Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 19

July 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 19, 2015.

Office de la protection du consommateur



 * 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 * The result of the discussion was involved bold close since the nom is no longer applicable (no longer an interwiki soft redirect). Please re-nom if you object to the current local redirect.. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Office de la protection du consommateur → fr:Loi sur la protection du consommateur (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_de_la_protection_du_consommateur&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Interwiki soft redirects generally aren't useful or helpful on the English Wikipedia. We can't expect people to know French and those that don't will be disappointed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - When I created this, I was trying to find some mention in policy about the suitability of "interwiki soft redirects", but couldn't find any. If they have indeed never been seriously discussed, I'd kinda prefer some wider-scoped RfC about the concept instead of a narrow RfD for this specific one. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete. I can't find the discussion at the moment but I'll try again later, but there was (~2 years ago now?) a proposal to make (soft) redirects to non-English Wikipedias speedy deletable because they do not help the majority of readers (e.g. a redirect to the French Wikipedia is useless to a Cantonese speaker and vice versa) and are arbitrary (do you redirect to the German, Catalan or Afrikaans article?) and disguise our lack of content. From memory the discussion fizzled out after some request for interwiki links to articles that exist on other Wikipedias be shown on redlink pages here. Now interwikis are handled by Wikidata that should be easier to do than it once was, but would still require a new effort. A discussion on that point (showing interwikis on redlinks) should certainly happen, but I've never seen a soft redirect redirect to a foreign language wiki kept so consensus on that point is pretty clear in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be interested in that discussion – I can't remember taking part in it myself, though as you know I do some French translation (and a few others for sciency stuff when they are simply enough at least to get the boilerplate done without much chance of getting it wrong.) I agree that foreign-language redirects are essentially harmful. I am not so hot on Wikidata because it enforces a 1:1 correspondence where before that we could have a kinda triangle (quadrilateral, pentagon, whatever) where there was not a perfect correspondence between any two articles but the best fit between them all: the French WP might have two articles covering what in English was only in one, for example. However, it is what it is: and it's probably better than people forgetting to insert the Interwiki links (or, in my case, not being able even to find what it might be in some other language I don't know). Si Trew (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Retarget per below - this actually targets fr:Loi sur la protection du consommateur. The main article, fr:Office de la protection du consommateur, est un lien rouge, deleted in 2006 with the comment "spam spam spam spam". The target is about the Consumer Protection Act in Québec, which we don't have an article on at English Wikipedia. We do have other Consumer Protection Acts, none of which are French. As a page here it fails WP:FORRED which I think is the guideline that  is looking for, although that's an essay, but I think that soft redirects should fall under that guidance as well. A page with a French title which links to a French article is not useful for English readers. However, if we were to write an article on Québec's Consumer Protection Act here, then this would be an appropriate redirect to it because it is its proper French title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm currently mulling over the idea of translating fr:Loi sur la protection du consommateur into Consumer Protection Act (Quebec), and then redirecting Loi sur la protection du consommateur and Office de la protection du consommateur to it. It won't happen anytime soon though, so in the meantime this RfD can be closed as delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do one better: I've created an English stub at the former redlink. I don't have time to work on it at the moment, but now we have a target for this redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * where? I'll carry on the translation, if you can point me at the article, but Consumer Protection Act (Quebec) is not linked up there yet: is that the one you mean? My French unfortunately is only French French and not Quebec,ois. I do have a Belgian keyboard here so can do the accents but can't do them while I have Hungarian layout on here, sorry about that. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I linked them together with Wikidata. Reculer pour mieux sauter then. I bet this one will be a struggle for me if it includes the French Wikipedia templates for laws. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel kinda bad that I tried taking the easy way out with an interwiki soft redirect, only to see this brought to RfD and others having to do the work I should've done originally... I cleaned up the formatting a bit but have to head home so I'll come back later and complete (or review) the translation., let me know if there is anything specific I can do to help. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:40, 20 July 2015 (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.

BTTT
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 26%23BTTT

C-Plus Augustus



 * 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) 00:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * C-Plus Augustus → List of nicknames of United States Presidents (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-Plus_Augustus&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This list is for nicknames "which were in common usage at the time they were in office." George W. Bush has been called this, but I don't think it was common usage, and thus shouldn't be included in this list. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (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.

