This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2014.
Lotus: Legend Of The United States
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.
Delete: apparently the name of the album is believed to be acronym for "Legend Of The United States", but combination of acronym and its expansion don't seem overly plausible combined. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
16:46, 4 August 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.
Me. I Am Mariah World Tour
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.
Delete - Name of tour hasn't even been announced, and one concert in Singapore hardly confirms a tour at all, not to mention a world tour. —
₳aron15:40, 1 August 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.
Nondemocracy
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. This set of redirects has been listed for about two months and even relisted once, but there are multiple votes/opinions for the redirects. There is no consensus here. (
non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
We see throughout the world that countries that aren't the slightest bit democratic make a half-assed attempt at appearing that way. Such as North Korea calling itself "Democratic Republic" and claiming to guarantee free speech and religious rights, or the obviously fraudulent elections run in oppressive states. I've been trying to find an article that addresses this, since that would be the best target, but I'm failing at that. Maybe someone else knows where to point?
Ego White Tray (
talk)
21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
A single-party state does not automatically make it nondemocratic. If there are democratic processes within the party, then there's still a possibility of some sort of democracy. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
04:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)reply
You don't really want the sources: any Chinese editor may provide countless sources about PRC being the most democratic country ever. Likely, these sources would even outnumber the sources saying otherwise... —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I actually really would like to see such sources, if they are reliable enough to use on Wikipedia. I am not confident that there are reliable sources stating that single-party states can simultaneously be democratic, but you are welcome to produce some if you think otherwise.
Neelix (
talk)
13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I can't provide Chinese sources (I don't speak Chinese), but I can suggest Lenin's works (all of them, actually) as widely accepted sources stating that single-party communist regimes are inherently democratic. Pretty reliable primary third-party sources; or at least reliable per
WP:EXPERT. I believe the amount of communists these days allows to conclude that the view behind this source is prominent enough, if not most prominent. I am pretty confident that there are newer similar
WP:EXPERT sources, but I am not interested in Communist ideology enough to bother digging them. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
14:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Can you cite any in particular? If so, we can expand this redirect into an article on the subject. At present, none of the sources we have indicate a difference between single-party states and nondemocracies.
Neelix (
talk)
16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
See, nondemocracy is not all about single-party. Eg. pre-crysis Ukraine was arguably nondemocratic state with real multi-party political system, which arguably denied participation for vast majority of citizens as well. (I am not implying anything about Ukraine as it is now.) —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't see any difference between being arguably single-party and being arguably nondemocratic, just as I don't see any difference between being single-party and being nondemocratic. Even if excluding portions of the population from voting is unjust, it doesn't make a country nondemocratic. Women were excluded from voting in the early 19th-century United States, but we don't call the early 19th-century United States nondemocratic.
Neelix (
talk)
18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Under that standard, the Holy Roman Empire was a democracy, because electors elected the emperor, and did so each time the emperor died. Franchise was very limited, but some people were enfranchised. --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide how to define these words. We are only supposed to reproduce what is found in reliable sources on the subject. Even if you had sources stating that some people believe the Holy Roman Empire was a single-party state and simultaneously a democracy, that point of contention could easily be explained on the
Single-party state article with reference to that source.
Neelix (
talk)
16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Ilbo
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.
@
65.94.171.126: I oppose this retarget due to, a: the subject of newspapers is not especially Japanese or Korean, b:it is unlikely that Japanese or Korean users type Roman letters as opposed to Kana or Hangeul
TheChampionMan123411:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Normally I'd agree with (b), but a lot of these newspapers use "Ilbo" or "Shimbun" even in their English editions' titles, instead of translating their name (e.g. The Chosun Ilbo instead of "The Chosun Daily"), making it likely that an English-speaker will see the romanised form and wonder about it (i.e. plausible search term). Clearly
newspaper isn't the right target, but the country-specific lists might be.
quant18 (
talk)
11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Per Quant18, these terms are used in the English language names of newspapers from Korea and Japan. The only relevant articles for these terms are those that deal with Korea and Japan, and not the general newspaper article. What are especially Japanese or Korean are those papers from Japan or Korea, not the general topic of newspapers. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
But they are plausible search terms for someone who remembers half the name of a newspaper, and these lists are (theoretically) a perfect index for finding the full name—definitely preferable to browsing through pages of search results.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
This is exactly why I want to see these redirects deleted: we should not redirect fragments. If someone remembers part of the name of something, he should look up articles "List of something" and "Something in its country", but not name fragments he remembers. Alternatively we would end up with countless redirects like
geot→
Peugeot and
wski→
list of Polish people. Just don't feed editors with
WP:BADIDEAs. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget Ilbo to
List of newspapers in South Korea and Shimbun to
List of newspapers in Japan. Redirects exist as a service to our readers and when, as here, they are harmless and potentially useful they should be kept. As a BTW I don't subscribe to what I term the 'Chinese deletion rationale' ie 'if this article on X is kept then 1 million articles of the same type will be created'. They never are and we need to deal with each page on its merits.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
00:03, 2 August 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.
