Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 22

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2014.

Moron Church

[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 speedy deleted as attack page or vandalism, depending on which admin you ask. Non admin closure Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 "The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs"...". While I understand that an argument could be made that these could be considered a "Bad Spelling" type redirect, the fact that they have never been needed until now and are still unused, makes be suspect that it was only created as an attempt to be abusive, thereby making them candidates for deletion anyway and even possible a candidates under Criteria for speedy deletion:R3. Implausible typos.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There could be a legitimate instance of someone spelling "Mormon" incorrectly in this way, but I think the issues identified by the nominator outweigh this slight risk. From what I have seen, people are far more like to misspell the word as "Morman" than anything else. I have never seen a printed reference to "Moron Church" that wasn't meant to be derogatory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess I should have pointed out that they were created on 10 October 2014‎, so they are recently created. So I think that since they have never been needed until now, they still aren't needed.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Olfactory. The last time I looked into it, the stats for redlinks were not completely reliable, but in this case given no visits after the day of creation and none in any of the months I randomly checked when combined with GO's comments about printed media mean that I am comfortable this is solely an redirect intended as an insult. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think I misspelled "Mormon" like this myself when I was looking for the article, which is why I created the redirect. I haven't given second thought to any negative impact it might have and I don't think it's important to keep it, so please do go through with the deletion.--MASHAUNIX 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete basically an attack page against an entire religion. Will be nominating shortly. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted as CSD#G10 I deleted this as an attack page. Chillum 02:45, 23 October 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.

Golf 3

[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 turn into disambiguation page. Manual curation is needed since some of the pages mentioned (good hunting!) do not show up in a search. -- Beland (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Per a Wikipedia search of the term "Golf 3", I'm not sure why this topic should have precedence over the others in this search. Also, I'm leaning more towards this redirect being deleted rather than retargeted due to all results found in my referenced search being partial title matches. (I'm not opposed to the redirect being "disambiguated" due to the results.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per Steel1943, the search engine is just fine for this. My first thought was actually Volkswagen Golf Mk3, but that's just me. FWIW VW Golf 3 also redirects there, but Golf Mk3 and VW Golf Mk3 are redlinks. I'd be inclined to DAB if we felt that it would soon be unnecessarily recreated (perhaps to a different target).
Golf 2 has similar problems to this one. Golf 1, Golf 4, Golf 5, Golf 6 and Golf 7 do not exist, and produce analagous results with nom's search, with the VW Golf Mkn as a top search result, followed by the computer games, then some (real) golf topics (tournaments, players etc).
Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 23 October 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.

Windows NT 7.0

[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 retarget. List of Microsoft Windows versions was an excellent suggestion. {{R from incorrect name}} exists for exactly this type of redirect, so I used that. -- Beland (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should point to the same place. Decide. Personally, i would like to see them deleted because they suggest the existence of such a thing. (At least pointing it to Windows NT#Releases brings the reader out of the error.) � (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from incorrect name}} would be better. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 1 October 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) 16:27, 22 October 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.

South Park (El Paso County, Colorado)

