Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 3

April 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2014.

Reform Party of Hawaii



 * 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 what the nom said. Reform Party of Hawaii restored to pre-merge state, and Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom retargeted there. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Restore Reform Party of Hawaii to before merging with Hawaii Republican Party, redirect Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom to Reform Party of Hawaii. The target page does not contain any information about the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except to reference it as a party that was separate from, but friendly to, the Republican party in a section on the environment. Because of the redirect that reference returns the reader to the same page. A red link would be better than a redirect with no information and even with some crossover of early members linking the current Republican party with the Reform party involved in the overthrow of the monarchy may have political motivations. Zack Stoecker-Sylvia (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reform Party of Hawaii → Hawaii Republican Party (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom → Hawaii Republican Party (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reform_Party_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * restore per nomination The Republican Party page has been hacked to bits over the years and while I'm not so hot on the state of the Reform Party page just before the merger, it is a better starting point than what we have now. I also get the impression that it has a history of its own which merits independent chronicling. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2014 (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.

Gambling in the People's Republic of China



 * 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 resolved. I've started an article at Gambling in China and retargeted there. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Gambling in the People's Republic of China → Gambling in Macau (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

While I can respect the creator's desire to have this redirect somewhere, it's better left red to encourage creation of an article (probably at Gambling in China, matching China). For now, this could just as easily point to Gambling in Hong Kong. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but this article gives an overview of the subject. The best option would be for someone to create a stub, and I may end up doing that myself, but in the meantime, this is better left red.Surely the Chinese government would agree! BDD (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (as creator) - this was created as a clarifying redirect when I created Gambling in the Republic of China as a redirect to the new Gambling in Taiwan. Happy for it to be deleted if it will encourage article creation at Gambling in China. Stalwart 111  23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the best outcome probably would be to create a stub at Gambling in China at redirect this there instead. Stalwart 111  23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per creator. There does not seem much a pattern to this. There is Gambling in the United Kingdom, to which I have contributed a bit since my grandfather was a bookmaker (that article is appalling but there is not much I can do about it) and Gambling in the United States, but not Gambling in Ireland or Gambling in Canada and so on. I'd ut it at Gambling in China, unless the different provinces/states have different gambling rules.  Gambling in Hong Kong has an article. Si Trew (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, I know personally that people in southern Ontario travel over the border to play the casinos at Niagara Falls, New York, but that is not encylopaedic even though it is true. But where to put it? I can't just throw in any random gossip I happen to know, I need WP:RS. With gambling topics it is especially difficult because although most bookmakers pay their taxes (they make enough money honestly not to have to cheat) they tend to keep their cards close to their chest. Si Trew (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's all pretty spot-on. The state of Gambling in X articles is terrible. In a lot of other non-gambling cases we have articles for X in China and X in Taiwan with the respective X in the Republic of China and X in the People's Republic of China created as redirects. I was simply following that trend with the hope that someone might one day create Gambling in China. BDD, do you want to create a stub? Stalwart 111  06:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind doing the work to create the stub, but tend to hold off until there is consensus (i.e. until this discussion closes). Si Trew (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take the lead and then pass it on to see what you can add. Don't worry about subverting consensus or anything; RfD documentation says "If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold." I can conceive of someone doing so disruptively, e.g., there's consensus to retarget but you rush in and write an article about something related, but that's not the case here. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Gambling in China. Over to you, Simon. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2014 (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.

Fort shooting



 * 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 Fort shooting, retarget Ford shooting to Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fort shooting → Fort Hood shooting (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Ford shooting → Fort Hood shooting (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

There have been many shootings at many forts; this is vague and an unlikely search term outside a news cycle. The misspelling "Ford shooting" is even less likely, and implies something entirely different. BDD (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsensical redirects. Forts are usually sites of shots because they are fortification structures or military camps, thus likely to have firearms discharges. And fords are frequent sites of battles, so this non-ford destination makes no sense. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the former as too vague, retarget the latter to Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento, which is what I would expect to get if I searched for "Ford shooting". —  Scott  •  talk  13:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, very good. Retarget Ford shooting to Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Vagueness Ford shooting certainly should go there. Fort shooting is an entirely different thing, practicing shooting in a fort i.e. enclosed area and maybe should go to Gun practice, but there are piccies for that on Commons but not an article on it &mdash; can't find a decent retarget for that. Si Trew (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Target practice? Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete the first one, which is way off-target; Redirect second one to Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2014 (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.

