April 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 26, 2016.

National Public Alert System

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) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proper name is National Public Alerting System. NOT Alert. www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/mrgnc-prprdnss/ntnl-pblc-lrtng-sstm-eng.aspx CoolCanuck (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create that too then. No need for an RFD. Valid search term ViperSnake151  Talk  22:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure now. There are/were other national alert systems such as the British Four-minute warning or the American it says at KWO35 the "NWR public alert system" which I know what it means but don't know what officially it is called (and can't find it), the alerts on National Public Radio in the United States and broadcast to all television stations, National Warning something I imagine (not at the dab at NWR)... perhaps that was just in Houston where I lived (flood warnings mostly) but I thought the system was national (i.e. the US). Perhaps this is a bit of a DAB job (or delete to help search)? National emergency -> State of emergency which is probably going the wrong way. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (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.

Relief energy

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator and refined to section Terrain#Relief. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC). User:Bermicourt has added WP:RS to target and thence is to argue on its talk page. If only everything were so easy.[reply]
Not at target. This is used, an article I have been copy-editing on request at Climate of Hungary, and I linked it was not linked before the words were used. This is not at the target. Relief terrain and
go there, but not this one. Could mean kinda any kind of hydrokinetic energy or stored energy, in the article I am ce'ing this means the amount of snergy stored by heat absorbtion in the soil, roughly, but this is no good WP:RFD#D2 not at target. If it is a technical term we should either have something about it or delete it per WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relief energy is a geographical term meaning referring to the ruggedness of an area of terrain. I've added this at the target with a reference. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: thanks for doing that, but I think perhaps undue prominence in the lede per WP:UNDUE? But that is for article talk, perhaps knock it down to section Relief? Not sure you are the expert. But I am quite happy to Withdraw my nomination and thanks to Bermicourt for adding it. Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes I think you're probably right. Let me tweak it. And thanks for drawing this to my attention. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2016 (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.

Low-Flying Aircraft

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 newly written disambiguate page at low-flying aircraft. (WP:involved closure to enact unanimous consensus that is overdue for a week.) Deryck C. 09:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-flying aircraft redirects to Low flying military training & this page (Low-Flying Aircraft) redirects to a Portuguese film, so I nominate it to be renamed as "Low-Flying Aircraft (Portuguese film)" Houdinipeter (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Since this RfD was first posted, Low-flying aircraft has been made into a dismabig page and is no longer a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yep, the lowercase terms in the general and the uppercase for the specific. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2016 (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.

Evan Hoffman

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. Deryck C. 11:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect leads to a page which does not mention the subject. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2016 (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.

Preben Elkjar-Arsen

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) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a plausible misspelling of Preben Elkjær Larsen. – PeeJay 16:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably is a plausible ((R from typo)) Keep as harmless WP:RFD#K5, someone finds it useful. There are eight other redirects to this target, all with name and caps variations; none other has the missing "L", but keep as ((R from typo)). The fact that Preben Elkjar is at that target without the Larsen bit of the surname (even though that's in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) I could quite easily see that someone would add the "Larsen" and just miss the L. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are two typos in this redirect: it should be Elkjaer not Elkjar, and it seems like "Arsen" is a little bit pejorative. – PeeJay 11:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect English-language speakers to know Scandinavian transliterations, but I hadn't considered that, you think it is someone saying Arse? It had not occured to me, honestly. I had assumed it was just a typo. If it's pejorative (in English) it should definitely go, but I don't think it is particulary. People might pun or take the mick out of the English soccer manager Arsen Wenger but it is never meant harmfully, it is just English sarcasm.
But if there is any doubt it was created deliberately as a slur, it should definitely go, thus
Delete per User:PeeJay2K3, plenty o' other redirects to this target, plenty of ways to find this person. No internal links, stats are well below noise level (zero beyond this discussion.) Si Trew (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2016 (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.

