a fan-speculated title, but it was just one of dozens fans came up with, and since the book has been out for seven years there's really no need for this. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2012 (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.

Found object



 * 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 Rename Found art to Found object and then edit or continue to discuss if necessary. Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Found object (music) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The redirect needs deleting to allow Found art to be moved here. The Found art article is clearly about Found objects/objets trouv&eacute;s. The Found object article was a duplicate of the Found art content, post-dating it by several years, with additional info about found objects in music (which has been renamed Found object (music). This has been discussed on the articles Talk pages. Hope this makes sense! Sionk (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense. I hope we can proceed. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment why don't you just request a rename for "Found art", it'll take the same 7 days. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense too. There is a problem in that I don't think Found object (music) is really a legitimate article. I have a sense that that material would best be distributed among one or more articles related to music. Bus stop (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want a redirect deleted because it's in the way of a page move, then you need to go to WP:Requested moves. If you don't think the article should exist, then go to WP:Articles for deletion. If you think a series of articles need reorganisation, then you're probably best discussing it at a relevant Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'll make a request at WP:Requested moves. I didn't read the second note of Redirects for discussion very carefully (or at all). Sionk (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment db-move could be used if it's uncontroversial. But in this case I don't think it is, because of as a further alternative title. -- Trevj (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it fits the description of 'controversial', though the proposals have already been discussed on the articles' Talk pages. I've started a page move discussion at Talk:Found art. Sionk (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not that it is controversial; it is merely confusing. There is no one arguing against any of the proposed changes. Readymade (disambiguation) already has its own disambiguation page. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree too that we've already discussed it via the relevant Wikiproject, as Thrydulf suggests (which is why I found out about the issue in the first place). And the participants in the discussions seem to have agreed the page needs to be renamed. Unfortunately no admin here or anywhere else seems to be willing to help. The 'Requested page move' will be the fourth time it has been discussed!! Sionk (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sionk—I think the priority is deleting Found art. Secondly we want to write Found object. No material found in either article is irreplaceable, but we can easily save copies of both articles in case we want to refer to them. The "Found object" article is best kept succinct. All that is really necessary is a few good sources, two of which are here. This is an article that should be kept lean, in my opinion. It should not be used as a repository for every instance of nonart materials finding their way into well-known works of art. The list of artists should basically just be discarded. Such a list could easily run into the thousands of artists. It is meaningless if it is not contributing to our understanding of "found object". Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest you discuss that on the respective articles, not here. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble moving Found art to Found object. I mistakenly made this edit in preparation for the intended move. How do I precede? Again: There is no support in sources for a term "found art". The correct term is "found object" (French: "objet trouvé"). Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Requested moves is what you need, Bus stop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see it is already at Requested moves. Just wait for consensus to be determined there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We are getting nowhere fast. Found art is an article with a title that has no sources. That article must be renamed Found object (or Objet trouvé). No one disagrees that the article presently named "Found art" is incorrectly named. There is no one disagreeing that the correct name for that article is "Found object", although an alternative title has been considered, that alternative title being Objet trouvé. These are merely language translations of one another: "Objet trouvé" in French means "Found object" in English. I could be content with either "Objet trouvé" or "Found object" as the title of the article which is presently misnamed "Found art". There are numerous good quality sources showing us that in the field of visual art "Objet trouvé"/"Found object" has significant meaning. Consider this source for instance. Or consider a second source, a book I have in my possession, named "ArtSpeak", by Robert Atkins. I have typed up a quote from "ArtSpeak" and included it here. You will notice that those two sources make no mention of "Found art" which is presently serving as a title for the article in question. In fact there are few if any sources supporting the term "Found art" at all. This is basically a misnomer. I've alerted "WikiProject Visual arts" here to this problem. No one is objecting to the change of title that I am suggesting. The discussion goes on here and here as well. This issue has its origins at a List called List of found art, which is also incorrectly titled. (In my opinion that List should simply be a part of "Found object"/"Objet trouvé" article.) Please see the Talk page of that article for the discussion about that potential name-change. The "WikiProject Visual arts" community was notified of that potential name-change here. (This issue was also raised on that discussion board here.) I humbly submit that the discussion phase is over. There is no one at all objecting to the proposed changes. Is there an administrator who can simply implement the name changes? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2012 (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.