[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. I moved details to List of parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado including the reference (excellent detective work!), pointed the disambiguation page there, and deleted the now-unnecessary redirect. -- Beland (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, not mentioned in the redirect target Parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado or at List of parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Linked only from South Park (disambiguation), which describes it as a city park but it's not listed under any designation at https://www.springsgov.com/Page.aspx?NavID=1459, nor does Google Maps identify it at the location described. Likely OR. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The caption of the picture in the infobox at History of Colorado Springs, Colorado implies that it is former name for "Alamo" Park, and the phrase "South Park" is mentioned in the article in a couple of other places. This is supported by [1] The List of parks in Colorado Springs, Colorado doesn't have an "Alamo Park" but does have an "Alamo Square", whose description correlates with the infobox picture caption so I'm comfortable they are the same place, We don't have an article on that Alamo Square to redirect it to (Alamo Square is about an area in San Francisco), but if it is a former name then redirecting to the list and mentioning the former name there would be sensible I think. Note also the description of this 1873 USGS photograph, but whether that is the same South Park I don't know (it may be what is now the South Park National Heritage Area?). Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it's meant to refer to Alamo Square, I don't know that that would justify "South Park (El Paso County, Colorado)" as a redirect, as it's not the disambiguator we'd choose if we had an article on a Colorado Springs city park of that name, and not a likely search term. The simplest solution would be to just list it as an alternate, historic name of Alamo Square at South Park (disambiguation), as is done with the entry there for Fairplay, CO. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it would not be our preferred disambiguator, but it is neither incorrect nor illogical and with over 200 hits in each of the last three months it demonstrabily is a useful search term and so shouldn't be deleted if there is somewhere relevant to point it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 27 September 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) 16:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So, what, this is a former name of a park that will never be more than a list item? Maybe? Then it's more trouble than it's worth, and only likely to disappoint or mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 11 December 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.

Ukraïne

[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. Nabla (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid spelling in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't supply a reference for this claim. A simple Google will show that the spelling (derived directly from the original Cyrillic) is in frequent use, notably in French and Dutch: This book, this and this news report, this informational page, this blog entry all use this spelling. There are many more. Yes, it's not mainstream; that's why it's a redirect. What's your objection? Groogle (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on present evidence. There's no strong connection between the French or Dutch languages and Ukraine. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While English-language uses of this spelling are less common than French or Dutch sources, they do exist and cover a wide variety of topic areas (including airliners, maritime law, dermatology, urban exploration, holidays and political history) so there is no reason to suspect this is only a couple of users. So as the redirect is correct and I can find no evidence that it is harmful, deletion will bring no benefits to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 10 October 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 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Thryduulf. I can't find much English RS online, but that's my naïvety. Without attempting to jump the gun, I've marked it as {{R from title with diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Concidentally I have been drafting some content to insert into Casablanca tramway and note that Ain Chock → Aïn Chock and Ain Sebaa → Aïn Sebaâ but I had to create the R with diacritics for Aïn Diab → Ain Diab. So consistency is perhaps less than perfect, already. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 23 October 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.

北韩

[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. Doesn't seem helpful for English speakers. -- Beland (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This name is exclusively Chinese. Not hanja or Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional keep, but I'm quite open to being proven wrong. Korean has been written in Chinese characters well into living memory, and I'm wondering whether these characters might have been used in the not-so-distant-past to refer to the northern regions of the Choson Kingdom and/or the northern regions of Korea under Japanese rule. If you can demonstrate that these characters were not used by Koreans to refer to Korea's northern regions, I'll change my mind. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 30 September 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, Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Nyttend: wouldn't that be like ignoring the distinction between Southern America and South America, or Southern Africa and South Africa, though? Si Trew (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that those are all English-language terms; this is a kind of thing that typically doesn't translate consistently, so the non-parity in English isn't a reason to object. I'm looking for someone to say "no, these mean different things in Korean" or "you're right, they can both be used". Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but this is the English Wikipedia, and to a degree those distinctions do still apply at least to where we target it (if anywhere). You say "northern regions", but North Korea is a nation state. So my question was more whether it is redirecting a geographical term to a political one (in the sense of a political map),whatever language/character set it's in.
I am not sure if this helps or hinders, but Northern Korea exists as an R to Geography of North Korea. (Southern Korea redirects to Geography of South Korea, likewise.) Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the hanja would be 北韓, so this is not a valid Korean search term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: I retargetd both of those redirects earlier this month because the previous tragget clearly didn't help readers, I think they are the most appropriate targets, if you disagree, feel free to nominate them for RfD. - TheChampionMan1234 09:54, 23 October 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.

Bandarikin

[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. People searching for this should be looking in the Icelandic Wikipedia. The retargeting idea is interesting, but the target is weird and may get merged away. -- Beland (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Icelandic. - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four, counting the nominator, though numbers won't necessarily make the decision. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I nearly closed this as both "delete" and as "no consensus" but while composing my rationale I realised that there hasn't been enough discussion, from either 'side' about whether this redirect is or is not a useful search term for the target. Simply stating that it is or is not doesn't really help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll address that, Thryduulf. The English Wikipedia is, of course, written in English, so it's normally not appropriate to have redirects in Icelandic. Icelandic terms would be implausible search terms for most article titles on the English Wikipedia. The exception would be topics related to Iceland (e.g., Ísland). Such redirects as Bandarikin can mislead readers into believing the English Wikipedia can be navigated with Icelandic search terms, which is plainly untrue. And in that sense, this redirect is harmful. (This is the short version of my arguments at WT:FORRED I referenced above.) --BDD (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this specific redirect, one concern is that it is not mentioned at the target. More generally, wot BDD writ. Si Trew (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps elaborate on why I think "not mentioned at the target" is a good reason. For many redirects, e.g. misspellings, we would not expect it to be mentioned at the target – the redirect is obvious. For a foreign word like "Bandarikin" that resembles English morphology, I may not even realise that it is a foreign word. If I found it elsewhere without explanation, I might type it in to see what a bandarikin was. I would be surprised to find that it redirects to United States with no understanding why. Searching the page is no help (even "Bandaríkin" is only a tooltip in the language links and not picked up on a search). That's why it should be left to Wiktionary, which provides definitions as a reason debtor. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gnoming, I removed {{R from title without diacritics}} from the R (since that is, as it says, meant for Rs to titles of exactly the same name sans the diacritics), and marked as Icelandic in the {{R from other language}} tag. That's not meant to pre-empt this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary" has nothing to do with keeping or not a redirect. We are not talking article space here"'. — User:Olivier.
We are definitely talking about article space. What namespace do you think redirects exist in? What namespace do DAB pages exist in? DABspace? Do you think readers care? It is our job to sew up the seams. Si Trew (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:BIAS applies? "The average Wikipedian is ... (4) an English speaker (native or non-native)"? Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The predominantly anglophone character of Wikipedians is a reason to expand coverage of topics outside the Anglosphere. It is not a good reason to create and maintain irrelevant redirects in other languages. Regardless of how dominant this English Wikipedia may be, the project as a whole is international, and it's a fool's errand to try to maintain such redirects when interlanguage links already do this job much better. An Icelandic-speaking reader will be much better served by following such links from the Icelandic Wikipedia. Undermining that system is counterproductive to the project's mission. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And I know WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes is not a policy or guideline and should be invoked rarely, but Georgian აშშ → United States is listed there explicitly as an RfD discussion that went delete. Sure, consensus can change — but if anything I think has got firmer on foreign language redirects than it was in the past. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, your statement is blatantly wrong. People typing this in are either looking for an article about the USA in the Icelandic language, or they are looking for some unknown English topic called Bandarikin, which they likely suspect to be a species of bird of something. No one is looking for an English language article on the USA. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:11, 3 November 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.

