Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 5

May 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2014.

List of lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 22%23List of lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)

Foreign-language redirects from Pokémon names



 * 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 all. Number   5  7  13:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


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

And so it begins. From my listing of Otaria (Pokemon), there appears to be consensus to delete redirects from the names of Pokémon in languages other than English and Japanese. I've come up with the first 51, which are listed at User:BDD/Pokémon redirects instead of here for the sake of our sanity. I will still tag them all and notify creators as appropriate.

I suspect that this will prove uncontroversial, so do let me know if you want to unbundle any or otherwise give this further discussion. But if it proves to be a matter of consensus-backed house cleaning, I won't bother bringing future instances of such redirects to discussion. In addition to indicating whether you support deleting this batch, please say whether you're alright with me deleting other foreign-language redirects from Pokémon names as I come across them. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've subst'd the full list on the talk page of this page for future reference, in case I end up repurposing or deleting my userspace subpage. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per consensus.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Lenticel and previous consensus. Go for it, BDD! Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete there is only one langauge aside from English that is particularly relevant to Pokemon on English Wikipedia, that is Japanese. This is not in Japanese romaji/kanji/kana, so are not relevant on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of Pokémon, nothing against it but I am a bit too old. However, I think the English names for the characters are entirely unrelated to the Japanese names, so putting it in romaji or katakana would not be helpful since that would be simply a transliteration and would not be the names of the characters in Japanese. (I can read kana but not very good at kanji.) Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 8 May 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.


 * Thanks for the close, Number 57. Is this enough for me to delete similar redirects in the future? Of course, we can treat those as PROD-like and restore and discuss them if there are individual objections. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair given the clear consensus. Number   5  7  20:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair majority voting



 * 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. Over two months (!) later, I think any reasonable administrator would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair majority voting → Biproportional apportionment (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Delete This redirect is misleading. The "Biproportional apportionment" article is not about what makes an election "fair". Rather, this article is about a concrete election method. Markus Schulze 10:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This link is a clear attempt to imply fairness for a specific voting method, yet fairness is not defined for voting methods. (See Fairness.) VoteFair (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Markus Shulze and VoteFair. The "fairness" of a particular election system has been debated for at least two thousand years and this might as well go to proportional representation or single transferable vote or blackballing or democracy or a hundred and one other places, so as a search term it is useless and WP:POINTY. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep SimonTrew, note that this actually redirects to Biproportional apportionment, so this seems a perfectly valid search term and R to section. It's also a former title, so deletion risks breaking incoming links. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment'. Hmmm. The reference is there but not inline. (it's immediately below it as it happens to be the last section before the references, of which that is the only one for the entire article and is not inline referenced). It's not the place for RfD to debate improving references etc but where to target things: I still feel although the journal article is called "Fair Majority Voting (or How to Eliminate Gerrymandering)" that this is far too specific a target. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The paper by the way is available online at the American Methematical Society Mathematical Association of America, and should be added to the reference: I don't like to do that while things are under discussion. It seems from here, the Mathematical Association of America, that it was awarded the Lester R. Ford Prize, whatever that is, in 2009. I still think it is over-specific. I have written stuff published in learned journals but they are not on Wikipedia because they are far too technical and boring for even this encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it not John Milton who said "There are more things in heaven and earth/Than are dreamed of in divine philosophy"? Bertrand Russell then went on to prove, with class theory, that there are actually far fewer things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in divine philosophy. It is still too specific a target. It is better it was just included at the article on gerrymandering, this is a one-trick pony. Si Trew (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep... This is a name for a voting system that's published in the academic literature. It's not our place to decide whether it's a good name or not. (Personally, I think it's a bad name for a good system, but that doesn't matter.) Homunq (࿓) 10:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Note, I don't exactly understand what happened here, but I'm voting to turn it back into a normal redirect, not to keep it as a separate page.) Homunq (࿓) 10:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's say that a Nobel laureate decided to promote instant-runoff voting. Let's say that he decided to use the term "strategyproof voting" for instant-runoff voting. How should Wikipedia take this fact into consideration? Markus Schulze 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME would come into play. The article wouldn't be moved or anything, but it would be appropriate for Strategyproof voting to redirect there. We could explain that specific terminology in the article to help allay confusion, but generally, no, it wouldn't be our place to judge the accuracy of the phrase if it's used in reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 10 April 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) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment. What got my dander up is that the two original correspondents, who seem to have a bit of a spat about this, one of them is called User:VoteFair. Now, call yourself what you like, I have no problem with that, but when you come to an RfD arguing about the VoteFair process and your username is User::VoteFair it seems a little suspicious, so I did my homework. As it happens I think VoteFair is actually being entirely WP:NPOV and trying simply to improve the encyclopaedia, which I hope we all do. I think we should add the references I gave (at least the one to the AMS, which is freely available) when consensus is reached. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, no. I was going sotto voce. User:VoteFair is, according to the user's page, Richard Forbes the writer of [The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox: A Complete Course In The Art Of Creating Solutions To Problems Of Any Kind]], which amazingly doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia, and declares himself the inventor of the VoteFair method. This is simply WP:PROMO. Delete it. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it not Franklin D. Roosevelt who said "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". Mind that, he had polio as a child I think, and had to carry a big stick, but as an aphorism that still applies. If anything, redirect to psephology. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It sells for a penny on amazon.com. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 6 May 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.
 * 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.

