Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 31

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Loyalty to the Resistance bloc → Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Separate page exists under a slightly different spelling TheWarOfArt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid {{R from other capitalisation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above reasoning TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Number 57 15:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of oldest people → List of the verified oldest people (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I believe this should be targeted to Oldest people. The target article clearly has stricter inclusion criteria, and Oldest people has lists as well. I would've done this myself, but it was done in the past and reverted. BDD (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget for a more broad set of listings Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and Snuggums. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Transylvanian varieties of Romanian. Number 57 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dialect of Transylvania → Transylvania (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Creator seemed to attempt to redirect this to Vampire as well. Seems like a joke. Neither target mentions dialect. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Transylvanian varieties of Romanian, which actually discusses the subject. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G5 criteria "banned or blocked user" as redirect was created by sock of Gabriella~four.3-6. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD (nice find) and mark as {{R from singular}}; whether or not it was created by a sockpuppet, it's a useful search term. I note that the following are all redlinks:

1. Dialects of Transylvania
2. Transylvanian dialect
3. Transylvanian dialects
4. Transylvanian Dialects
5. Languages of Transylvania
6. Transylvanian languages
7. Transylvanian language
8. Transylvanian Languages
9. Transylvanian Language

Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per BDD and Si Trew, including Si Trew's redlinks 1–4. Redlinks 5–9 should probably redirect to Transylvania#Historical population, as Romanian is not the only language spoken in Transylvania. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Cyphoidbomb and per WP:DENY, then recreate the nominated redirect with a fresh history, per everyone else. I'm neutral on creating the redlinked redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Rebel Heart (Madonna album). --BDD (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Devil Prays → Devil Pray (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Page moved to "Devil Pray", the confirmed title of the song. No pages link to this redirect, so it may as well be deleted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unneeded redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even though it is just an "s" at the end, it is too unlikely of a misspelling if the song is notable without the "s". Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like an entirely plausible search term from another grammatical form ({{R from modification}}). The article (now redirect) was at this title for the first ~18 days of its existence, which again suggests plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf but retarget to Rebel Heart (Madonna album) so that it's not a double redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plausible search term. Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not necessary and searching for "Devil Prays" would return "Devil Pray" in a search. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in some circumstances are users presented with a search, and what search results are shown is impossible to guarantee (indeed there are times when the search engine returns only an error), whereas a redirect works in all scenarios. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per User:Ivanvector. pace User:Thryduulf, I believe {{R from misspelling}} is preferred to {{R from modification}} for Rs in article namespace. Si Trew (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inverse is true ({{R from modification}} is preferred over {{R from misspelling}} in project space), but that both are fine in article space is the implication of the documentation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't infer that. Both Template:R from misspelling/doc and Template:R from modification/doc say "Use this rcat template in any namespace", but since "modification" is more-general I'd go with the more-specific one. (If it's considered a misspelling.) Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 dabify. I'm using Si Trew's draft as a starting point, but I think the page should focus on entities actually called "Zionist Federation", with other groups which could be called Zionist and a federation in a different section. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zionist Federation → Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect used to make sense because the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland was the only wikipedia article about a Zionist Federation. A new page has been created entitled the Zionist Federation of Australia and so it no longer makes sense to automatically redirect users to the specific Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. Aussiedownunder99 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. There are two articles that can be referred to by this title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and hatnote. This appears to be the primary target. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A search on a popular search engine shows up with several groups that are called "Zionist Federation". For that reason, I say disambiguate is the way to go with this one. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DAB per Steel1943. I found much the same. Since the ZFGBI has not itself been made primary, it would seem the way to go. There are other federated organisations that may not have "federation" in the title but might be worth DABbing: I've made a draft at Draft:Zionist Federation. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found that when searching as well, but I've been lectured previously that we don't create dabs for similar things, only things which are identically named. Or at least that's how I interpreted it. So for example the dab page should only list organizations which have "Zionist Federation" in the name, without listing variations like "Zionist Organization" or "Zionist Movement", unless they are also known as federations. Personally I think this view is overly pedantic and isn't in the best interest of navigation, and as such I support moving the disambiguation draft to mainspace over the redirect, with history merge if necessary. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I suggested one was the primary topic; that seems to be impossible to determine. Ivanvector (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. It's not surprising that a potential team from 40 years ago isn't turning up many hits, but the nominator's concerns seem to have been addressed, and the topic is discussed at the target article. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• San Francisco Sharks → Quebec Nordiques (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I haven't been able to come up with a reference that says this team, which never played, ever went by the name Sharks. This article[1] says they were called the Seahawks, and this article[2] says they never had a name. ...William 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here's one reference for San Francisco Sharks: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/14/top-10-failed-wha-franchises, another which might not be reliable, this book for young sports fans about the Colorado Avalanche (where the Nordiques later moved), and another book here. There was a team called the Los Angeles Sharks, but they were a different franchise that came after the San Francisco group moved to Québec. The only source I found for "San Francisco Seahawks" is this article about the LA Sharks, however that website calls the same franchise the "San Francisco Sharks" elsewhere on the site. It looks like a descendant of GeoCities, and I suspect it's not particularly reliable. And of course all of these teams are unrelated to the current San Jose Sharks. Ivanvector (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to San Jose Sharks. Isn't San Jose/Silicon Valley basically in the same metro area as San Francisco, when it all comes down to it? 69.29.71.186 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to San Jose Sharks. It's probable that there's people out there who don't know the difference between the two cities. Tavix |  Talk  04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This franchise is not the same franchise as the current San Jose Sharks. It is actually the same franchise as the current Colorado Rockies, but they were the Nordiques first. Ivanvector (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Avalanche, actually. The Colorado Rockies are a baseball team. There was a hockey team of that name, but they're now the New Jersey Devils. Confused yet? --BDD (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/reply: Yes, yes, I meant the hockey team; I will surrender my Canadian passport forthwith. My point is that creating a redirect from the defunct hockey team to an entirely unrelated extant hockey franchise creates navigation which is confusing and wrong, especially so because the defunct team is related to a different extant franchise. This should not redirect to San Jose Sharks; at best, an explanatory hatnote at Quebec Nordiques should refer to San Jose. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that there is a discussion of the San Francisco Sharks history in the Quebec Nordiques article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 speedy deleted per criterion R2 by Bgwhite. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User template:333-blue/sandbox/Template:2014 Sleeping Tour → User:333-blue/sandbox/Template:2014 Sleeping Tour (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect. 333-blue 09:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 procedural close. Use WP:RM to request a move. While moves can happen as a result of RfD, if a move is your original intent, it's best to start there. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Feed → The Feed (TV series) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Swap (i.e. Reverse the redirect). There's no need for the disambiguation in the title here. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 International Court of Justice. This outcome appears obvious and helpful, so I think the speedy close is warranted. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• United Nations Supreme Court → Supreme Court of the United States (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Explanation or deletion...redirect appears nonsensical, perhaps at best being a redirect from an error. djr13 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to International Court of Justice, the first result that comes up when I search for this term on a search engine, and is apparently even chartered by the United Nations. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, makes sense. Would this still be considered an erroneous title? djr13 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djr13: Yeah, it's essentially an erroneous title, but the redirect is essentially synonymous since International Court of Justice is a branch of the United Nations. Also, International Court of Justice's scope is broader than just the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per User:Steel1943. The relation of the ICJ to the UN couldn't be clearer: it's the first-sentence definition in the lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to International Court of Justice per User:Steel1943 --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.