Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12

June 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2014.

Titanic survivors



 * 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 Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Though the Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12 nomination is related that nomination has entirely separate and different issues. We have a clear consensus for the way forward on this page so I see no reason to delay closing. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Titanic survivors → RMS Titanic (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I'm thinking this should redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic, or a subsection thereof. Brainy J ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to . — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that section needs to be rewritten, since it seems like it's currently a little too much about the sinking itself rather than the survivors/victims.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 16:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment shouldn't this be considered jointly with the nomination? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Dmitrij, since it covers the subject more closely. This is quite different from the "living survivors" thing, since anyone who reached land safely was a survivor, even if they got hit by a train two days later, and their status as "survivor" will never change.  Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 15 June 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.

Peace activist



 * 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 Peace movement. I have carefully considered Randy Kryn's closely reasoned dissenting opinion but I do not consider that his argument is strong enough to overturn what is a clear consensus. Redirects are solely search tools and technical accuracy is not necessary. The aim of a redirect is to take the reader to the article that provides the most relevant information and the consensus view is that the retarget achieves this. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Peace activist → List of peace activists (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Should this redirect to Peace movement instead of List of peace activists? For example, Feminist redirects to Feminism, not List of feminists; Homeopath redirects to Homeopathy, not List of homeopaths; and Diarist redirects to Diary, not List of diarists. Brainy J ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget: more consistent and probably more relevant any way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment That change seems reasonable and appropriate. Ringbang (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * retarget to Peace movement as a more plausible target.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stay as is. A peace activist is also an anti-war activist, not only someone from the "Peace movement", so it should stay as is. "Anti-war activist" redirects to the 'Anti-war movement' page, as it should, but 'Peace activist' is much broader and includes both pages. The template which goes with many of the articles related to the anti-war and peace movements is named "Anti-war", and maybe should be renamed as both, but they are two separate entities and pages. Anti-war and peace go hand in hand but do not always live within the same home. I've worked on and keep an eye on the list of peace activist page, and found this request after I saw a new "Main article" redirect at its top and changed it to the two 'See also' links at the top. And the list also includes anti-nuclear activists, which do not fit into the role of "Anti-war" or "Peace" movements. Hopefully we can work out the language and meanings, and thanks for hearing all sides. Randy Kryn 1:28 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to peace movement. For the most part, pages should only target to "list" is they themselves have the word list in the name. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:34, 14 June 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.

Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines



 * 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. The linked VPP discussion raied no objection to this being decided here. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * [[Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines]] → Category:Mountain passes of the Apennines (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This category has a spelling error in the title ("Appenines" instead of "Apennines) so has been moved and emptied. All pages that were on it have now had the category changed accordingly Jodosma (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Useless. Don't think main namespace standards of redirects should apply here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Czarkoff: category redirects for misspellings are much less useful than pretty much any other kind of redirect.  Old page revisions won't display wrongly with them (unlike if we delete a template redirect or a file redirect), and we're highly unlikely to have significant off-wiki links to categories (unlike articles), so the category's going to be quite useless.  Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion has led me to make a proposal at Village pump (policy)/Archive 113. I'm only asking that we clarify the proper venue for category redirects; I'm not addressing anything about this discussion itself, or any principles behind other category-redirect discussions.  I'd appreciate Jodosma's perspective in particular, since I'd like to understand why this discussion is here and not CFD.  Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I made the initial Rfd because if a redirect exists wouldn't that allow the misspelled title to appear as a blue link at the bottom of articles? In fact doesn't this apply to all article moves as well. The misspelled redirect could appear on a page as a blue link when in fact isn't Wikipedia striving to be a top quality encyclopedia so such errors, if they exist, should appear as red links to point up the item for editors to correct. I don't know of any encyclopedia worthy of the name which casually allows the appearance of errors like this. Regarding whether this is the correct place for this discussion, the reason it's here is that I just clicked on the Twinkle link to start the processJodosma (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion will proceed normally. If VPP discussion will settle with WP:CFD as proper venue, this discussion will be closed and referenced from procedural nomination at CFD. The misspelled redirects in article space are allowed when particular misspelling is common enough to warrant redirection of readers to the article they were trying to access without forcing them to wrangle through search. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what, this new idea is not welcome; when I get one it feels like I'm being jerked on the shoulder by the office bully so don't use it with me. Jodosma (talk) 19:21, 16 June 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.

庭球



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


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

Not particularly Japanese. TheChampionMan1234 09:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Tennis was invented in Europe, not Japan. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 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.

큰개똥



 * 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. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 큰개똥 → Hu Jintao (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Not particularly Korean. TheChampionMan1234 08:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to Google Translate, this means "large firefly", and not an actual translation of the name of the target in Korean, the equivalent, also according to GT would be 후진타오. TheChampionMan1234 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I think the intended meaning here is "large dog shit" which Google translate gives as an option. Siuenti (talk) 20:27, 13 June 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.

Nuclear Japanese language



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nuclear Japanese language → Japanese language (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I don't think there is such thing. TheChampionMan1234 08:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is odd. The term is used in this linguistic online database, but I can't find it anywhere else. I also can't verify this classification in the literature ref cited by that database, Pellard 2009 (online here). It also doesn't seem to make much sense linguistically, because there are no sister nodes of "non-nuclear" Japanese dialects in the tree, so the "nuclear" branch doesn't seem to contrast with anything. (There's just "Old Japanese", but that is of course not really a sister branch, but an ancestor). "Nuclear Japanese" seems to be merely a synonym of "Japanese proper" as opposed to other "Japonic languages" (i.e. Ryukyu), but then it is quite unclear to me why that database chose to represent "Japanese" and "Nuclear Japanese" as two distinct nodes. Given the non-attestation elsewhere in the literature, we could treat it as a non-notable neologism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 12 June 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.

Missing plane



 * 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 aerial disappearances. This was definitely an unhelpful redirect and the clear consensus is to retarget to a page that is likely to lead the reader to information that they are seeking. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Missing plane → Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The title refers to a general concept, not a specific incident. TheChampionMan1234 08:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominations and Redirect to List of aerial disappearances as creator Ollieinc  ( talk ) 08:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to list of aerial disappearances: indeed this is more general concept then just Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, but that does not mean that readers should not get the information they come for. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * delete The missing state of a plane is often transient, and I can think of no obvious target. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of aerial disappearances per Dmitri.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of aerial disappearances per above.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or retarget clearly should not point to MALAYSIA370. It could easily refer to Amelia Earheart, or previously Steve Fossett, Flight 19, etc -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 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.

Apple India



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apple India → Apple Inc. (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

There is no such company. Very misleading, even if there is such company. TheChampionMan1234 08:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom even if Apple distributes its products there. Weak Retarget to Indian apple, I think it's pushing it but I guess placing this possibility won't hurt. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:50, 13 June 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.

Living Titanic Survivors
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 1%23Living Titanic Survivors