Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 26

2583:. I have notified the admin, in the politest way I could, by mentioning the admin here. I notified Tavix, and I said that I was the original proposer of all three. It is not me who is standing on ceremony, here, Tavix. If an admin does not wish to reply then I don't have to go hunting them, I can request them to remove admin rights for not replying promplty to a discussion. That is patently not the case here, since Derkck C. 2214:. 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. 2763:. Between Mr. Kohzad (whose name is spelled Youssof 100% of the time, but who does not appear to have a great deal of long term significance) and Yusuf ibn Tashfin (whose name is spelled Youssof only some of the time, but who has a far greater claim to long-term significance), I do not see that we have a 3251:

Useful, as it leads to content. This redirect points to what we have on the topic, which is exactly what redirects are for. Many of the country-related redirects were created to reduce the number of red links in the country outlines, so that they could serve their purpose better as tables of contents

3121:

for now. If you turn it into a redlink, only listing will be in the template and there is a general (though obviously not universal) rule that redlinks are subject to pruning from templates with little notice. If that happens, the redlink may turn into an orphan. That said, I see your point about

3788:

Useful, as it leads to the relevant content. Many of the country-related redirects were created to reduce the number of red links in the country outlines, so that they could serve their purpose better as tables of contents for the material on Knowledge (XXG) about their respective countries. When

2826:

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

2501:: he's the only person with this name on Knowledge (XXG), so he is the primary topic for "Youssof." Like I mentioned last time, the proper way to solve the fact that there are similar spellings is to employ a hatnote that lists all the plausible spelling someone could be looking for instead. -- 2187:

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.

3160:, and I agree with Rossami there is a tendency to take them out in a lot of projects (I presume so they "look nicer" or "look more complete" or something) but this one seems happy to keep them in. Certainly I know when I was editing a few years ago for a series of articles on the 2530:

I thought the right forum to list redirects for discussion was redirects for discussion. Thank you for the two dab's (once again) I think you did them better than I could have, nice job. I don't "keep relisting it", I have done a second listing which is what a lot of admins do

4048:

also red. As a proper name, I think this is OK. I just went around checking other possibilities, within and without Knowledge (XXG), and as far as I can see it couldn't refer to anything but this organisation. Current target has it, but Godsy's suggestion has it better.

2437:

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.)

3190:

useful. If an editor navigating through that felt, sheesh, I could expand on that, then all to the better, and for a reader, it gives them as much as we have got. (Of course most editors are readers too, but I am making the distinction of which hat they are wearing.)

3233:

I think it's better to provide readers with the minimal information that is available at the target than no information at all. If an editor wants to create a standalone article about Iceland's judiciary in the future, there is nothing stoping them from doing so. --

817:

There should really be a discussion of the general legal framework in the major countries, any international understandings, safety issues, etc., with civil and military cases as subsections. Yes the military focus is iffy but at least the article exists. — Cheers,

3214:(which lists only 43 of the 200-odd countries in the world). The challenge for us is that the intended exhaustiveness of any given list is a judgement that can be changed at any time by the editors working the template. It makes for difficult judgement calls. 3205:

Comment: You are correct that there is no such policy but that there is a tendency. In my experience, it depends on whether the template is intended to be an exhaustive list or not. Contrast, for example, the template used here (an exhaustive list of the

2109:

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.

1015:

is not the same as the military training and most any airplane can be "low-flying" with the right pilot (or the wrong pilot but usually only very briefly). But the other findings are sufficient to allow this as a disambiguation page. More precisely,

2100:

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

1838:

Might be better to DAB all of them (including the band) because these are not common English spellings but perfectly reasonable English usages (I think). What say you 70.51? As it is, we always should favour an article over a redirect so

2473:, just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean you should keep listing it. (Honestly, this isn't even the correct juristidiction. Problems with a close should be addressed at the admin's talk page, and, if still not resolved, 3122:

the historical perspective of judiciaries in the geographic location of Iceland as different from the judiciary of the current political entity known as Iceland. I don't know of any articles on that historical perspective. The

3393:

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

3126:

page could most plausibly be turned into that historical perspective, in which case the current target is best. That page has multiple issues noted so there's hope for a rewrite. In the meantime, this looks least-bad to me.

1249:, he was formerly employed there as an Assistant Rabbi. While it is acceptable and often encouraged to redirect a non-notable topic to a more notable parent, a former employer of no especial note is too tenuous even for me. 2515:

You made clear your opinion but the closing remarks did not, because we have one closing remark for all three of them without my knowing which meant to keep and which to do otherwise, there was no clear consensus

2864:

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

2652:. If you're hesitant, ask for second opinions on the respective Talk pages. I appreciate you're wanting to be sure you have consensus before making a change but that's not really the point of this forum. 2074:

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.