FiveFour calendar dates

[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. Based on comments, there seems to be a low probability they are delivering readers to the information they are looking for. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are the only fourfive dates in the calendar (either in [m]m-dd or dd-[m]m format) for which the target is the date article rather than a specific event, or something else entirely (gliders, musical notation, TV series, ten-code, etc). (Yes, barring mistakes, I checked every one: the vast majority are redlinks; even 2-29 and 29-2 are redlinks.) I've tried to notify creators but one creator (of two) is blocked, and the others seem inactive. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, five. I forgot 7-6, which started me off in the first place (from discussion at #7-1). Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of these are getting significant numbers of hits, indicating that people are visiting them. However not one of them has a spike corresponding to the date they target (4-30 was only viewed once on 30 April for example) (for comparison, look at the stats for any date article around that date, e.g. December 2013 stats for December 20) suggesting to me that the current targets are not what people are searching for. That doesn't though help working out what they are wanting to read. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very subjective of course, but none of the stats for the redirects themselves seemed particularly high to me (never maxed 10 and usually average of less than 3). I agree, the "spikes" (sometimes as high as 10/day) seem to be at random. Although December 20 may be high, 12-20 was actually the lowest on the graph I looked at.
I realise that we can't kinda draw too many conclusions, but since the vast majority of potential redirects of the form "[m]m-dd" or "dd-[m]m" are redlinks, we can surmise that the few that point at the general day articles aren't doing so because that day is particularly special. Even what might be "special" days such as a leap day (2-29, 29-2, 2/29 and 29/2) or St. Andrew's Day (30-11, 11-30, 30/11 and 11/30) are all redlinks, so I don't see what's so special about these.
I'm always wary with the argument "but they do no harm" because
  1. As you say, they may interfere with helping readers find what they were looking for. The Search boxes on the sidebar and topbar seem not to do a Special:Search any more, at least for me, but just jump straight through any redirect that matches.
  2. They may encourage the impression that creating similar redirects is encouraged. (This is BDD's argument at WP:FORRED, mutatis mutandis.
  3. They may discourage timid editors from retargeting the redirect or creating an article over it.
That's why, although an inclusionist, I have become a little more likely to suggest deletion of Rs. I still try to consider good alternatives first, of course. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about the stats not being high - averaging three hits a day over a month is significant use. An unused redirect will have no hits most days and more than two on a day (other than immediately after creation or when being discussed) is extremely exceptional. At least one of these got over 100 hits in September - two orders of magnitude (literally) above what low use redirects get!
As for the the comments about the date, you've sort of missed my point I think. If people were using these redirects (primarily) to look for the dates then the traffic graph would be the same shape as the target articles which have a massive spike on the day they are about with lesser spikes 1-3 days either side.
I don't buy (and never have) the argument that creating redirects is encouraged simply by the existence of similar ones - I've certainly never seen any evidence for it in all the years I've been a regular at RfD. Indeed many times it has been explicitly stated and widely agreed that not deleting a redirect is not the same as encouraging their creation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100 hits/month is significant (over 3/day), but I think less than 2/day is noise: I know you differ in this opinion. I'm not saying "2 a day will just be spiders and bots", as some do, but that (as you imply) they may simply be Rs that are at best useless because the search engine would do an equally good job, if not a better one.
I may have missed the points about the date – I thought we were kinda agreed that the fact there isn't a spike meant that the Rs aren't being used as the primary way to access the date.
It may have been "explicitly stated and widely agreed that not deleting a redirect is not the same as encouraging their creation" here at RfD, but not everyone looks at Rfd. Even I occasionally have a break. What I tend to do whenever considering an article title (R or otherwise) is to try to find analogies to fit into, not necessarily to look at "deletion discussion" pages. In that sense, these "analogies" would encourage me in the belief such a systematic naming was approved of. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 22 October 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.

9-24

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#9-24

5-22

[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) 20:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why this should redirect to May 5 (5-5) is beyond me. Not mentioned at target or talk. 22-5, 5/22 and 22/5 do not exist. Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete other than a birth and two deaths related to 1922 "22" does not appear in the article text, so this has me baffled! I could understand a redirect to May 22, but this target wouldn't help anyone expecting that article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 22 October 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.

یوسف خیل

[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, refining target to Kakazai#Sub-divisions. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not related to the topic, it means "Yousef Khel" according to GTranslate, but we don't have an article about any person by this name. - TheChampionMan1234 09:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yusaf Khel (In Urdu, یوسف خیل) is a sub-tribe of the Kakazai Pashtuns and there used to be an article just stating that but someone removed the content and redirected that page to Kakazai. I hope that helps. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 10:54, 22 October 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.

5-1

[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) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target or talk. Why not 6-2, 7-3, 9-5, 8-3 or 1234-1230? URL of [javascript:5-1] can be used in most browsers if one is struggling to find the answer. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 22 October 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.