Insurgent attack on Fort Hood
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 16%23Insurgent attack on Fort Hood

Longest book



 * 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 this is to be restored with a particular target, it would be helpful to source the claim in the target article. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Longest book → List of longest novels (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The list of longest novels excludes certain types of books, such as epic poems like the Mahabharata. Thus the list of longest novels is not the list of longest books. Thus the redirect is inaccurate. &mdash; goethean 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/Retarget/Comment: Longest book may be redirected to the actual longest book of the world, In Search of Lost Time — Guinness World Records mentions it as the longest book. There is no information in Wiki article. The current redirect should be deleted (per nom). -- Tito ☸ Dutta 22:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * {{{lang|fr|A la recherche de temps perdu}}? One day I will read the other nine chapters. But surely an encyclopaedia is not the Guinness Book of Records and it has no place here? Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book or Records, but we have no shortage of lists of longest, oldest, highest, fastest, etc things, so they are clearly encyclopaedic concepts and therefore it is not unreasonable for people to search for them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2014 (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.

List of euphemisms



 * 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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * List of euphemisms → Euphemism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is an implausible/unneeded redirect to the "Euphemisms" main article. (This title and the accompanying list underwent an AfD in 2005 and the consensus was to delete. Various content was subsequently created under this title and then deleted per the initial AfD.) **Note: This title was first mistakenly nominated as a MfD, instead of as a Redirect for discussion. This RfD is to correct my error. Shearonink (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. WP:DICDEF and Euphemism serves the purpose, and since patently this is not a list of euphemisms the title is misleading. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if Wiktionary had a list or appendix of euphemisms I'd soft redirect this to there. However it only has a category Wikt:Category:Euphemisms, which is subdivided by language Wikt:Category:English euphemisms, etc. so I'm not certain about it. I would definitely support a soft redirect there if anyone else thinks that would be a good solution. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thryduulf, I took a look at that Category (wanted to mention that your link is to a Wikipedia Cat not something from Wiktionary). It is, in effect, an actual list of euphemisms so that actually makes sense.  The only problem I see is if someone comes in and tries to convert the redirect into an article...which per the AfD would then be deleted all over again. **reverted.Shearonink (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC) **(edit changed per Thryduulf's comment below) Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Links now fixed, thank you. As for the creation of an article, this outcome of this RfD would be recorded on the talk page (which anyone nominating for deletion, and anyone reviewing deletion nominations should look at) and the article creation could be reverted rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Thryduulf's suggestion above, makes sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The original list was apparently unneeded and that is why is was deleted. I have no knowledge of any current euphemism list or such and so that is why I redirected it to the Euphemism page. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There were many reasons given for deleting the original content & title at the title's AFd, which can be found here (some of the reasons given were the unmanageability of maintaining such a list, that the list itself was not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and so on).  If the title is retained, in my opinion it should redirect to either the Wikipedia Category:Euphemisms or to the Wiktionary Category:Euphemisms, not to the Wikipedia Euphemism article . Shearonink (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the category per Thryduulf although am not exactly sure which category was meant (preumably not Wiktionary but here at WP) so to Category:Euphemisms? Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There is a list of euphemisms at the target article, though it makes no promise of comprehensiveness. I would strongly oppose the unnecessary creation of a CNR here to category space. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or create list This is not a redirect for this Ned1230|Whine |Stalk 19:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2014 (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.

