Trichome

thcscience_admin

October 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 31, 2014.

Church of Siduri[edit]

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. If further harassment occurs, I'll be happy to do the salting. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At one time apparently,the target article did mention this "church", but since then it has been removed, thus rendering the redirect meritless. It was apparently a minor cult/joke religion that claimed worship of the target, Siduri, a fictional character in a mythology tale. It has recently become the subject of trolling, attacks, and harassment of the project and of editors for "denying recognition" to their cult. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: as far as I can tell from the page history, the only mention of a "church" at any point around the time of the last AfD consists entirely of this sentence fragment: "and Siduri is considered to be a religious figure/prophet by some." That fragment was sourced to the org's website, and removed some time after the AfD closed. This is a weak !vote for me because the conditions which led to the AfD and subsequent "merge" have not really changed, and I don't think removing it will prevent the vandalism trolling issues, but at the same time I can't think of any good reason to keep it either. Ivanvector (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Had there been some evidence of a temple of Siduri in ancient times then there might be some justifications to keep the redirect--Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Church of Siduri web site at one stage indicated the "Church" was only recently established - 2012, I think. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the ancient Siduri, the Epic of Gilgamesh character, rather than this "church"--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But isn't that the usual distinction between "the church" (building) and "the Church" (organisation)? Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was meant to publicise a modern 'church of Siduri', an organisation, whose existence is IMHO dubious anyway. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as attempt to promote non-notable organization. The creator is almost certainly yet another sock of the blocked User:Jim-Siduri, who has been trying to promote this non-notable "church" on Wikipedia for some time. Part of his MO is to create fake professors, use usernames with hypens, and try to use a self-published work by a "Professor" Peter Dyr, just like User:History-Professor-59. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:41, 5 November 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.

Outer portion of eye[edit]

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) 18:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Sammy1339 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and move to user page. With this edit, one minute after it was created by a user for whom it is their second contribution, User:I dream of horses changed it from an article about the eyelid to a redirect.
My guess is that an odd title was chosen purposefully (although the newbie's one previous edit was in their sandbox). Perhaps a move of this version to the user's space, and a kind note per WP:NEWBIES, would be appropriate? Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd though: only two contributions, but notices on the creator's talk page for naughties on two other articles. I can't square that. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is one deleted contribution as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not assume good faith here. The deleted article, with the title "Health Tips" was actually an advertisement for a particular Bangladesh eye hospital. So was the original content of this one. I'd also suggest blocking as a promotional-only editor. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and DGG - unlikely search term, left over from a spamming attempt. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I was searching for a plausible eye anatomy related article for this redirect but found nothing. --Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Eyelid. That seems to have been the intent, spam notwithstanding. Possible search term for someone whose first language is not English. Ivanvector (talk) 15:09, 13 November 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.

Precious Metal[edit]

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 Precious metal (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creates confusion between Precious Metal (aircraft) and the CSI episode. – Allen4names (contributions) 17:23, 31 October 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 Final 1[edit]

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 move The Final 1 (season 1) over this title. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A wrong redirect. 333-blue 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Strange. The Final 1 should be an article about this show in general, not a redirect to an article on its first season. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I declined a CSD on this earlier today solely on the grounds that it was not a valid G2 (Test Page) CSD. I have no problem with other action being taken, including potentially moving the "season" article over the current redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • swap target and redirect - I can find no evidence that there has (yet) been a second season, so there is no need to discuss the first season separately from the show as a whole (if that is even possible). The "(season 1)" form though is a plausible search term so it should be kept after the move (as well as being a {{R from move}} of course). Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • swap per User:Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just left a message at Talk:The Final 1 (season 1) advising that this discussion may result in that page being moved. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 2 November 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.