Nothing sucks like a vax
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. Consider this a
WP:REDLINK deletion—there may well be interest in this subject, but we currently have nothing to say about it. --
BDD (
talk)
00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Stubify:
as the story goes, this phrase was a slogan of
vax (vacuum), but it gained popularity among IT folks for obvious reasons. Provided that vax just copied slogan of Electrolux, retargetting this slogan there is not really a good idea. Neither is keeping current target, as apparently it was used against
CISC, and not
VAX in particular. It may, of course, be deleted per
WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 as obscure, but it would be a loss IMO: this amusing story would really improve the coverage of
RISC vs. CISC topic. The only problem is lack of sources – I can't find anything that would look like RS to pass
WP:GNG for this topic. I hope someone else will. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Page history says: "Nothing_sucks_like_a_vax has been viewed 51 times in the last 90 days." Someone is searching for the old slogan.
DreamFocus20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
2013 F1 Standings templates
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.
Delete. Unused, no prospect of use and misleading. The targets ({{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}) are intended to always contain the standings for the current season, i.e. they currently contains the 2014 standings. They will never again contain the 2013 standings. The existence of "2013" templates could possibly encourage the creation of other "year" templates (this has happened in the past).
DH85868993 (
talk)
10:24, 1 August 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.
SARS
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.
This redirect was created in 2003; on a few occasions since then, editors have sought to retarget it to the disambiguation page,
SARS (disambiguation). I request a determination as to whether there is consensus to change the longstanding target of this term.
bd2412T 02:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep as is. With the rise of MERS, SARS has increased its visibility. No other topic has global reach/coverage on the disambiguation page. --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
06:11, 1 August 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.
Eluosi
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 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2014.
Lotus: Legend Of The United States
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.
Delete: apparently the name of the album is believed to be acronym for "Legend Of The United States", but combination of acronym and its expansion don't seem overly plausible combined. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
16:46, 4 August 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.
Me. I Am Mariah World Tour
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.
Delete - Name of tour hasn't even been announced, and one concert in Singapore hardly confirms a tour at all, not to mention a world tour. —
₳aron15:40, 1 August 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.
Nondemocracy
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. This set of redirects has been listed for about two months and even relisted once, but there are multiple votes/opinions for the redirects. There is no consensus here. (
non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)reply
We see throughout the world that countries that aren't the slightest bit democratic make a half-assed attempt at appearing that way. Such as North Korea calling itself "Democratic Republic" and claiming to guarantee free speech and religious rights, or the obviously fraudulent elections run in oppressive states. I've been trying to find an article that addresses this, since that would be the best target, but I'm failing at that. Maybe someone else knows where to point?
Ego White Tray (
talk)
21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
A single-party state does not automatically make it nondemocratic. If there are democratic processes within the party, then there's still a possibility of some sort of democracy. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
04:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)reply
You don't really want the sources: any Chinese editor may provide countless sources about PRC being the most democratic country ever. Likely, these sources would even outnumber the sources saying otherwise... —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I actually really would like to see such sources, if they are reliable enough to use on Wikipedia. I am not confident that there are reliable sources stating that single-party states can simultaneously be democratic, but you are welcome to produce some if you think otherwise.
Neelix (
talk)
13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I can't provide Chinese sources (I don't speak Chinese), but I can suggest Lenin's works (all of them, actually) as widely accepted sources stating that single-party communist regimes are inherently democratic. Pretty reliable primary third-party sources; or at least reliable per
WP:EXPERT. I believe the amount of communists these days allows to conclude that the view behind this source is prominent enough, if not most prominent. I am pretty confident that there are newer similar
WP:EXPERT sources, but I am not interested in Communist ideology enough to bother digging them. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
14:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Can you cite any in particular? If so, we can expand this redirect into an article on the subject. At present, none of the sources we have indicate a difference between single-party states and nondemocracies.
