< January 29
January 31 >

January 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2015.

Kadaň

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake and modifications of mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 17:50, 30 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.

Pro-abortion violence

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, as the redirect has been converted into an article. Thanks, StAnselm, and good luck at AfD. (That's mostly a joke, but if it does go there and people start talking about redirecting, please let me know.) --BDD (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a term that would normally be searched for so the redirect seems to serve no purpose. jps (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got better results by searching for "Anti-abortion violence" (instead of pro-), and there is a very tiny possibility at Domestic terrorism in the United States, but I don't think it's very likely. Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @StAnselm: thanks for linking back to those. I don't want to give my views pro or anti abortion, but simply as a redirect, "Pro-abortion violence" is not mentioned at the target, whereas "...position, with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates sometimes using violence." is right in the lead. I am not sure that linking a redirect to an article without any mention of it serves any useful purpose. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - however, it is mentioned specifically at United States pro-life movement#Violence. StAnselm (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not specifically mentioned there. That section only alludes to violence against 'pro-lifers', which only superficially alludes to 'pro-abortion'. The linked article about a murderer does not say the motive for the killing was 'pro-abortion', but outrage about graphic posters inappropriate for children.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, this is not an appropriate target because it does not mention the idea of someone being violently "pro-abortion" (whatever that's supposed to mean -- I'm not even sure: it appears to be a Wikipedia neologism). jps (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could redirect to Numbers 5:11-22. Giving poisoned water to suspected adulteresses with the intent of causing abortions in guilty parties probably qualifies. Otherwise, delete.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2015 (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) 17:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I could cut the Gordian knot here and just create an article. The Google books hits seems to suggest that notability wouldn't be an issue; I'd just have to make sure it's neutrally worded. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 31 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.

Pied Piper

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 Pied Piper of Hamelin. Note that Pied Piper of Hamlin itself redirects there. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was pointed at Pied Piper of Hamlin, but was re-targeted to the disambiguation page by AffeL. Per WP:MALPLACED, either the redirect needs to be restored, or the disambiguation page (Pied Piper (disambiguation)) should be moved here. The incoming links to this redirect (66 at the time of the re-target) have already been modified to their article targets (63 to Pied Piper of Hamlin and one each to R. Kelly, Pied Piper (novel) and The Pied Piper (song)). Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:25, 30 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.

Lhasa prefecture-level city

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. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation for WP:FORKing without consensus. (See WT:CHINA#Category:Lhasa Prefecture for the ongoing discussion.) This redirect is poorly-named, is against naming conventions (see WP:NC-ZH and WP:NC-TIBET - both of which had been brought to the attention of the creator extensively prior to the creator's unilateral creation of this redirect) without a proper showing good reasons of deviation from the naming convention, and a not-completely-bad-faith-but-certainly-not-great-faith creation of a redirect to create a fait accompli. No Chinese city's article is currently named in this manner - a matter that has also been made abundantly clear to the creator. Delete.. Nlu (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nlu: With respect, this seems paranoid. If I wanted to create a fork, I would quietly start an article by this name. I would not start a redirect and advertise the fact in the discussion. I don't play games like that. Template:Lhasa Prefecture-level city has been around since 2007 and is widely used. It is a valid title. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was created by Dr. Blofeld. As such, I am not sure that using one's creation (not yours, but his) to bolster one's argument is valid. As far as I can tell, no other Chinese prefecture-level city has an analogously-named template. (Guangzhou, for example, has a template of ((Guangzhou)), not "Guangzhou prefecture-level city" (even though, as I've pointed out throughout the discussion, Lhasa is not unique in that the prefecture-level city is far larger than the historically-conceived city - Guangzhou contains many counties that were previously not considered part of Guangzhou, even going all the way back to Tang Dynasty).) --Nlu (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blofeld has done a lot of good work on Lhaza, which could perhaps be useful as examples of what should be done for other parts of China. Guangzhou, with an area of 7,434 km2, more than half of it urban, is not really comparable to Lhasa prefecture-level city with an area of 29,274 km2, less than 0.2% urban. Are you disputing the existence of Lhasa prefecture-level city? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing that it is a way in which the city is commonly referred to, the references in the article (grammatically poor as it is) notwithstanding.
And he has done a lot of good work on it. But that doesn't make Lhasa sufficiently exceptional for us to be breaking up a workable, and has-worked, naming scheme in favor of 287+ naming schemes that will become a nightmare. There is no good reason to do so when there the likelihood of the confusion avoided is no greater, and probably a lot smaller, than the likelihood of confusion to be created. Regardless, this doesn't provide a good argument that the redirect is a "likely" search string. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a plausible search term. A reader may be looking at the Top China Travel site, for example, and come across "Lhasa prefecture-level city covers an area of close to 30,000 km2" – an enormous city. Curious, they cut-and-paste "Lhasa prefecture-level city" into the Wikipedia search box... "Lhasa Prefecture" gets a lot more search results, e.g. Xinhua: 48,000 Tibetan Students in Lhasa Prefecture Complete Intensive Patriotic Education (6 January 2005). Presumably "Lhasa Prefecture" should also be a redirect, but I hesitate to make it one after this backlash. The idea is to make as likely as possible that the reader will be taken immediately to the article they are looking for, even if they did not use exactly the "right" search term. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lhasa Prefecture" is indeed a plausible search term - because, in fact, Lhasa (the prefecture-level city) was previously Lhasa Prefecture. In fact, Lhasa Prefecture already redirects to Lhasa. "Lhasa prefecture-level city" is simply poor style that is unlikely to be used as a search string. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is entirely possible that Top China Travel has been influenced by the use of "Lhasa prefecture-level city" in Wikipedia. Many of the sites that use the term seem to be copying from Wikipedia. Now we have to accommodate them, like Ouroboros. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:23, 31 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.