曼谷[edit]

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. Not English, not in article. -- Beland (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Chinese - TheChampionMan1234 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is this an unlikely redirect? Languages of Thailand says that Chinese is spoken there. - Eureka Lott 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not especially" means it is not English and has no place in English Wikpedia. English speaking readers are unlikely to type it, and Chinese speakers are likely to go to the Chinese Wikipedia: having this actually hinders Thai or Chinese speakers finding the article in their own language, since it will show up prominently on a Web search.
I don't like the shorthand of saying "Not especially" rather than "Not English" (which is shorter, actually), but the Champ is a lot bigger than me and tends to knock me out in round 2, so I kinda put up with it. Champ, wouldn't saying "Not English" be more concise and more understandable? Si Trew (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't come up with a good connection between a Chinese language and Bangkok without glossing the whole of Asia into one country. Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been advanced for deletion. WilyD 13:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wily, Si Trew argues pretty strongly that this redirect actually distracts readers from the content they're looking for, which is an article about the city written in the Chinese language. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they're looking for that (which I find doubtful), that pages links them to such an article, rather than giving them a big "fuck you, you non-Anglo". So either way it still directs them to what they're looking for (even if it's more likely they're looking for the English version, but perhaps aren't sure of the English Orthography, or it's hard to get Bangkok on their keyboard, or whatnot. WilyD 11:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then they use their input method editor to put it in, get the Thai or Chinese version of Bangkok and click on the Interwiki link for it (available in both the source and target languages) to get it in English (or German or Arabic). You're making hypothetical solutions for non-existent problems.Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically because you say "no argument has been given for deletion". When I give you three, you say they "have nothing to do with" this. They are relevant:
  • WP:RFD#DELETE #8 says "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created". I have argued on the talk page (and User:Thryduulf has disagreed, no-one else has participated) that the words "should generally not be created" are against current consensus, since nothing else in the RfD guidance rules itself out (in my view) because the redirect has already been created.
  • WP:ENGLISH says "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". But the naming conventions Section at WP:UEIA says "It is also useful to have multiple redirects [my emphasis] to the main article...", which would suggest a "Keep".
  • WP:DICDEF starts "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook....". Phrasebook says "A phrase book is a collection of ready-made phrases, usually for a foreign language along with a translation".
Some of these, according to my language lawyer, depend on whether a redirect is an article. I think they have a bit of a split personality but their titles should be treated as if they were:
  • They are in article space. To the outside world, they have the same form as articles. Only the keen-eyed reader notices he has been redirected.
  • They may be converted into articles. They may be converted into DABs or close relations such as set indices. DABs and set indices are articles (I think).
The distinction between "an article" and "a page in article space" is often not made clear. WP:MOS's wording sometimes says they are, sometimes not. (We had this discussion here at Talk:RfD I think a couple of years ago, but I can't find it.)
How are they "nothing to do with" the titles of redirects? You may disagree with them, but they are patently relevant to foreign-language redirects. You don't provide any backup for your own opinions, when I do for mine, you want more of it; so now you have it.
As for putting the words "Fuck you, non-anglo" in my mouth, that's simply childish. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Children are reknowned for not couching the truth in euphamisms. Out of the mouth of babes. (And at the end of the day, it's each and every Wikipedian telling them that, including me. Which makes me a bit irritable about it). Beyond that, no, nothing you've presented is a reason for deletion. Saying "Should generally not be created" is not a reason for deletion; it's an unmotivated assertion. Reasons need motivation, which are not presented. Similarly, the articles are at English names, but redirects aren't articles in normal parlance (they get their own speedy deletion criteria, and can't be deleted under the article criteria, for instance). Since this isn't presenting a dictionary definition. It's directing readers to a search term; forbidding something from merely having the capability to be used for translation would require the removal of all interwiki links, for instance. So NOT#DIC is just an unrelated assertion. You can assert that the redirect should be deleted because mustard is a common condiment on hamburgers, but it's not a reason for deletion, it's just a non-sequitor. WilyD 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Policies and guidelines such as WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:LANGVAR, as well as things like {{R from misspelling}} and {{R from incorrect name}} make it clear that redirects are not articles. The standard for article inclusion is notability, the standard for redirects is plausibility (or history in some cases). Redirects should only be deleted if they are harmful and that harm is greater than any usefulness they have. The act of deletion is in itself harmful (how great depends on several factors) so in an otherwise even balance the redirect gets kept. In this instance redirecting the name of a city to the article about that city is clearly plausible, and there are no other targets that are more or equally plausible so we can discount retargetting. The reasons to keep and delete redirects are absolutely correct that unrelated foreign language terms should generally not be created - particularly when you exclude proper nouns from the consideration, they have much potential for harm through confusion. However, once created they should be kept unless they are harmful and simply being a foreign language redirect does not make it harmful in the slightest. Wikipedia is indeed not a dictionary or phrasebook, but when you look at Wiktionary entries - which are exactly those things - you will see that simply having a redirect from the Chinese name for Bangkok to an encyclopaedia article about Bangkok does not make Wikipedia either of those. WP:DICDEF is about article content, not article titles. tl;dr: This redirect is harmless and so there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:UEIA is the convincing one, since that orthography is in the lede. But it doesn't set precedent, I feel, in fact by exceptio probat regulam it implies, that foreign-language redirects that are not easily accessible in the lede etc should not exist. Thryduulf possibly put it better than I. I note wikt:euphamism is not listed; wikt:reknown as a misspelling of wikt:renown. Schoolboy errors. Quite right: tl;dr. Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si, either I'm misreading or you're mistaken. The Chinese form of Bangkok isn't mentioned in that article's lede. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BDD, nice to see you back. I think both: you are misreading and I am mistaken. What perhaps is useful to come out of this, I think, is that we don't have (unless I am even more mistaken) "not at target" or "not in lede" as reasons to delete. Mos says don't list all the possible languages in the lede; but the fact it's not at the target at all may be some clue to my admittedly incoherent reasoning.
The target is interlanguaged linked to zh:曼谷, which I assumed is not "in the article"; besides that it is nowhere. Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 14 November 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.

Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

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. Deleted by User:DeltaQuad, who forgot to close the discussion. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CNR. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Between May 2012 and January 2014 this redirected to Sockpuppet (internet), before and after then it pointed to it's current target. Both changes were made according to WP:BOLD afaict. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care either way that it is going, but I would slightly prefer it go to link that it was at between 2012 and 2014, since that's the best link to place it at. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Sockpuppet (internet).--Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think arguments exist against both its current target and Sockpuppet (internet), so this redirect should not exist anymore because of the potential for confusion. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Sockpuppet (Internet), which already has a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (and also eliminates any CNR concerns). - Eureka Lott 01:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone who knows the slang "Sockpuppet" (in the Wikipedia jargon) doesn't need to find an article about sock puppets or anything else; this is patently the correct target, WP:CNR though it be. Declaration: I've been through one and banned as a sock, but it is hard to sockpuppet oneself; but since I roam and use different internet providers I see how it could look suspicious. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, people who know what "sockpuppet" means are highly likely to look for the article to learn more about what it is and its background. And a person who just heard the word in passing on another website might go to Wiki to see what it means. Either retarget or delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SPI isn't going to be very useful to or sought out by new users, so this isn't a good candidate for a CNR. Retargeting to Sockpuppet (Internet) seems contrived. It would be an unlikely search term for that, since investigation isn't discussed there. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. 78.131.100.89 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that IP was me. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you !voted keep and then !voted delete in the same thread? ;) Ivanvector (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. "When the facts change, I change my mind: what do you do?" — John Maynard Keynes. Didn't realise I had to strike it after a relist! :) Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to mainspace per WP:CNR. I read a comment on here recently (can't find it) where another user eloquently argued against ever having redirects from mainspace to any other namespace, as it's inappropriate to redirect the average reader into the behind-the-scenes inner workings of the Wikipedia without them explicitly requesting to be directed there (i.e. by clicking on a specific link, rather than by being redirected). I didn't restate this nearly as well, but I strongly agree. Non-mainspace pages are not formatted to encyclopedic standards, can be full of our wikijargon and may break accessibility, not to mention being tossed unawares into one of our more fun disciplinary processes. The hatnote at Sockpuppet (internet) is the appropriate way to handle this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sockpuppets are not a solely Wikipedia matter, and investigations of them occur elsewhere. The target is not encyclopedic content and does nothing to describe the general situation in the world at large. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 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.