Neelix (
talk)
16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
See, nondemocracy is not all about single-party. Eg. pre-crysis Ukraine was arguably nondemocratic state with real multi-party political system, which arguably denied participation for vast majority of citizens as well. (I am not implying anything about Ukraine as it is now.) —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't see any difference between being arguably single-party and being arguably nondemocratic, just as I don't see any difference between being single-party and being nondemocratic. Even if excluding portions of the population from voting is unjust, it doesn't make a country nondemocratic. Women were excluded from voting in the early 19th-century United States, but we don't call the early 19th-century United States nondemocratic.
Neelix (
talk)
18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Under that standard, the Holy Roman Empire was a democracy, because electors elected the emperor, and did so each time the emperor died. Franchise was very limited, but some people were enfranchised. --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide how to define these words. We are only supposed to reproduce what is found in reliable sources on the subject. Even if you had sources stating that some people believe the Holy Roman Empire was a single-party state and simultaneously a democracy, that point of contention could easily be explained on the
Single-party state article with reference to that source.
Neelix (
talk)
16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Ilbo
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.
@
65.94.171.126: I oppose this retarget due to, a: the subject of newspapers is not especially Japanese or Korean, b:it is unlikely that Japanese or Korean users type Roman letters as opposed to Kana or Hangeul
TheChampionMan123411:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Normally I'd agree with (b), but a lot of these newspapers use "Ilbo" or "Shimbun" even in their English editions' titles, instead of translating their name (e.g. The Chosun Ilbo instead of "The Chosun Daily"), making it likely that an English-speaker will see the romanised form and wonder about it (i.e. plausible search term). Clearly
newspaper isn't the right target, but the country-specific lists might be.
quant18 (
talk)
11:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Per Quant18, these terms are used in the English language names of newspapers from Korea and Japan. The only relevant articles for these terms are those that deal with Korea and Japan, and not the general newspaper article. What are especially Japanese or Korean are those papers from Japan or Korea, not the general topic of newspapers. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
But they are plausible search terms for someone who remembers half the name of a newspaper, and these lists are (theoretically) a perfect index for finding the full name—definitely preferable to browsing through pages of search results.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad)
03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)reply
This is exactly why I want to see these redirects deleted: we should not redirect fragments. If someone remembers part of the name of something, he should look up articles "List of something" and "Something in its country", but not name fragments he remembers. Alternatively we would end up with countless redirects like
geot→
Peugeot and
wski→
list of Polish people. Just don't feed editors with
WP:BADIDEAs. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Retarget Ilbo to
List of newspapers in South Korea and Shimbun to
List of newspapers in Japan. Redirects exist as a service to our readers and when, as here, they are harmless and potentially useful they should be kept. As a BTW I don't subscribe to what I term the 'Chinese deletion rationale' ie 'if this article on X is kept then 1 million articles of the same type will be created'. They never are and we need to deal with each page on its merits.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
00:03, 2 August 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.
Nothing sucks like a vax
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. Consider this a
WP:REDLINK deletion—there may well be interest in this subject, but we currently have nothing to say about it. --
BDD (
talk)
00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Stubify:
as the story goes, this phrase was a slogan of
vax (vacuum), but it gained popularity among IT folks for obvious reasons. Provided that vax just copied slogan of Electrolux, retargetting this slogan there is not really a good idea. Neither is keeping current target, as apparently it was used against
CISC, and not
VAX in particular. It may, of course, be deleted per
WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 as obscure, but it would be a loss IMO: this amusing story would really improve the coverage of
RISC vs. CISC topic. The only problem is lack of sources – I can't find anything that would look like RS to pass
WP:GNG for this topic. I hope someone else will. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Page history says: "Nothing_sucks_like_a_vax has been viewed 51 times in the last 90 days." Someone is searching for the old slogan.
DreamFocus20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
2013 F1 Standings templates
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.
Delete. Unused, no prospect of use and misleading. The targets ({{F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{F1 Constructors Standings}}) are intended to always contain the standings for the current season, i.e. they currently contains the 2014 standings. They will never again contain the 2013 standings. The existence of "2013" templates could possibly encourage the creation of other "year" templates (this has happened in the past).
DH85868993 (
talk)
10:24, 1 August 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.
SARS
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.
This redirect was created in 2003; on a few occasions since then, editors have sought to retarget it to the disambiguation page,
SARS (disambiguation). I request a determination as to whether there is consensus to change the longstanding target of this term.
bd2412T 02:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep as is. With the rise of MERS, SARS has increased its visibility. No other topic has global reach/coverage on the disambiguation page. --
65.94.169.222 (
talk)
06:11, 1 August 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.
Eluosi
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 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.