3451:. The High Courts are not linked there, to the current target or anything else, but that may be a sensible thing to do too; then we could redlink the other four branches of the Tanzanian judiciary 2549:

If you have a problem with Deryck Chan's closure, then talk to him about it on his talk page. He has been very good about clarifying closures when requested. If you still disagree with him, then

2830:

I also personally agree with the notion that given names should be blue links as long as there is at least one biography on Knowledge (XXG) whose subject's given name has exactly that spelling.

803:

That looks iffy as well. Not all low-flying aircraft are military aircraft, let alone military aircraft in training. Perhaps that is the only notable topic about low-flying aircraft, though. --

1283:

Well I'll be blowed, Rossami has said Delete – and Rossami is usually on the Keep side, so that itself is good enough for someone who says more often delete, but it is indeed too tenuous and

2797: 3104:, but that would be not so good a target either. as it stands, this takes English-speaking readers exactly where they are likely to go. I was just looking for ~plausible alternatives. 2535:

here at RfD when they see no consensus that they see; not being an admin I thought best to discuss it with the participants themselves before taking it through being a point of order.

2603:. Since it is a piped username without a talk link, I do not think I am out of order bringing it back here. I have duly notified the admin of both discussions as requested by Tavix. 1891: 39: 34: 2789: 2405: 3661:

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

3050:

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

3252:

for the material on Knowledge (XXG) about their respective countries. When the section grows big enough, the redirect can be deleted and the section split off to that title.

2575:

I think if an admin is pinged (twice) on a discussion the admin should reply here. Until then, I don't think it should go farther. There is not a lot of point putting it on

4070:

unique to Texas A&M nor, by any reliable source I can find, did it originate there. The section retarget has its own problems but they are probably more manageable.

3472:

per Si Trew. The section is thin but the concept of the entire judiciary is broader than a single court. I have cross-linked the High Court article within the section.

2022:

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.)

120: 2425:

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

2672:

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

714:

short story which was made into a Portuguese film which is often referred to by its English name. If this redirect is confusing, I suggest the short story collection

1567:, 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.) 3370: 1504:, 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 912:, but both should probably be deleted since that's too narrow a topic. There should be no prejudice against renominating for deletion on those grounds. -- 3027: 2591:, I listed here with a genuine feeling this had not achieved consensus, I would rather hear people's views about where they think it should go than an 494:

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. --

3638: 1438: 644: 21: 2456:(or DAB, or add to an existing DAB of similar spellings). Directing a first name to a specific article is just absurd and incredibly misleading. 4218: 3816: 3545: 3279: 2931: 2284: 2235:. 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 1603: 1542:

You can't expect English-language speakers to know Scandinavian transliterations, but I hadn't considered that, you think it is someone saying

1323: 1121: 315: 2062:"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 4121:

I believe their meaning was that the content itself within the section of the proposed retarget could use work (i.e. "has its own problems").

3904: 3163: 959: 738: 715: 2165:

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.)

17: 2561:

It sounds like that is the case here. Reopening it here is just going to rehash the previous discussion, which, IMO, is a waste of time. --

1074: 261:

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

2772: 432: 3690: 3423: 3080: 1870: 1825: 1530:

Except there are two typos in this redirect: it should be Elkjaer not Elkjar, and it seems like "Arsen" is a little bit pejorative. –

1207: 792:. Many visitors will not distinguish between capitalisations and to send them each to different destinations is unhelpful. — Cheers, 3910: 2595:

between thee and me. I would have notified the admin if he had left his user talk page on the RfD closure, as I always do even as a

1771: 1550:) 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 862: 2771:; Mr. Kohzad does not qualify automatically just because he's the only person whose Knowledge (XXG) article is spelled Youssof). 1737: 1701: 997:

per Deryck. Yeah, that sounds better. Either this or the lowercase variant should be the dab, and other should redirect there. --

638: 470:, 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 2827:

debate we're having here about keep vs retarget suggests that renomination would have been the correct course of action anyway.

1350: 149: 3207: 3147: 3789:

the section grows big enough, the redirect can be deleted and the section split off to that title, to maintain continuity.

2873:

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

2106: 385: 2559:

Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.