Psychological significance of hair
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 28%23Psychological significance of hair

Gerhard Müller (terrorist)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1%23Gerhard Müller (terrorist)

Wilhelm III of Orange



 * 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) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm III of Orange → William III of England (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_III_of_Orange&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Wilhelm III → William III of England (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_III&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

William is back y'all; see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 12. Nowhere in the article does it say that William was known as Wilhelm (he is known in Dutch as Willem) so these fail WP:FORRED and should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Note: this William III is definitely a distinct person from the William III below. Don't merge these discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2015 (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.

William III of Provence
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 27%23William III of Provence

Body of work



 * 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 that both are now redirects (see discussion), so keep with no prejudice to reopen with new rationale. (non-admin closure) – Paine 23:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Body of work → Body of Work (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_of_work&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Cleanup after move of album title per WP:DABSONG. Most readers will want general meaning not the album proper noun. This may also apply to the caps version Body of Work. Widefox ; talk 10:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I nommed it at WP:CSD we don't need both. Si Trew (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it is also a Billy Bragg line, "I fell a total jerk before your naked body of work", from the song Sexuality (Billy Bragg song) on the album Taking with the Taxman about Poetry. So even as a song it is ambiguous. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I contested the speedy. Suggest retarget oeuvre / work of art . body of work also exists. Widefox ; talk 11:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I boldly made Body of work and Body of Work target work of art with a redirect hatnote. The album notability is a future question. Widefox ; talk 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. I would close this as a but since I was involved in the discussion that is a bit infra dig. But I support that. Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2015 (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.

Open Access (publishing)



 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Open Access (publishing) → Open access (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Access_(publishing)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This only serves to confuse, there is no need for the disambiguation here. What would open access mean if it did not mean to publish something? Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The term is used outside publishing, as per Open access (disambiguation), so having that redirect seems to be useful to me. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give an example of where it is used outside publishing, in the broad sense of making things widely available to the public? It doesn't go to the DAB page, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Open access (disambiguation) serves the turn. I see no need of this, and WP:RHARMFUL. For either it specifically deals with publishing, which Daniel says it does not, thence it is nonsense as a disambiguation. Can't have it both ways Dan. It is a harmful disambiguation which does not disambiguate. Si Trew (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very plausible search term (lots of hits, former page title) and not in any way harmful. "Open access (publishing)" makes sense because there are uses of "open access" that have little or nothing to do with publishing, and this use does. It redirects to Open access, not Open access (disambiguation), because plain Open access is where the publishing sense is covered (correctly, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). This is a textbook example of an R from unnecessary disambiguation; read WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, where this is explained. If you're still confused, consider Jupiter (planet), which works similarly. Sideways713 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Sideways713. It goes where it should and isn't harmful at all. It may be a R from page move, otherwise I can't tell why it was created as a circular redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems both Open Access (publishing) and Open access (publishing) exist as redirects to Open access. I propose the one with capital-A (nominated here) be deleted, and the other kept (per ). — J D (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note... OA(pub) was once a redirect to the lowercase Oa(pub) and created as alternative capitalization. When Oa(pub) was then moved to Open access, this redirect, OA(pub), had to be defeated as a double redirect, so it was retargeted to the Open access article.  Nothing really has changed in terms of its original creation as an R caps – the only change is that it's now also an R undis.  Joys! – Paine  01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If, per Sideways713, Open access (publishing) makes sense, then deleting one that differs only by capitalization seems pointlessly hostile to readers. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the justification to keep Oa(pub) as R undis is that it's a "plausible search term," then alternate capitalization isn't needed as any relevant search method is case insensitive. I can't imagine an actual situation where "user hostility" would occur. — J D (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, but there may be more to it than just its use as a search term. From the naming convention:    So links, internal and external, to this redirect would be broken if it's deleted. – Paine  20:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. All good (keep) rationales above with which I agree. – Paine 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sideways713. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (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.

Aaaaaa
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 8%23Aaaaaa