Pratapgarh (princely state)



 * 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 Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. Initially this redirect was nominated for deletion but, following further research, the nomination was amended to retarget, a solution that has attained consensus. As a separate editorial action Pratapgarh Estate has already been added to the DAB at Pratapgarh. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Pratapgarh (princely state) → Pratapgarh Estate (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Pratapgarh was never a princely state.. google book result are zero. I have moved page to Pratapgarh Estate as it was a zamindari. So request deletion of this redirect created due to move page Jethwarp (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - a plausible mistake for a person to make who isn't very familiar with the Estate; thus, directing them to the content they're looking for is doubly important, so they don't keep making the same mistake. Wily D 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep per WilyD. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - why would someone make a plasuible mistake to search for a place/or princely state, which did not exist this is a clear case of WP:HOAX. Further one must be aware that princely state were defined differently in British India and were considered as an Independent nation and were given right to choose to remain independent or merge into Pakistan or India. Please go thru link, which is considered as a WP:SPS  also mentions it as a Taluq. I would request you to please reconsider your votes. The article was created with an intention of puffery, vanity and misguiding users of wiki - that is why I moved the page to Estate but the redirect remains - I strongly feel it should not, other wise people will be encouraged to create things. Jethwarp (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Add at DAB What's the difference (for an ignorant reader like myself) between Pratapgarh and Pratapgarh Estate? And now we have Pratapgarh (princely state) because of the move. Now, Pratapgarh is a DAB and neither the estate nor the princely state is listed on that DAB, which at least one of them should be, but I don't like to change things while they are under discussion. The thing is what are people likely to search for, and how can they best find it? It doesn't matter if the name is technically incorrect, just in the opinion of Wikipedia editors would a reader try to search for it? To my mind, they would whack in Pratapgarh and then find neither the old nor new title there (unless my eyes deceive me which they often do). Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak retarget to the dab Pratapgarh. A reader searching for this might be looking for one of the districts, perhaps. Delete as misleading if it isn't retargeted. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. I just found out that in fact there was a princely state named Pratapgarh in Rajasthan but not in Uttar Pradesh, where this estate existed till 1947 - . If I had known this earlier I would not have asked for a discussion here. Another similar named redirect Pratapgarh State redirects to Pratapgarh, Rajasthan - so I suggest we redirect this one also to same article. Jethwarp (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ddisambiguate that too, at the DAB Pratapgarh. The point of redirects or hatnotes is not whether things are "correct" but whether people can find the information they are looking for. You have found it for them – thank you – so let them have a chance to find it. 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Pratapgarh, Rajasthan per nom. Good enough for me. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. That article mentions there that it was a 15-gun salute princely state, in the second or third para. Whereas Pratapgarh Estate is not even in Rajasthan but Uttar Pradesh (in Oudh, now Awadh). This is all from being a bit deliberately ignorant and searching internally on Wikipedia, deliberately trying to put myself as an intelligent but ignorant reader trying to find information. However, Pratapgarh Estate I think should still be on the DAB at Pratapgarh, once we get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I am too coy there, since the target (the estate) is not what is what is under discussion. I'll add it. Si Trew (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:19, 5 May 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.

Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn



 * 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. After over a month of discussion, something needs to happen here. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn → Star Wars Episode VII (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The term "A New Dawn", which was a title that was rumored for Episode VII, has been revealed to be the name of a separate Star Wars novel. Therefore, this redirect is misleading and irrelevant as of now. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm holding off on judgment for now, but I don't the existence of a novel is a good reason to ditch this. If it were just Star Wars: A New Dawn, that would be one thing, but no one is going to be calling the novel "Episode VII." --BDD (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody's going to be calling Episode VII "A New Dawn", either... D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we sure it won't be the title of the movie? That would be a good reason to delete. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk about "A New Dawn" originated when Lucasfilm personnel were referencing it as an upcoming I.P., though many inferred it to be a considered title for the seventh movie. With the announcement of the book, the allocation of the title has been revealed, so there is no reason to assume the film is called that anymore. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dabify: we have a short list of things the reader might possibly be looking for, so we might as well provide the reader with said list. -- N  Y  Kevin   03:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we? How many of those topics would be referred to as "Episode VII"? --BDD (talk) 19:05, 28 April 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) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep For now, this seems a likely search term, and nothing else would be referred to as "Episode VII," so I don't see a dab or potential for confusion. Time will tell if this working title has lasting significance, like Blue Harvest or Revenge of the Jedi and merits keeping. If it ends up being an ephemeral working title, deletion may make sense later. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems the right target, and harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 25 May 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.

Wikipedia:REALLY
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * REALLY → An article about yourself isn& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Shouldn't this be going to List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create TheChampionMan1234 09:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be better. Even better would be to delete it, as a redirect that doesn't seem to have any logical connection with the target, and that has been viewed a grand total of four times in the past 30 days. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Very few incoming links, none from article space, two from user space and two from here; and an essay in Wikipedia namespace is not suited for a cross-namespace redirect as I originally suggested to retarget to, but changed my mind. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget per nom and tag the new target with shortcut. The suggested target would not create an XNR, so I'm a bit confused by SimonTrew's !vote. -- N  Y  Kevin   19:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia namespace to Template namespace would be a cross-namespace redirect, wouldn't it? Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think we are at cross purposes. I suggested that a better target would be Template:Really? even though it is a cross-namespace redirect. You suggested another target, which I disagree because it is just WP:ESSAY, but that is in the same namespace from the redirect to the target. The essay isn't particularly interesting or amusing even though it is tagged as being Wikipedia humo(u)r. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 6 May 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.