Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 21

June 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2015.

Umbrella Revolution



 * 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. While these are certainly closely related topics, there's consensus that the hatnotes do enough to distinguish them here. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Umbrella Revolution → 2014 Hong Kong protests (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umbrella_Revolution&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

It must be retargeted to a separate topic, Umbrella Movement. The 2014 Hong Kong protests are just mere protests. George Ho (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak retarget. All three are pretty well linked together, but it probably is better to link it to the more-general article rather than the more-specific one. The lede of 2014 Hong Kong protests mentions both U. Revolution and U. Movement, but does not link (probably should). For the record, Umbrella company and Umbrella organisation  → Umbrella organization) are also differentiated. (as is Umbrella Corporation), though we haven't Umbrella corporation). Si Trew (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Umbrella Corporation" merged into list of characters as the result of AFD. It's a bad example for comparison. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure,, I agree with you. I mentioned it solely to rule it out (it's a good bad example!). Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but link in the lead and with hatnotes. When sources use the term "umbrella revolution" (with any capitalisation) they are almost always referring to the 2014 protests. The broader movement evolved out of those protests, and the name is derived from those protests, but at this point when people talk about the movement they use the term "movement" not "revolution". Accordingly, when someone searches for this term in mid-2015 they are most likely to be looking for information about the protests. If they are looking for information about the movement then a hatnote will point them in the right place if they know this, and the lead section should point them to the movement article if they didn't previously. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd perfectly go along with that, which was kinda what I was stabbing for in my usual round-the-houses way. Leaving my !vote for now, but pretty much aligned with what you (Thryduulf) say. I didn't want to be WP:BOLD and put in the hatnotes until we had consensus. Si Trew (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: COI declaration - I'm a participant of Umbrella Movement and have edited the target article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I respect very much 's declaration of interest. That is a good Wikipedian if I ever saw one. I think it does rule Deryck out of this discussion, thoughm, but total respect for Deryck saying so (and has done much good work on other things here at RfD, including closing a few of mine, sometimes against my opinion and sometimes in favour of it.) A good Wikipedian, I take my hat off to Deryck. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and hatnote per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (talk) 15:15, 22 June 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.

dualizing sheaf



 * 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 Glossary of algebraic geometry. Clearly not a perfect solution, but it appears to be more constructive than the status quo. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * dualizing sheaf → Serre duality (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dualizing_sheaf&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

It should be deleted as the target does not discuss the topic. Taku (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment can we merge this discussion with Redirects_for_discussion of 18 June? Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm coming up with many possible targets for this: Serre duality, Verdier duality, Sheaf theory, but this is outside my wheelhouse. Will ping WP:MATHEMATICS. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't really have an appropriate target. I think the best is coherent duality, which at least mentions dualizing sheaves in an aside; but it's not really about the topic either.  Another possibility is Gorenstein ring, but that article doesn't currently discuss dualizing sheaves (it could, though).  Ozob (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Glossary of algebraic geometry. --Mark viking (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, wouldn't it be better to expand the Serre duality article to include mention of this, and keep the target as is? Ivanvector (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good possibility, but personally lack an understanding of the topic to do a good job of merging the definition into to the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:31, 28 June 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.

Arab-Phoenicians



 * 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) 16:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Arab-Phoenicians → Lebanese people (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab-Phoenicians&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

A very unlikely redirect, now being added inappropriately to articles, eg and  Doug Weller (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Arab Phoenicians → Lebanese people (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Phoenicians&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Hadn't noticed that at he added "rather Lebanese are Arab Phoenicians", which is basically "rather Lebanese are Lebanese people" - hardly helpful and suggests a pov creation. Doug Weller (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Anar  chyte   10:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD nonsense. Arabians are not Phonecians. Might as well put it to the Arab community in Phoenix, Arizona, who I presume are Phonecians. But it aint there and for good reason: WP:NOTDIC, WP:RS. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment fortunately nobody yet has punned Phone nice. But the adman writes the prose and cons. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Missed this - Arab Phoenicians was also created. Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The main point to create it was that based on recent DNA research most of the current Lebanese population (regardless of religious affiliation) has Phoenician DNA markers. However, the current Lebanese population also has a smaller degree of other DNA markers mainly Arab DNA. Plus, the current Lebanese culture and language are Arabic. And as a result some proponents of ideologies like Phoenicianism and to some degree Lebanese nationalism started to use "Arab Phoenicians" or with hyphen "Arab-Phoenicians" in order to get more supporters outside the Lebanese Christian community. For example, the CIA The World Factbook (within People and Society section) mentioned that issue from a Lebanese Christian point of view. See this one: "many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab but rather as descendents of the ancient Canaanites and prefer to be called Phoenicians".  MaronitePride (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So PoV, OR, "to get more supporters". Doug Weller (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you ask me the whole article about the ideology of Phoenicianism could be labeled under any of these: PoV, OR, "to get more supporters within Lebanese Christian community". The term "Arab-Phoenicians" is currently the continuation/extension of this ideology of Phoenicianism to the Lebanese Muslim/Druze comminities BUT based to some degree on real DNA research. MaronitePride (talk) 19:44, 23 June 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.

2034 FIFA World Cup



 * 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. Deryck C. 21:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 2034 FIFA World Cup → FIFA World Cup (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2034_FIFA_World_Cup&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Stupid redirect -- Anar  chyte   10:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We don't even know who the President of FIFA might be then, or even next week. Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. We're not sure what will happen in FIFA in 2034 yet, but I'd like to see the discussion play out before I make my decision. SONIC678 &#124; Let’s hang out here  15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it's "not at target" which is a general argument at RfD, although not actually in its manifesto: I tend to argue that way under WP:RFD confusing, but it is also WP:SURPRISE.
 * I take the view, and others may differ, that redirect titles should obey WP:TITLE: redirects are not articles (though MoS sometimes says they are) but they are in article space: if we get it right, then someone searching hardly notices a redirect. If we get it wrong, they certainly do, but we rarely get to hear about it, cos they just click away. Si Trew (talk)


 * Comment according to the stats, and excluding its hits in the last day or two that come from this discussion, its max was on 13 May, to the tune of 9 hits. Most days it is one or two. Which is kinda just above statistical noise from bots, but not much: I know someone else here (I won't mention names, User:BDD) may disagree with that analysis. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Someone searching for this will want specific information on the "2034 FIFA World Cup," not about the World Cup in general. In its current state, we only offer disappointment. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Based on some earlier discussions, I have a sneaking suspicion that all of these future-event-placeholder redirects are being created by users who want to have credit for creating the articles when they actually do have content. A symptom of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. But I am not assuming good faith. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 22 June 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.