Rabaska[edit]

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 converted to an article and so no longer in scope for RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the corresponding article from the French Wikipedia, a rabaska was a type of canoe used by certain First Nations peoples. It's currently not discussed at all on the English Wikipedia, so there doesn't seem to be a good place to retarget. I'm thinking delete per WP:REDLINK; I don't speak French, but that article looks fine if we could get something like it. Alternatively, if we can discuss this type, we could retarget to Canoe. (I would oppose doing so if there's no mention of the rabaska there.) For what it's worth, one of the images from the French rabaska article is also used in the English canoe one. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think retargetting to canoe is probably the right choice. Je sais seulement un peu de francais, mais si je comprends l'article et les autre livres que j'ai trouve, Rabaska is more or less a Quebequois word for a large, 8+ person canoe, which has seeped into Quebec English (and perhaps a bit Canadian English in general? I am not familiar with it). Voici fr:Canoë#Constructions_modernes. A single sentence could be added to Canoe#Touring_and_camping or Canoe#General recreation; it's a little tougher to figure out where it would fit in, since Canoe is a bit of a mess. WilyD 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with redirect, since it is a legitimate term. Does it have mention in a Canoe article or similar, so it can be directly defined? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The french article I linked says (more or less): "A canoe of average length measures around fifteen feet. Canoes of this length are convenient to be used alone and in pairs. Groups of roughly ten people can use a rebaska, longer and wider, measuring about 25-30 feet. (Amateurs of live water - I assume it means inexperienced paddlers or something) often use short canoes, shallower, made of some kind of plastic. WilyD 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Amateur" is a false friend. I'd translate as "whitewater enthusiasts". Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One small thing, I couldn't add the Wikidata (it said I was not logged on, don't know why) so I've tied the to together the "old" way at the bottom of each. Si Trew (talk) 22:44, 31 October 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.

Urban Okrug redirects[edit]

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 keep all as bad faith nominations, apparently by a sockpuppet of a banned user, with unanimous opposition to deletion (WP:SK points 2 and 4). Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sudak Urban Okrug[edit]

Not mentioned on target, thus misleading readers that want to read about it. And worse : No source provided that they are related at all. Derianus (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this and all "urban okrug → municipality" listings below. Okrug mentions the term as a kind of administrative division in some Slavic states. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 05:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with all those below per Hisashi-san. Ideally the term should be at the article, but the Ukrainian and Russian cognates (as defined at okrug) differ, so that could open a can of worms. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in the process of adding them to the articles, and the nominator perfectly knows this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I added the sourced info to the target.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be a bad faith nomination, possibly a spillover from the unpleasant debate at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine (which I have requested closure of at WP:ANRFC if anyone would care to have a look). Number 57 10:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. WilyD 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saki Urban Okrug[edit]

Not mentioned on target, thus misleading readers that want to read about it. And worse : No source provided that they are related at all. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yevpatoriya Urban Okrug[edit]

Not mentioned on target, thus misleading readers that want to read about it. And worse : No source provided that they are related at all. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feodosiya Urban Okrug[edit]

Not mentioned on target, thus misleading readers that want to read about it. And worse : No source provided that they are related at all. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feodosia Urban Okrug[edit]

Not mentioned on target, thus misleading readers that want to read about it. And worse : No source provided that they are related at all. Derianus (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the sock removed the sourced part [1] before nominating the redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Number 57 10:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. WilyD 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Armyansk Urban Okrug[edit]

Not mentioned on target, thus misleading readers that want to read about it. And worse : No source provided that they are related at all. Derianus (talk) 05:12, 31 October 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.

Kirchner un speech[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech

Empire of Soviet Socialist Republics[edit]

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) 11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase seems to be made up. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As it stands, this directs readers (if any) to where they likely want to go. Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off-remit: target was moved in Feb 2013
With this move by User:Trust Is All You Need on 3 February 2013, the "Soviet Empire" became "Soviet imperialism". I don't know why that was done: there doesn't seem to be anything relevant on the talk page, and certainly not a "Requested move". It was not done elegantly, as the lede still starts 'The informal term "Soviet Empire" is used by...' (WP:LEADSENTENCE recommends using the article title, with exceptions) not 'Soviet imperialism is...'. Only at the fourth and last para of the lede does 'The other dimension of "Soviet imperialism" is cultural imperialism...' appear, and even then in quotes and not defined. (An empire and imperialism are different things. ') So I'm not sure the move from "Soviet Empire" was wise and I'd be inclined to move it back, but that's off-remit. Soviet colonialism (redlink) is also a name used in one of the references.
  • Delete. Only created today, 0 views, 0 links beyond this discussion, WP:RFD#DELETE reason 8, "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". Mea culpa. Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a valid redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 31 October 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_31

Leave a Reply