2491: 2420: 2378: 931: 3144:. I don't think there is any policy to remove redlinks from navboxes, and the specific navbox I assume Rossami means is 2524:'s closing remark. We are all big boys here and it would not serve any good for me to revert the whole discussion, list 955: 905: 3863: 3592: 3326: 2978: 2764: 2498: 2331: 1996:, but then, "Paso doble" is, so if we're not careful we will have to make a decison between the two remaining which is 1650: 1397: 1168: 595: 362: 265:

in the United States and broadcast to all television stations, National Warning something I imagine (not at the dab at

77: 4130: 3946: 3790: 3515: 3253: 769: 747: 238: 2579:, very few replies are got for talking on an redirect's page. It does not seem to be to be me the one who is saying 4224: 4212: 4187: 4138: 4109: 4079: 4058: 4028: 3954: 3889: 3822: 3810: 3795: 3780: 3763: 3738: 3721: 3698: 3677: 3617: 3551: 3539: 3520: 3502: 3481: 3464: 3431: 3410: 3351: 3285: 3273: 3258: 3243: 3223: 3200: 3136: 3113: 3088: 3066: 3006: 2937: 2925: 2898: 2886: 2853: 2804: 2780: 2741: 2720: 2685: 2661: 2640: 2612: 2570: 2544: 2510: 2481: 2465: 2447: 2357: 2290: 2278: 2251: 2226: 2197: 2174: 2152: 2119: 2087: 2057: 2031: 1987: 1939: 1903: 1878: 1864: 1833: 1680: 1609: 1597: 1576: 1537: 1525: 1475: 1419: 1356: 1329: 1317: 1300: 1278: 1262: 1239: 1188: 1127: 1115: 1096: 1055: 1037: 1006: 987: 969: 947: 921: 893: 876: 827: 812: 773: 751: 727: 703: 684: 675:

ircraft) redirects to a Portuguese film, so I nominate it to be renamed as "Low-Flying Aircraft (Portuguese film)"

623: 552: 538: 503: 487: 398: 321: 309: 292: 246: 217: 196: 177: 99: 2580: 1513: 3776: 3498: 3239: 1512:. The fact that Preben Elkjar is at that target without the Larsen bit of the surname (even though that's in the 4100:

to leave a courtesy note at the section that it is thus marked, if you are thinking just as a procedural worry.

2588: 3157: 1971:

here, the band and the film can be hatnoted. Also worth noting that the Portuguese name for the dance is also

1084: 3972: 2842:

with other people who are also referred to as "Youssof" in English-language sources. So, my personal vote is

2776: 1465: 190: 3751: 2554: 3694: 3427: 3364: 3084: 2461: 1874: 1829: 765: 743: 723: 680: 2628: 1924: 1816:, and is shown as such in the intro sentence. The film can be indicated in a hatnote, just like the band 1427: 4206: 4091: 3859: 3804: 3588: 3533: 3442: 3359: 3322: 3267: 2974: 2919: 2895: 2850: 2834:

should remain a bluelink that leads to someone called Youssof; but I'm open to disambiguation either on

2716: 2327: 2272: 2203: 2180: 2102: 2097: 1646: 1591: 1393: 1311: 1235: 1185: 1164: 1109: 984: 966: 944: 889: 823: 797: 699: 620: 591: 543:

Hmm, yes I think you're probably right. Let me tweak it. And thanks for drawing this to my attention. --

358: 303: 262: 73: 4066:. "Silver Taps" is just another name for "Echo Taps" and despite their self-serving literature, it is 848: 844: 613: 3772: 3529: 3511: 3494: 3490: 3448: 3235: 3178:) is not so great, because it suggests we have a full article and not just a section, but we do have 2247: 2222: 2083: 1983: 1935: 1507: 1490: 548: 499: 173: 4085: 3686: 3419: 3175: 3153: 3101: 3076: 2649: 1997: 1288: 475: 459: 53:

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

4183: 4105: 4054: 4024: 3759: 3717: 3460: 3196: 3174:

To link a redirect via section (in a navbox or any other kind of navigation, a DAB for example per

3123: 3109: 3051: 3021: 2882: 2737: 2681: 2636: 2608: 2540: 2443: 2193: 2170: 2115: 2053: 2027: 1899: 1860: 1572: 1534: 1521: 1472: 1344: 1296: 1201: 1105: 1092: 1068: 1051: 1019: 976: 909: 872: 840: 785: 761: 691: 609: 534: 483: 474:

not at target. If it is a technical term we should either have something about it or delete it per

463: 394: 288: 254: 213: 4016: 4012: 3152:, which has plenty of redlinks, those are just "stuff we haven't done yet" and is fine by me, per 1968: 1196: 4041: 4008: 4004: 3992: 3988: 3968: 3662: 3632: 3611: 3395: 3345: 3000: 2041: 1952: 1912: 1760: 455: 280: 185: 4097: 4045: 4037: 3984: 2759: 2592: 2433:

for making name DABs at the other two I nominated.) The result was "Name index/keep" with admin

518: 3980: 3729:

for now per the "Iceland" discussion above. Redlinks and templates don't play well together.

