< June 5
June 7 >

June 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2014.

Φωνή

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) 20:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Greek word means ‘sound’ or ‘voice’, which are not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 18:40, 6 June 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.

NotAllMen

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting deletion of NotAllMen redirect. It is only briefly mentioned in the YesAllWomen article (being barely related to it), and does not meet WP:IMPORTANCE guidelines in any way on its own. - Shiori (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NotAllMen redirect should be removed. Both this page and the target page YesAllWomen fail WP:LASTING. Datavortex (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle (talk) 20:11, 8 June 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.

Template:No-link

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. Number 57 14:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a template for the notice that an article has no links, and this name seemed logical. Instead I get a link that apparently points to the Norwegian version of a page in redlinks. "No" means none much more often than it means Norwegian. I don't know the name of the template I'd like to retarget it to, so I simply can't do it myself. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck out vote. Rich Farmbrough's second comment has some merit; it's enough for me to retract my previous vote, but not enough to support their suggested resolution. I am now neutral in regards to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 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) 17:25, 6 June 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.

List of lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)

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. There also appears to be a general consensus that merging List of lakes named Fish Lake to Fish Lake is probably appropriate, although valid concerns were raised that this is not the right venue to discuss that specific suggestion. If someone wants to be bold and try it, any reversion would suggest that this did not have unanimous support and a proper discussion can then take place. Number 57 14:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"List of lakes named Fish Lake" is unlikely to be a term that requires disambiguation. DexDor (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, unlike many editors, when I say merge I am happy to actually do the merge, once we have consensus. I'll happily do it and ask one of the regulars here to check that I have it right before proposing the deletion. Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the list should be merged into the dab is a separate issue (to whether the redirect should be deleted). There are thousands of pages in CAT:SI that are more dab-like than this list (which has a name that clearly separates it from a dab and it has some, albeit wrongly formatted, references). Compare, for example, Alatyr; as that's not (tagged as) a dab any inlinks won't get a DPLbot warning etc. DexDor (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article is a DAB page, it is just pretending that it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's not titled like a dab page, it's not templated as a dab page and it doesn't follow several aspects of MOS:DAB so what do you mean by "it is a dab page" ? Alatyr and thousands of other pages currently tagged as SIAs are more dab-like than this is (partly because they occupy the title where a dab page would be). If you still disagree with me it would be helpful if you explained why. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a DAB page. It is a question of form and function. It functions as a DAB, it looks like a DAB, this is the duck test. It is a DAB, it jus pretends it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target article had dab tag removed some years ago so no salt needed. DexDor (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do such redirects get made to set indices, though? Personally, I think they should; the distinction between dabs and set indices is somewhat artificial, and almost certainly not made by readers. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the first part of that comment - what exactly do you think should happen ? DexDor (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering for a set index Foo, would a bot create a redirect Foo (disambiguation) to that page. In general, I think it should, though in this case, again, that would lead to recreation of this redirect if the target page isn't dealt with. I also don't know if a deleted page at a given title would prevent a bot from creating such a redirect. Probably not without salting, but it's possible. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be strange for a bot to create a "... (disambiguation)" redirect to a page that doesn't have a dab template on it - unless the bot looks at the category structure where (currently) CAT:SI is under CAT:DABP (which, btw, I don't think it should be). Also, there's no such redirect linking to, for example, List of lakes named Diamond which suggests the bot isn't creating such redirects. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, at least I hope, any bot creates redirects. I don't see how they could –; I mean technically yes it would be a doddle, and you probably have right now someone writing RedirectBot and increase our workload while we smother the thing. I can see what you (DexDor) are on about so it is a bit tricky, but in the end I stick to my guns, that Fish Lake as the DAB serves the turn perfectly well on its own without needing Fish Lake (disambiguation) and so on. Dynamite fishing is about the only kind of fishing I can do meself, or those little Truth-telling fish (intent like a Magic 8-ball but just a little bit of bimetallic strip or plastic that curls in your hand one way for truth the other for lie; you get them in Christmas crackers). Incidentally, thankfully we don't have Fish lake or Fish lake (disambiguation) to muddy the fishing waters further. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 12 May 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) 16:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This RFD (not AFD) is for a redirect that was created by a bot. DexDor (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you're right, it was created by User:RussBot. But it's unclear to me which part of its dabbing/redirecting functions this fell under, and it seems manually assisted by its owner. I am not arguing just for the sake of it: it is just unclear to me what the purpose was on this occasion. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's technically not a disambiguation page. The SIA/dab distinction is mostly artificial, though, and unlikely to be recognized by readers. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is largely a cosmetic relist to superficially decrease the backlog. Further comments are still appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are disambiguating a term (in this case "Fish Lake") there are three cases.
  1. It should go to one of the target terms (Fish Lake (Utah))
  2. It should go to a target we don't have yet (Fish Lake, Arkansas County)
  3. It is correctly pointing to the disambiguation page.
Case 1 is easy, Case 2 we leave it for the next disambiguation run, where the article Fish Lake, Arkansas County might have been created (or we point it to the red-link). In the third case we point it to Fish Lake (disambiguation) - this indicates that the link is deliberate. Because this is often a semi-automated system we want the "(disambiguation)" pages to be ubiquitous.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Thanks for reply Rich. Two questions:
  1. You seem to be imply that List of lakes named Fish Lake is a disambiguation page, in the Wikipedia sense, while I would have termed it a stand-alone list (WP:L); WP:DAB suggests that DAB pages shouldn't include entries not mentioned in other Wikipedia articles (see MOS:DABRL), which is the main difference between List of lakes named Fish Lake and Fish Lake. In your last sentence, you refer to pages that "act as disambiguation pages" - are you making the distinction that List of lakes named Fish Lake is not a DAB page, but acts similarly to DAB pages?
  2. By "common ground" guaranteeing "a '(disambiguation)' page exists for all pages that act as disambiguation pages", do you mean that there is a policy/guideline that states this, that there was a consensus decision on this, that it's a generally adopted but unendorsed practice, or something else? I have not found a similar practice followed with other non-DAB pages that act like DAB pages, for example Streets named after Adolf Hitler, List of roads named after Mahatma Gandhi, List of streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr., List of places named after Vladimir Lenin, List of rivers named Sainte-Anne, List of lakes named Timber Lake, List of lakes named Diamond, List of lakes named Paw Paw Lake, List of lakes named Rocky Lake in Nova Scotia, List of Michigan lakes named Long Lake , and so on, except when such a page was formerly, improperly tagged as a DAB page (for example List of lakes named Summit Lake in British Columbia, in which case a bot created a "(disambiguation)" redirect).
--Agyle (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of this particular reason turns on set index articles. A set index article is effectively a dab page for one "type" of thing. I believe the concept came about with ships, the USS Foo, it was argued is guaranteed to be a ship, and the page is an index of the set of ships called USS Foo. I have never been happy with this distinction - in the current case, for example Fish Lake contains nothing but places, and is arguably a set index for places. If we added a book called "Fish Lake" it would become a DAB page. It seems to me that the distinction is drawn solely so that SIAs can break the "rules" for a DAB page - unlinked entries, extra links, explanatory text. On the other hand I have always seem the DAB rules as too restrictive, instead of looking at what is useful to the reader. We don't, for example, want a separate page Mahatma Gandhi Road as a DAB (or do we?), List of roads named after Mahatma Gandhi is quite sufficient. Given there is no disambiguation page, what should we do with a link to Mahatma Gandhi Road?
(The common ground is for DAB pages proper, and that is what I said. For the reasons outlined above, and also that a page can flip-flop from being a DAB to a SIA and back, I support a broader interpretation, certainly of not removing (disambiguation) redirects to pages that act as disambiguation pages.)
It is also the case that this redirect is 4 years old and has never caused a problem that we know of (apart from this RfD). So external links to this redirect may well exist. Nothing is gained by deleting it. As the RfD page says, only consider deleting redirects that are new or harmful.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC).
Some pages may "flip-flop from being a DAB to a SIA and back", but a page with a title like this shouldn't. As Agyle has pointed out above, most such "List of..." pages don't have such a redirect; it only exists here because someone incorrectly tagged the page as a dab and a bot then created the redirect. Having such a redirect adds unnecessary complication to the distinction between dabs and SIAs. DexDor (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, very informative post, I didn't know about set indices before, and that's a good explanation. I still don't really get what you mean by common ground, or whether the "(disambiguation)" you're suggesting is policy/guideline/consensus-based. I considered your summary of WP:RFD to "only consider deleting redirects that are new or harmful"...RFD lists 10 reasons to delete redirects, and mine is #5, "makes no sense". It also lists 6 reasons not to delete, including the risk of breaking external links to a redirect. There is always some risk of that, whether a redirect was created a minute ago or a decade ago, so I take it to mean a reasonably likely risk; in this case, I just don't think there is. I checked Google (admittedly not a comprehensive search engine), and it returned no sites with external links to either the redirect or to the article itself. Agyle (talk) 05:21, 9 June 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.

Roman imperial coinage

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. The nomination has found no support for deletion and, despite two relistings, no consensus has emerged as to whether the present target or Roman currency#Empire is preferable. There have been no comments made for the last week so I see no benefit in a further relisting. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated at RfD on 6 April (discussion here), the result of the discussion was Retarget to Roman currency. However we also have Roman Imperial currency which retargets to a section there: it did retarget to a nonexistent section, I think the section name must have changed, but the dates were all wrong and had "BCE" instead of "BC" for the first date.

Anyway I have fixed that, and left a courtesy note at the section heading saying Roman Imperial currency redirects there, so hopefully that won't happen again. I also marked it as R to section.

The main thing is I translated Roman Imperial Coinage from the French (whoever it was who predicted it would be turned into an article sooner or later was right), and moved it to that capitalisation since it is a book title (as User:Fayenatic london pointed out on the original RfD). Now I am wondering if this redirect, which is only linked from that user's talk page, should go. I have marked it as ((R from alternate capitalization)) but I am inclined to let the search engine deal with it. We don't have an R from alt caps at Roman imperial currency, for example, and I am inclined to suggest deleting it while we have the chance. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to section Roman currency#Empire, per User:Fayenatic london. The hatnote there is currently technically incorrect, because Roman imperial coinage does not (yet) redirect there: but the newly-created Roman imperial currency and the old Roman Imperial currency do (but don't need hatnoting). For balance, should Roman Imperial Currency redirect to Roman Imperial Coinage as ((R from incorrect title))? That would seem symmetrical, then, and we can add a hatnote at Roman Imperial Coinage to Roman currency#Empire. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right about the hatnote, I made it before I read your note properly and realised that this discussion was under way. I agree that the capitalisation Roman Imperial Currency seems less likely as a casual link to the general topic; someone typing that would probably intend the catalogue, so I agree your suggested redirect of that name to the new article. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've hatnoted at Roman Imperial Coinage to Roman Empire#Currency, though you may have a better idea where it should hatnote (Roman currency?) and perhaps these deserve a DAB since there is Roman provincial currency and so on. I am not a numismatist, I can't even fish a silver threepenny bit out of a christmas pudding, so perhaps we should take it to the experts at Portal:Numismatics or something, to decide where the redirects or DABs should go?
I am not sure what the difference is technically between "coinage" and "currency". Etymologically, "currency" just means whatever is current and so anything that you can exchange for something else, whereas "coinage" obviously refers to coins as opposed to notes, slates and so on (the Swedes used to have banknotes on copper in the 17th century and their wallets were very heavy and that is why they had to stay in Sweden, or pay for extra baggage on the boat to Minnesota). This is why I think we need an expert opinion. Obviously the catalogue is called what it is called, but for the average reader, what is the distinction between currency and coinage? Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, BDD. The search engine used to be rubbish with caps and so on, but it has got a little but better so that ((R from alternate capitalization)) is almost redundant. I am an inclusionist by nature, but these hinder a search from the bozos who come here to find porn our intelligent audience. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 10 May 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) 16:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is largely a cosmetic relist to superficially decrease the backlog. Further comments are still appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many cases where we have different targets for different capitaliɀations - and legitimately, in this case we have I suppose 4 possible capitaliɀations:
  1. Roman imperial coinage
  2. Roman Imperial coinage
  3. Roman imperial Coinage
  4. Roman Imperial Coinage

Quite sensibly #3 does not exist, #2 does - and it seems people have a habit of capitaliɀing "imperial" so that makes sense. Obviously #1 refers to the concept (and is a ((Redirect with possibilities)) and #4 is the article about the catalogue itself. The decision about the correct target of #2 seems moot, however if we make it the concept we have to put the illiterate "Imperial" in the hatnote - whereas the article about the catalogue can have a ((For)) hatnote. So I would recommend:

  1. Roman imperial coinage - article
  2. Roman Imperial coinage -> Roman Imperial Coinage
  3. Roman imperial Coinage - doesn't exist - leave it that way
  4. Roman Imperial Coinage -> Roman currency#Empire

In other words swap the two redirects.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 9 June 2014 (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.

""Ed. D.""

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) 20:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, title does not conform to WP:MOS for naming, unlikely to be linked. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 6 June 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.
More