Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 13

August 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 13, 2013.

Shiny burrow Scorpion



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


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

Criteria 8: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. "Shiny burrow Scorpion" is not a common name for Opistophthalmus glabrifrons, it is a[n] (uncommon) misspelling for "Shiny burrowing Scorpion", which is a common name. Note: I have not nominated this for speedy deletion under R2 because it has been subject to a page move. Thanks, ReconditeRodent (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the purpose of redirects is to assist the reader in reaching an article that provides the information that they are seeking, and this one seems to meet that objective. It is not important whether the redirect itself is technically correct. Does not meet WP:RFD. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per TWW. I've tagged it with R caps to make it unprintworthy.  It's a pretty good search term and harmless. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:48, 14 August 2013 (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.

Portuguese House of Habsburg



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


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

Criteria 8: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. The term is original research and entirely made up; no sources has ever used the term "Portuguese House of Habsburg The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please correct me if I am stung... the target page is about a dynasty, the ancestral name of which is the "House of Habsburg", which in this case was out of the nation of Portugal, isn't it?  If this is wp:OR (we might note that the first bolded sentence does not say, "Wikipedia redirects must not contain original research.") to use "Portuguese" as a geological descriptor, then we are going to have to rename a shucks-load of categories (and those are just the Portuguese ones). –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 07:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the purpose of redirects is to assist the reader in reaching an article that provides the information that they are seeking, and this one seems to meet that objective. It is not important whether the redirect itself is technically correct. Does not meet WP:RFD. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2013 (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.

User:Vhenjun410



 * 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 speedily deleted. --BDD (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * → Tekken:Unlimited Cruise 2nd (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Redirect from a user page to an article. Not what user pages are for. The Banner talk 00:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace the user was using his userpage as a sandbox, and moved the article into mainspace. We should replace the contents with userpage and add a message to the user about how to use userspace pages. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert. No need to delete it unless User:Vhenjun410 asks for it.  Just replace the REDIRECT code with {{subst:userpage}} and consider throwing up a block for deletion of an Afd notice (more than once).  What that user really seems to ask for is to be blocked.  The User talk:Vhenjun410 reads like someone who is trying very hard to get blocked from editing. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 08:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the target has been deleted, does this qualify for G8 speedy deletion? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. --BDD (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2013 (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.

First gay president



 * 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 List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. Ruslik_ Zero 09:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


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

Buchanan's bio, as currently written, does not make any definitive determination on his sexuality, meaning that this is WP:OR. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not supposed to be Siri; as such, this page shouldn't be redirected to any person's article, even if they were in fact the first gay president (unless the term were commonly used to refer to them). That said, I would see this as a plausible search term relating to Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek article last year, and as such urge deletion, but with no prejudice against recreating as a redirect to a relevant section in either Sullivan's article or Newsweek's, should such a section be written. (Note that page creator has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption.)  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  00:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or disambiguate what is a "president" in this context? This redirect shows US political bias. What about presidents of corporations? Or non-Americans? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The title of the redirect incorrectly assumes "president" to mean President of the United States (therefore being biased) and has disputed factual accuracy in reference to its target. There is no definitive evidence of Buchanan having been homosexual, or any other sexuality for that matter—only assumptions by others who knew him. Note also that the word "gay" is used rather than "homosexual", and the page First homosexual president does not exist. Whether the assumption that he was homosexual is correct or not, deletion is the safest option.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 06:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no problem with the "presidential ambiguity" (lots of redirects are ambiguous); however, since there is no hard evidence that ol' Buck was a homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that ;-), that makes this redirect potentially harmful (so what if he was a bachelor; that doesn't mean he has no familial descendents, living relatives who might take offense, does it?) and therefore it should go the way of all brown, smelly redirects... &#60;plonk>. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. I completely forgot that List of the first LGBT holders of political offices existed… do we think that that would be a suitable target? And, if it is, is it a more likely target than the Sullivan piece? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would answer "no" to both of those questions for this reason: the article lists only a few presidents—mainly all from different countries, and having held office only in very recent history—and none can truthfully be called the "first gay president" as the redirect would imply. In fact, the article does not even provide information on the sexualities of these people; for all the reader knows, each may be (or have been) homosexual or bisexual, and/or transgender. Based on the small portion of time that the article focuses on and the small number of presidents listed, there is absolutely no way that one of them can accurately hold (and prove) the claim for being the first homosexual to become a president. This claim, of course, is not even mentioned in the article, so I would say it is at least currently a lousy target for the redirect.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 23:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. The list does include gay men who held the title of president. Redirecting to a US president, whether speculative or real (down the line), would reflect WP:BIAS anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. The original target is misleading per WP:RFD and cannot stay. However, 'First gay president' is not only a plausible search term but one that readers can reasonably expect us to have something on. The re-target provides some relevant information. Redirects are simply a search aid, and do not need to be technically accurate, so the fact that the re-target is not comprehensive is no reason not to have it. Gaps/lack of precision etc is a problem for the target article not for the redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This goes beyond the accepted statements of the article. Claims about Buchanan's sexuality do not really comply with our rules about admission. Even if they did, that would still not justify having this redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I entirely agree with you but why not make it a useful redirect? The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (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.