Scientific research

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. I'm adding a hatnote, and anyone should feel free to change the redirect into a WP:CONCEPTDAB. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing this redirect to a disambiguation page similar to this and adding Scientific Research Publishing as well as any others. A similar change was contested last year, hence the discussion. See also discussion here. Pings follow: Fred Bauder BD2412 Jdaloner VQuakr (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as noted in the earlier discussion, about 60 times as much traffic goes to Scientific method as to the article on the publishing house. But roughly equal amounts of traffic go to Scientific method via the redirect. The redirect, Scientific research, could also attract readers looking for basic research, applied research, research and development, Scientific Research Publishing, and probably a number of other articles. Are you saying that Scientific research should be converted to a standalone article with a hatnote to Scientific research (disambiguation) to cover the alternates? VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 30 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.

Multitasking (iOS)

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. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really was a ridiculous 1. article, 2. AfD (where merges are allowed outcomes contrary to discussion), 3. leftover redirect 4. dab entry at Multitasking (disambiguation) (where we have a primary topic WP:DABCONCEPT at Multitasking where examples should not be on the dab) 5. should all multitasking OSes get a redirect? no! to reduce the number of kittens from falling foul of this, best removed. Widefox; talk 00:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector Reasons to delete per WP:R#DELETE:
In fact, it looks like it was a merge that was done against consensus, which provides even more emphasis that the article should be restored. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out part of my statement, given that I overlooked the fact that it has been nominated for AfD in the past. I'm neutral on the nominator's suggestion below regarding moving the attributions. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that would be an acceptable solution. I'm also concerned that, having been done against consensus, that someone will want to undo the merge. There's a possibility that multitasking in iOS could be a valid content fork. I'm not sure how the search results work but wouldn't iOS multitasking also come up before Multitasking in a search? Ivanvector (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Users typing multitasking wouldn't get this as completed results, but iOS would, which seems more appropriate. Someone who knows more about the search may enlighten us.
The closure is suspect, so I simply challenge that and say it is per consensus and be done with it, rather than overturn the closure (or go down the route of unmerging without a newer consensus to do so - I for one would challenge the unmerge), let's just move on....
WP:SPINOUT seems to apply. It is one paragraph of iOS, and not too large an article. Although I'm aware that the topic of former versions of iOS not multitasking was highly newsworthy and an important limitation of those iOS, the topic probably doesn't have independent notability of iOS, and it is handled best in that article unless the usual size etc is an issue (which it isn't). A mention in the multitasking article may also be appropriate as a notable example of it's absence in a major OS. Widefox; talk 12:56, 31 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.
More