1546:? It had not occured to me, honestly. I had assumed it was just a typo. If it's pejorative (in 4148: 4075: 3734: 3671: 3477: 3404: 3219: 3211: 3132: 3060: 2754: 2657: 2457: 2162: 1840: 1817: 1557:

But if there is any doubt it was created deliberately as a slur, it should definitely go, thus

1258: 1033: 719: 676: 269:)... perhaps that was just in Houston where I lived (flood warnings mostly) but I thought the 3979:

meant (Br. Eng.) taps plated (coated) with silver. Not at the target there and we don't have

3858:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3607: 3587:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3341: 3321:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2996: 2992: 2973:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2326:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1645:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1392:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1163:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1080: 1011:

My first inclination was "delete as an obvious phrase with no unique encyclopedic content".

590:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

357:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

226: 72:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3885: 2892: 2847: 2729: 2712: 2584: 2521: 2434: 1432: 1415: 1231: 1182: 1079:. Nobody nominated that R for discussion here, nor did anyone create a draft DAB, so I took 981: 963: 941: 885: 819: 793: 695: 617: 3187: 2587:

is probably on a different time zone from you or I and has not had a chance to reply yet. ]

2550: 2474: 1501: 1284: 856: 852: 471: 273:

was national (i.e. the US). Perhaps this is a bit of a DAB job (or delete to help search)?

4015:

would be a kinda gong awarded at a sporting event not a base metal coated with bronze, so

3097: 2240: 2215: 2076: 1976: 1928: 1272: 544: 512: 495: 402: 169: 2015: 1848: 406: 2497:) and is used when there is only one person with a certain given name. The rationale is 1246: 458:, and I linked it was not linked before the words were used. This is not at the target. 4179: 4116: 4101: 4050: 4020: 4000: 3964: 3755: 3713: 3456: 3192: 3105: 2878: 2821: 2733: 2677: 2676:

and note that the talk page was created and my reference to it before your entry here.

2632: 2604: 2536: 2439: 2372: 2189: 2166: 2111: 2049: 2023: 1895: 1856: 1568: 1564: 1531: 1517: 1469: 1338: 1292: 1088: 1047: 868: 530: 479: 390: 284: 209: 1923:

alternate/alternate caps matches for the Spanish dance. Hatnotes would help, but this

2353: 2007: 1993: 1765: 1676: 1083:. Any discussion about the DAB content (not perfect by any means) should continue on 1002: 917: 808: 711: 467: 95: 2753:

per above. Mr. Kohzad is not the only notable person referred to as "Youssof"; e.g.

2648:

per the last discussion. If someone wants to convert it to disambiguation content,

1516:) I could quite easily see that someone would add the "Larsen" and just miss the L. 882:

Is it not "bleedingovious" (sic) that this would create a forbidden double-redirect?

4144: 4071: 3996: 3730: 3667: 3473: 3400: 3215: 3128: 3056: 2653: 2624: 2598: 2576: 1551: 1254: 1029: 667:

Low-flying aircraft redirects to Low flying military training & this page (Low-

3922: 3650: 3382: 3039: 2390: 1783: 1749: 1713: 1450: 1219: 656: 444: 132: 1287:

confusing, not at target. If we have no information we should own up and say so,

3881: 2211: 2063: 2037: 1411: 114: 2769:

The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term

454:

Not at target. This is used, an article I have been copy-editing on request at

4124: 3940: 2817: 2562: 2502: 2430: 2144: 1852: 1843:(which I had noticed) should actually move over the redirect, but I am trying 253:

Not sure now. There are/were other national alert systems such as the British

232: 4143:

Rather a lot of work, yes. Not something I'm up to tonight, unfortunately.

3771:

It's better to provide readers with some information than no information. --

2018:

I think. Certainly whatever we do I think a few hatnotes are in order. Since

3172:, to work out what I hadn't done yet. Four are still red, and that is fine. 2232: 2207: 2184: 2071: 2019: 2011: 1813: 1800: 1731: 1695: 1046:

yep, the lowercase terms in the general and the uppercase for the specific.

517:

thanks for doing that, but I think perhaps undue prominence in the lede per

3096:

Actually I was thinking of the old Icelandic Parliaments of the Vikings in

1972: 1963:

is Spanish; the title is nonsense. Per IMDb, the actual alternate title is

3852:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3581:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3315:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2967:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2320:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1639:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1386:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1157:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

694:

has been made into a dismabig page and is no longer a redirect. — Cheers,

584:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

351:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

66:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3708: 2870: 2528:

separately as having no clear consensus, and doing the whole turnaround.

2349: 2093: 1672: 998: 913: 804: 91: 4084:

The argument that it is not unique to Texas A&M is an argument for

3976: 2835: 2831: 2793: 2704: 2236: 426: 379: 4238: