Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 19

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

April 19

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2016.

Oops/version 2

edit
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 move without leaving a redirect. This is Jenks's proposed solution, and it seems to resolve the issues here. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another {{R from history}} that seems to not have an existing article that corresponds with its edit history. The edit history is a mix of 4 parts "Redirect to Wiktionary" (WP:NOTDIC) and 1 part about a non-notable band named "Headley Grange". Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is an artifact of a series of pagemoves. Despite that, this title contains nontrivial history (such as the debate about whether we should have an article titled "oops" or whether that title should be soft-redirected to Wiktionary). Rossami (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There isn't history needed for attribution purposes (a la WP:MAD), so this can safely be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving a redirect. There is a non-trivial history for both the mainspace and the talk page that there is no benefit to deleting. Instead it should be moved to a title that could also function as a plausible redirect, which has been the standard practice for this type of thing in my experience. Off the top of my head maybe Ooops would work. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 20 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.

Castro's

edit
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, but retarget to Castro given almost no desire to keep as is. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar redirect to the one deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 21#Apple's. Castro doesn't redirect to Fidel Castro, which makes this redirect different than the base title. I don't think a retarget to Castro would be helpful. Since that's a disambiguation, it can't be used as a piping shortcut. Therefore, I believe the best option is to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:40, 19 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.

Sussex County Council

edit
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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to Sussex, but there never was a "Sussex County Council" here. The redirect is therefore misleading and should be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to dabification. DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Drafted DAB under R. Si Trew (talk) 00:13, 20 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.

1999–2000 UEFA Champions League qualifyng rounds

edit
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) 17:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do we really need this redirect? this spelling error is rare and this is the only redirect for any article with the word qualifying in the title Rayman60 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 19 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.

2014 Ukrainian coup

edit
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) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion per G4. That deletion was vacated but not overturned. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_9 LinkinPark (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup".
Victoria Nuland had plans to appoint a new prime minister, indicating that she had influence over the course of events.
It is correct that it is POV to say that it is coup and that this is the position of Russian state media, but it is also disingenuous on the part of Western media to largely ignore the violence on the Maidan and the role of far-right militants. Also, it is not "fringe" to say that it is a "coup", but it is a fairly unorthodox view in the West. Western mainstream media is not calling it a "coup", but it is also a legitimate viewpoint. LinkinPark (talk) 10:43, 19 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.

(UK)

edit
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) 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, virtually not getting any links or hits. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:54, 19 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.

Venaejae

edit
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) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this means. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "Ven- is not present at the start of any word at all" then our articles Venice, Veneto, and ventricle would appear to be misspelt. 19:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - no one will use this, ever. The question is whether Venaja should also be deleted; it's also an Eubot creation, and pretty much all arguments given for deletion here apply to that as well, but at least it (unlike Venaejae) is getting some hits. (Presumably, that's because it gets the hits from the correct spelling Venäjä, which as noted is a redlink.) Finland used to be part of the Russian Empire, so there's a connection between Finnish and Russia; whether that justifies a Finnish-language redirect to Russia today is another matter. Sideways713 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I speak a bit of Finno-Ugric languages. There is no affiliation to Finnish, nor any to Estonian nor Hungarian. I checked and there are no entries at other languages' wikipediae. This is just WP:MADEUP. It could also look like Latin and isnt. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Venaejae", as noted above, is "Venäjä" (Finnish for "Russia") with the German "ae" used instead of the letter ä; it was automatically created by Eubot back when Venäjä was not a redlink. "Venaja" is Venäjä with the letter a instead of the letter ä; neither of them is MADEUP, though Venaejae has never seen any use even from users searching in Finnish, and it would be strange if it had. Sideways713 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this is used by some people, somewhere, rather than having just been made up, it's still against guidelines as pointed out above.
    Side note that I was the one who posted that above line. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:34, 22 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.

Russia (1991-1993)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 27#Russia (1991-1993)

"Tun" redirects

edit
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 all. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
edit

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. the pages were moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all WP:CHEAP viable search terms, and these are not article titles, they are redirects. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects exist not because pages link to them, but because people spell it that way. If you can't find the article because the redirect was deleted, it is not helping people. If people don't know these are honorifics and only saw the name as presented with honorifics in documents they are reading, then we are not helping people by hiding the articles by deleting the redirects from honorific forms. This is being consistent with the purpose for redirects. Redirects are not articles. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of these redirects have incoming links, and they should certainly be retained. It is open to any editor to correct those links if he feels srongly about it. A redirect only needs deleting if it has no links and is msleading or is very unlikely to be used. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As noted above, the standards for redirects are different than the standards for article titles. These are entirely acceptable and in many cases helpful. Not all readers navigate the wiki by means of the search engine. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 23 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.

Yang Berhormat Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail

edit
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) 14:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. page was moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does no harm and yes, we can simply let users create redirects with alternative titles for articles. That's what they're for. As long as they are helpful to at least one person (and not harmful or confusing to others), they may be kept. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 23 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.

Ir. Haji Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin

edit
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) 14:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. page was moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same argument as above. Rossami (talk) 05:01, 23 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.

Prof. Ir. Dr. Wahid bin Omar

edit
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) 14:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. page was moved to the name without the title, but we need the redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same argument as above. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 23 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.

Ar. Dr. Tan Loke Mun

edit
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) 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I moved the page to the name without the title, but we needthe redirect or the person who submitted the article will think we deleted it, not moved it. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have to be consistent in this redirect issue. We cannot simply let users create article with wrong spelling, inserting unnecessary honorific title as the page title, create redundant multiple redirect. Mahathir Mohamad has many redirect with variant page title. Tun Mahathir, Tun Dr Mahathir, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, omg.. is it recommended, relevant, significant in Wikipedia? The interested reader would simply type "Mahathir" in the search engine and they will get to Mahathir Mohamad article. Why do we have to make multiple redirect with no links (WhatLinksHere)? In short, we should be consistent to enforce Wikipedia naming convention policy. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same argument as above. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 23 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.

Right to Food

edit
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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a page of the same name but with differing schemes of capitalization. It is thus completely redundant and unnecessary. Dschslava (talk) 02:47, 19 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.

Windows Redstone

edit
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) 16:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The codename of the Windows 10 Anniversary Update is "Redstone", not "Windows Redstone". If this redirect is to exist (it's not currently used) it should be renamed to something like Redstone (software).  — Scott • talk 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I can find a problem for every solution. There is a little work to do: Redstone Software is linked at the DAB at Redstone#Companies, it targets TestPlant. That might be a bit confusing in the absence of a hatnote at its target or doing something at the DAB (linking R's rather than targets at DABS is discouraged per WP:DABPIPE [sic]; we might want to list this one there too if we keep it). Redstone Software is mentioned in the lede of the target without reference or farther mention, and no hatnote to this, but that is just tidywork, no point doing it until we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_19&oldid=1084304668"