6-4

[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 retarget to 6/4. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at talk, the target, or the target's talk. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. The lead of the target notes it is also known as the "June 4th incident" which will be the origin of this redirect. Referring to events like this is something I've seen a few times in relation to the ongoing protests in Hong Kong (and Chinese often uses Roman numerals in horizontal writing) so it doesn't seem implausible. It is potentially very ambiguous though, so I wouldn't object to disambiguation, but I don't see a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is well understandable, but not necessary in this form. 六四 (six-four) is still widely in use to talk about the June 4 incident (and the Chinese government blocks it from time to time so there's that). Support retarget to 6/4, where this and many other reasonable targets is given. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:57, 22 October 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.

London Buses routes 1-20

[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 and refine to List of bus routes in London#1-99. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not used in article space, not very useful. This was mentioned in an AfD of September 2005 for London Buses route 11 but has not been nom'd for deletion itself. Could be {{R to section}} at List of bus routes in London#1-99, an anchor for which I have created. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • refine target per the nomination statement. We can't expect people to know the divisions we use in lists like this, or that they will always remain the same. The target is unambiguously what people using this redirect will be looking for, so there is no reason why we shouldn't just take them there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Fair enough, Refine target per Thryduulf. Actually, I'd like to R to section for all the London Buses route ''n'' links, but that's a BIG job with an easy spec.
Off topic – pseudocode for retargeting London Buses routes
For all redirects of the form "London Buses route n", where n is a natural number between 1 and 999:
if the redirect does not have a section part (a "#" in it)
let q = n/100 rounded down to nearest integer
let s = "q00-q99" if q > 0, else "1-99"
replace the close bracket "]" with "#s] {{R to section}}"
Night buses, expresses etc. should not be too tricky but I haven't set up anchors etc for those yet.
I just feel it's not as helpful as it could be to have these hundreds of redirects go to the top of a rather long article. Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anchors are useful, yes but if the list is all we have (and there is significant resistance to even lists of bus routes, let alone articles) then that's where we should point people. If this is kept or retargetted, I suggest you take that pseudocode over to WP:BOTREQ (giving a link to this discussion for consensus) and ask a bot operator (or AWB user?) to do it for you. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was planning to. A suitably-constrained regex search and replace should do, but I don't know AWB very well, so best to let someone else do it. Forgot to say that. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 23 October 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.

London Buses routes 1-10

[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 and refine to List of bus routes in London#1-99. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not used in article space, not very useful. Could be {{R to section}} at List of bus routes in London#1-99, for which I have created an anchor. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 22 October 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.

ओसामा बिन मुह्म्मद बिन लादिन

[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) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other discussion, a Google search for this term only returns Wikipedia mirrors. - TheChampionMan1234 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've marked it as Hindi. Google Translate returns for me "Osama bin Ladin bin Muhmmd"); I don't know why it has changed the "bin" order or the spelling – so is this just a bad spelling? "Muhmmd" is not mentioned at Muhammad (name), although there are a few instances on Facebook etc.
The shorter ओसामा बिन लादिन ("Osama bin Ladin") and ओसामा बिन लादेन ("Osama bin Laden") are redlinks, which the search engine handles perfectly well.
HI:WP has its version at hi:ओसामा बिन लादेन (दि, not दे). With the full form at HI:WP, ওসামা বিন মুহাম্মদ বিন আওয়াদ বিন লাদেন Google Translate returns "Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden", identical to how it is written in EN:WP – but that may be no coincidence. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I think we need someone from Category:User hi-N to help us. I will try and find somebody to notify. - TheChampionMan1234 10:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I have notified @Anshuman.jrt: to come to the discussion. - TheChampionMan1234 10:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I thought so too, but thought worth putting down what I had found so far. A pity we haven't a reg here who is knowledgeable on Devanagari script. (Do we?) Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 22 October 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.