Paso doble

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, keep, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually, delete Passo Doble, as it is an error. Passo is Portuguese but doble is Spanish; the title is nonsense. Per IMDb, the actual alternate title is Paso Doble. I will correct the article. The Spanish dance is primary topic here, the band and the film can be hatnoted. Also worth noting that the Portuguese name for the dance is also pasodoble. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you so far, passo doble is not at the target Pas în doi, but then, "Paso doble" is, so if we're not careful we will have to make a decison between the two remaining which is WP:PRIMARY for the redirect Paso doble: Pas în doi (in lede) or Pasodoble (in lede). Is a bit WP:XY I think. Certainly whatever we do I think a few hatnotes are in order. Since Pasodoble is essentially a stub if you watch past the needs improvement from Spanish wikipedia tags, it is hardly any more length (with no more reliable sources, i.e. none either.) Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bobody is doubting I think that they are the same root words as pas de deux is (Father of Twins?) but not pas-de-deux. The thing is to an Énglish-speaking audience what would they mean? Si Trew (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Passo Doble" isn't in the film article any more because I corrected it. You're probably right about the word origin (roughly "two-step") but pas de deux is a partner dance specific to ballet, while pasodoble is an entire (unrelated) genre of music and associated dance. Both are well known in English, to the extent that ballroom dances can be well known. I'm not sure the same can be said about the Romanian film. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I hadn't thought to look up Two-step which is a DAB at which Two-step (dance move) is the first entry, but that doesn't mention the term (in any kinda approximate form), so that's out. Just ruling that one out, that's all. Our dance move coverage seems pretty poor overall, I must say. Probably they're all too busy watching Strictly Come Dancing to write on Wikipedia. We do have WP:WikiProject Dance but since this is just a matter of linguistics not dancing I don't think it is worthwhile notifying them, do you? No doubt it is the same word in lotsa other Latinate languages, I just not sure that any of them get people to where they would want to go. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, Tavix, but then Paso Doble (band) sticks out a bit like a sore thumb – an article usually trumps a redirect. A bit of a mess all round, I agree (my nominations usually are.) Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we could put a "See also" at Two-step (dance move) to Pasodoble saying "A Spanish dance, literally, a two-step" (and maybe to the Roma dance by same token) since it describes essentially the fundamentals of the dance move in plain English, unfortunately without any pictures of your feet like wot I learnt from when dancing in front of a mirror. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it's just a name. Two-step (dance move) is yet another entirely different style of dance from pasodoble and pas de deux. And these are all their names in English, which typically doesn't bother translating the native names of dances into English. Maybe because so many of them translate to things like "two step". Point being, someone looking for info on pasodoble is quite unlikely to look by typing two-step. These could perhaps be see-alsos to each other, but I don't think hatnotes will help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of quickstep. Our two step article is just describing a component of dance. I'm not really sure it should even be an article. (Might also be confused with dubstep). Argh, this topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2016 (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.

Youssof

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 Yusuf. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I don't think this is very satisfactory as an ((R from personal name)) considering the very many other similar spellings we have of this name. Essentially reopening the previous discussion, it is not clear to me this had any consensus, but only for this one (thanks to User:Tavix for making name DABs at the other two I nominated.) The result was "Name index/keep" with admin User:Deryck Chan closing but it is not clear from the previous discussion which if any had consensus to keep. No harm if it is but I have no desire to open the other two (I listed all three, but not just because I were the nom, but that I think only this one may not have had consensus.) Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed it on its talk page, referring back to here and the previous discussion. It is easier to keep the discussion in one place. I mentioned that up there read up and note that the talk page was created and my reference to it before your entry here. Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix and SimonTrew: When one has a concern about the closure of some subset of a bundled RfD nomination, I think unbundled renomination is a sensible course of action, though I agree that it'd be better if the closing admin was consulted before the renomination took place. But that doesn't matter now, because the big debate we're having here about keep vs retarget suggests that renomination would have been the correct course of action anyway.
I also personally agree with the notion that given names should be blue links as long as there is at least one biography on Wikipedia whose subject's given name has exactly that spelling. Youssof should remain a bluelink that leads to someone called Youssof; but I'm open to disambiguation either on Youssof or at Yusuf with other people who are also referred to as "Youssof" in English-language sources. So, my personal vote is don't delete; ambivalent about keep/dab/retarget. Deryck C. 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Deryck, to unbundle was possible, but since I think there was consensus for the two Tavix made a bloody good job of DABing, it only left this one, so to renominate the other two would be absurd. I just shepherded this one out as I felt not having consensus, I was trying not to do makework by adding the other two to it.~Let it go, it's done, let's concentrate on where this little bugger should go. I don't think anyone is suggesting it is deleted. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender suggested delete ;) Deryck C. 16:53, 28 April 2016 (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.

Judiciary of Iceland

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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target has very little content on this notable topic which creates a misleading blue link in the judiciaries of Europe lists/templates (see ex. the template at the bottom of Judiciary of Sweden). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 26 April 2016 (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.

Judiciary of Tanzania

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable topic should have its own article, rather then redirect to an article about on of the country's courts. Misleading blue link redirect in the judiciaries of Africa lists/templates (see ex. the template at the bottom of Judiciary of Egypt). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 26 April 2016 (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.

Judiciary of Uganda

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target has very little content on this notable topic which creates a misleading blue link in the judiciaries of Africa lists/templates (see ex. the template at the bottom of Judiciary of Egypt). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 26 April 2016 (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.

Silver Taps

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 Taps#Echo Taps and Silver Taps. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Taps#Echo Taps and Silver Taps. Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree, I wouldn't even attempt it, but we're not discussing the content', we're discussing the redirect. Content discussions should go at the content page. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2016 (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.