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog



 * 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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog → American Bulldog (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

An editor has expressed the opinion that redirecting this page to American Bulldog is unwise because the breeds are distinct. They are inexperienced in Wikipedia processes, and have asked to delete this redirect. As a helpful soul I am making a neutral request in order to assist them. I will invite them to this discussion in order to participate. As nominator I have no opinion about this matter and would recognise neither breed of dog if an example were sitting in front of me. Fiddle  Faddle  12:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Still offering no opinion on the deletion of this redirect, it seems to me that replacing it by a very much stubbified version of prior text in the article's history containing sufficient references in reliable sources to assert and verify notability would do the trick perfectly. From Wikipedia's perspective as the putative repository of a great deal of knowledge, this would make the most sense. Perhaps an editor noticing this discussion would look at that route and do a decent job on it? Fiddle   Faddle  12:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that this redirect was created after the closure of Articles for deletion/Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog and the presumed inward merge of information. Fiddle   Faddle  23:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete But since the AfD was closed as merge, if this is deleted a note should be left there to explain what happened. As good a time as any to remind interested parties that a merge result at AfD should only happen with purpose. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We should consider the fact that some people had raised some strains of the american bulldog that might be blood related or unrelated to Johnson or Scott line types. The Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog article writer needs more in depth research to qualify for its encyclopedic content.  User:Fowl vet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowl vet (talk • contribs) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I can't find it now, but a couple of months ago I had a grumble at the RfD Discussion page that people bring things here and basically dump them and it is others that actually then sort it out. (I am not grumbling about that again but just recalling it). Another editor then replied same at AfD that 90% of the results of "merge" never in fact get merged cos nobody is prepared to do the work. To hit a button on Twinkle or whatever tool is easy but actually to do the work, it never gets done. I am not complaining, just that it is probably correct why it never got merged. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was having similar grumblings when I wrote Merge what? --BDD (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (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.

Doink doink



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Doink doink → Law & (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

should be deleted; unlikely typo for "Dun DUN!", no active incoming links. Mikeblas (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - discussed at target. I'm not positive that readers will be searching for this, but nothing else comes to mind, so there appears to be nothing to motivate deletion. Wily D  15:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen a great deal of Law & Order and its spinoffs, but I wouldn't've thought of that sound as "doink doink"—the first thing that made me think of was Doink the Clown (where Doink redirects). But I don't think would be a very likely search term for the wrestler. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep. This currently points to the section of the article where the sound is discussed, which includes a sourced statement that it is referred to by some people as "doink doink" (although having listened to the clip in the article, it wouldn't be my description of it). Further, a google search for <tt>"doink doink" -Wikipedia</tt> brings up Law & Order as results 1, 3 and 5-8 of the first 10; and it is the only topic to appear more than once in the top 20. Together this shows that the current target is plausible and there is no other target more plausible (I looked to see what was at Doink too and agree with BDD that that isn't a suitable target). Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a sound, and it's not specific to L&O so delete. <font style="font-weight: bold; background-color: turquoise;">Ned1230<font color="Teal">|Whine <font color="Yellow">|Stalk 20:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep per Thryduulf as the primary topic. Sideways713 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just because people watch too much TV and get fascinated with one program(me). It is not in common parlance except for people who watch that particular programme, and is not a common search term thowever popular the program(me) might be (I have only seen the trailers for it in the UK and was put off immediately). If anything it should go to bouncing ball or something. Si Trew (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * cf. boing boing or boing or tic tac or whatever. Allteration, "what the cat did". This is not an encyclopaeidic term, and patently is not because it doesn't have an article. It is just a neologism and should be deleteded. Si Trew (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)]
 * I really don't understand this argument. You seem to be saying that we should delete the redirect because it only refers to the current target, which makes no sense at all. It really is entirely irrelevant why people are searching for a given phrase, all that matters is that they are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thryduulf me old darling the reason the search brings it up is cos it's a circular argument that the only references are back to Wikipedia. But it is lovely to have you back, I hope you are well. Si Trew (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is excluded from the search results I quote above precisely to avoid circular reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2014 (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.

Google Australia
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 28%23Google Australia