कलिन्ग युध्धम्

[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) 15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to ja:カリンガ戦争 this is Sanskrit, but I highly doubt it, as a Google search for this term mainly returns WP mirrors - TheChampionMan1234 04:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gu:કલિંગનુ યુધ્ધ (Gujarati) says "कलिन्ग युध्धम्" is Sanskrit.(I note different last character in first word: inflexion?) According to [2], "युध्धम्" is Sanskrit for "war" or "great fight". Is it a mix of Marathi and Sanskrit? Kalinga (India) says the "Devanagari" for Kalinga is "कलिङ्ग", slightly differently, but anyway Devanagari is a script not a language. War has IW to sk:युद्धम्, and mr:युद्ध. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si, any objections to this being deleted? --BDD (talk) 20:57, 11 December 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.

7-1

[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) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting scores to games just seems like a terrible idea. There have been thousands of games that ended with this score. As far as I can tell, 7-1 doesn't really refer to anything, unless you really stretch and use Bible verses. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 5-0, 6-0, 7-0, 8-0, 9-0
0-1, 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1
0-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, 9-2
0-3, 1-3, 2-3, 3-3, 4-3, 5-3, 6-3, 7-3, 8-3, 9-3
0-4, 1-4, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4, 5-4, 6-4, 7-4, 8-4, 9-4
0-5, 1-5, 2-5, 3-5, 4-5, 5-5, 6-5, 7-5, 8-5, 9-5
0-6, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, 4-6, 5-6, 6-6, 7-6, 8-6, 9-6
0-7, 1-7, 2-7, 3-7, 4-7, 5-7, 6-7, 7-7, 8-7, 9-7
0-8, 1-8, 2-8, 3-8, 4-8, 5-8, 6-8, 7-8, 8-8, 9-8
0-9, 1-9, 2-9, 3-9, 4-9, 5-9, 6-9, 7-9, 8-9, 9-9

Currently blue (from table, going left to right, top to bottom):

0-0 is a DAB page with 6 entries
1-0 → Chess#Notation_for_recording_moves (I added anchor and R to section)
5-0 → DAB page at 5O (letter O) with 15 entries
0-1 → Chess#Notation_for_recording_moves (I added anchor and R to section)
1-1 is a DAB page with 2 entries
5-1 → 4 (number)
7-1 → Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) (this nom)
0-3 is an article about an emergency telephone number in several ex-Soviet states
1-3 is an article about a musical album
4-3 → 4-3 defense (American football)
3-4 → 3-4 defense (American football)
6-4 → Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (why? not mentioned at target or talk)
3-5 → Viennese trichord, in music
1-6 → Schweizer SGU 1-6, a glider
7-6 → July 6
1-7 → Schweizer SGU 1-7, a glider
2-7 → Lowball_(poker)#Deuce-to-seven (I added anchor and R to section)
5-7 → FN Five-seven, a pistol
7-7 → 7 July 2005 London bombings
2-8 → Schweizer SGS 2-8, a glider
0-9 → Numeral system
1-9 is a DAB page with 4 entries

I could, of course, go on. I think that the point is made, none of these links to a specific event that finished with that score; the most prevalent "pattern" is to use it for gliders! (Three Rs.) Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those with en dashes instead of hyphens, I copied and previewed the above table and found only these:
0–1 → Lactobacillus sakei. I made it R to Lactobacillus sakei#Exopolysaccharide biosynthesis (trips off the tongue)
4–3 → 4-3 defense, as 4-3. (Why not 3–4 like 3-4, then?)
0–9 → Numeral system, as 0-9.

There are none with em dashes instead. I haven't checked for those with variant spacing. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting any of the others should be deleted.(I have nominated a couple separately.) I was just providing the tables etc. for comparison. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 22 October 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.

Great Masterwort

[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 dabify Great masterwort, retargeting Great Masterwort there. Thanks to Si Trew for doing the legwork on this one. This is the typical way of treating ambiguous common names for biota, so there shouldn't be any need to keep discussing this. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up until recently [3], one of these pointed to Astrantia (which also says it is called "great masterword"), but Astrantia maxima is also called "great masterword", so where should these be targetted? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_22&oldid=1076509052"