Emily Edwards



 * 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 Move Emily Edwards (artist) to Emily Edwards per Tim. Tikiwont (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Australian Idol (season 3) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. No such person is mentioned in the target article. Amelia "Milly" Edwards is in the article Maile66 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, "Emily" is a very plausible mishearing/misremembering of both "Amelia" and "Milly", and there doesn't seem to be a notable Emily Edwards this is in the way of. The redirect target should be refined to the relevant section and tagged with . Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Milly Edwards to Emily Edwards is a plausible search term for someone not terribly familiar with the topic, no rationale presented for deletion. Wily D 08:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, "not mentioned in the target article" is a perfectly valid rationale for deletion, and it's also correct - the article doesn't mention "Milly Edwards". It just happens that there also exists a rationale for keeping the redirect that I (and you) believe is stronger than the rationale for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * not mentioned in the target article does not provide any reason why deletion would be beneficial, and thus cannot be reasonably constued as a rationale for deletion. Wily D 10:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not mentioned in target article" in a nomination statement always means "I think the redirect is at best unhelpful and at worst confusing or misleading to people who are searching for this term because it is not mentioned in the target article.". It is perfectly valid to delete confusing, misleading and unhelpful redirects - indeed they are normally deleted. You and I both disagree with the nominator about whether those attributes apply to this redirect or not, which is why we have deletion discussions, but do not confuse disagreeing with a rationale with there not being one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's sensible to read into the nominator's statement something that's not there. In this case, I see no reason to believe it would be generically unhelpful (obviously someone searching for a different Emily Edwards wouldn't find it helpful, but unless there's a relevant disambig, that can't be helped), nor is there any reason to believe it would be misleading or confusing.  I'd rather not attribute an argument to the nominator that doesn't really make sense.  Wily D  16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can tell you exactly what "No such person is mentioned in the target article" means. It means No such person is mentioned in the target article. Don't read anything into that. I ran across it when I was looking for an internal link to insert in an article I had written.  I have since created Emily Edwards (artist), who is the person I was looking for in the first place.  At best, any other thoughts you can read into my statement would be, "Hmmm.  No such person is mentioned in the target article."  No more.  No less. Maile66 (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By virtue of you nominating it for deletion here, it demonstrably means more than that. If you didn't think that "no search person is mentioned in the target article" was a reason to delete a redirect you would not have nominated it here. The only logical reasons why the redirect title not being mentioned in the target article would be a reason to delete the redirect is that it is one or more of unhelpful, confusing or misleading - if you thought it were none of these you would not have nominated it for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Move Emily Edwards (artist) to Emily Edwards. TimBentley (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (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.

Khojaly Genocide



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Quotation mark is used to mean "so-called". (WP:POV). Esc2003 (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * → Khojaly Massacre (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Delete per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2012 (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.

Cartooning from Canada



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → Canadian comics (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. It is misleading since the target is not completely representative of the redir name. It is unused and is grammatically incorrect. It also comes up as an unnecessary search suggestion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "not completely representative of the redir name": Canadian comics covers comic strips, comic books, editorial comics, gag cartoons and graphic novels.  Which aspect of Canadian cartooning does it not touch on?
 * "unused": 1,010 Google hits
 * "grammatically incorrect": in what way? —Curley Turkey (gobble) 06:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful for navigation, no rationale presented for deletion. Wily D  08:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to WilyD: "Unused" is not a valid rationale for deletion, but "misleading" is a valid rationale and "grammatically incorrect" can be, so your statement that "no rationale [is] presented for deletion" is again completely false. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2012 (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.