Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2014.

Hujk[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn/retarget to HÜJK Emmaste. Scott found a valid target for this redirect, and due to this, it seems to be a better solution than deletion. If anyone has any concerns over this, please feel free to renominate or contact me. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking around using several search engines to try to figure out where the connection between the term "Hujk" and "Nintendo" exists, and I'm not finding it. However, I have found several search-based sites that have "Hujk" redirect to "Nintendo", like it does here, but that is most likely because it was done on Wikipedia first. Since this redirect has existed since 2007, this seems like a case of other web sites thinking "since it was done on Wikipedia, it MUST be right." Well, I say it's time to help all websites of the such, and delete this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to HÜJK Emmaste, which seems to be the most common topic Google presents when searching for "hujk". — Scott • talk 20:20, 4 May 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.

Maxwell's Senior Project[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) 16:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, I don't understand it, and the rest of the world probably doesn't either. Unless a good retarget can be found, I say delete. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I see no possible target for this. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 1 May 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.

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy[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 spedily deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text of the target article (which is up for deletion itself) mentions no controversy. It's a huge BLP problem to try to trap a search for such a controversy. Even if the target article survives or is merged into another article, there is no reason for us to give the slightest suggestion of such a controversy unless there is some very solid citation of such a controversy. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say keep, since his history of substance abuse was the source of political controversy, albeit minor. It appears this was discussed somewhat in the article prior to its pruning. However, I think the target article will be deleted, as it should be, and in this case the redirect can be put to rest as a G8. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Noting the article is quite likely to be deleted, and there is no source for this being a named "controversy" in any reliable sources. Using terms not reasonably used by readers is a waste of Wikipedia entirely. Collect (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • G8 once the article gets deleted (it's snowing in that AfD). --NYKevin 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the G8 since the article is now a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 7 May 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.

David Bowie (album)[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 David Bowie (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowie (1967 album) and David Bowie (1969 album) are as notable as each other - see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Launchballer 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and add {{confusion}} hatnotes to both of the above pages. --NYKevin 18:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NYKevin: In a case like this, deletion doesn't benefit anyone. The redirect's title isn't inaccurate; it's ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I disagree. This is not a plausible search term, and the page views come from its links, which should be disambiguated. If it does end up getting retargeted, we may be back here in a few months when the incoming links have been fixed and the stats drop off. --NYKevin 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NYKevin: Here's a scenario. Person "A" is only aware of one album named "David Bowie": David Bowie (1967 album), but has no idea when it was made. Person "B" is only aware of the existence of the other album named "David Bowie": David Bowie (1969 album), but no idea of when it was made Now, let's say that both of these people are somehow familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, specifically WP:DABSONG. In this scenario, if both person "A" and "B" are aware of WP:DABSONG, they will both search for David Bowie (album) prior to even thinking about using a year in the disambiguator. If they both tried to look up that term, but the term was deleted, neither of the people would really know which title they are looking for, and might have to take a guess in the dark.
Yes, I understand that at first, adding a hatnote on both articles might seem like a possible solution, as well as deleting the redirect. But then, these people may completely overlook the hatnotes and just take whatever article they see first as the correct one. A good way to prevent this would be to take these people to a disambiguation page to allow them to try their best to decide what they are looking for prior to being distracted by the wrong article, especially if there is no primary topic for their term "David Bowie (album)". Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your premise that any significant fraction of our userbase has any knowledge whatsoever of WP:DABSONG (in fact, most of them probably have little to no knowledge of WP:DAB itself). And if we're trying to be search-friendly, we also ought to have David Bowie (Album), or indeed David Bowie (Album. Should I go create those? --NYKevin 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to relay was not the amount of people that understand how title disambiguation works, but rather the policies that seem to have been created via consensus over time to determine their disambiguation, and how that can cause confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a yes or a no? --NYKevin 03:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible search term, or turn into a dab. I don't know if that's helpful, about half the people will end up in the right place immediately if it's redirected with a hatnote, as it is now. Siuenti (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to David Bowie (disambiguation) and tag with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Taking Siuenti's thoughts into account, as well as my own after seeing this discussion, I created the aforementioned disambiguation page, as well as placed a hatnote on David Bowie. The confusion that is here seemed to warrant that page's existence. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page, per Steel -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Steel1943. I am not sure what is the best form for hatnotes on the targets David Bowie (1967 album) and David Bowie (1969 album) – should they hatnote to each other or back to the DAB (with e.g. {{otheruses}})? Currently, 1967 album has a hatnote to 1969 album, but1969 has no hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 1 May 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.

Vitamin G[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. The concern in the nomination that Vitamin G is not mentioned in the target has been fixed and there are no other WP:RFD#DELETE grounds. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this name in the article. We need some appropriate mention of this name as an alternative, as well as any additional info about it. Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Alternative names don't have to be mentioned in an article. Can you imagine if we tried to catalog all nicknames for Cannabis (drug)? In serious contexts, "Vitamin G" seems to always refer to riboflavin, even if it's an outdated term (see, for example [1] and [2]). That said, mentioning this name at the target article would be a good idea. Deleting the redirect wouldn't be. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It is mentioned in Essential fatty acid that it was formerly called Vitamin F. A few sentences paralleling those in that article can be added about this being called Vitamin G. Georgia guy (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: you confused me. (I am not sure if it is good form to add a new comment when the discussion has been relisted, so excuse me if I am out of order but seems the best place to add the comment.). Vitamin F is listed at Essential fatty acid, but Vitamin G is not mentioned there at all. When you said "It is mentioned" I assumed you meant Vitamin G: I imagine you were making the parallel with Vitamin F. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is why we should have redirect documentation when needed. --65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It could be marked as {{R from alternate name}} but it isn't right now. However, Riboflavin is Vitamin B2 so I am not sure it is helpful to call it Vitamin G. It is mentioned in Vitamin#Naming as being renamed such, so it might be best to retarget as an {{R to section}} to there? (The link is there onwards to riboflavin) and easily found). Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 22 April 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) 16:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are other things called this name? You'd think so, people love to take an unused letter and call whatever starts with that vitamin whatever. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean – it's usually a cosmetic company marketing things and sailing very close to the wind with what is allowed under a particular jurisdiction's advertising/naming rules. For your edification and entertainment, I checked:
I haven't checked other numbers since there are rather a lot of them, neither have I checked Greek letters, and so on: I bet there are a few lurking. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 7 May 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.

Virtual sim[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. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Cleaning up and organizing redirects into the target article, I ran into these redirects from incorrect capitalizations which happen to duplicate other redirects of exactly the same term in proper capitalization (Virtual SIM, SIM number, Micro SIM). Some are even left-overs from page-moves. As the search box is case-insensitive, the correct redirects will automatically "take over" once the faulty redirects are deleted. There are no incoming links, they have no page history, and therefore can be deleted safely without any negative side-effects. Actually, keeping them harms, as editors might accidently link to them in other articles (thereby introducing unnecessary capitalization errors into other articles) rather than just using the correct redirects. Considering this a normal house-keeping action only, I nominated them for speedy deletion per G6, but user Xoloz asked me to nominate them here instead. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for all the reasons Matthiauspaul stated. While alternate titles are sometimes useful, {{R from alternate capitalisation}} is less so these days than it ws in the past, and these are not even marked as such (and the last is not marked {{R to section}} either). If it breaks incoming links, so be it, people end up at the search page. I notice that from my search (with google.hu) the terms "Micro-SIM" with the hyphen and "Nano SIM" are also used and have redirects at English Wikipedia in the same manner and to sections of the same target; Micro–SIM with an en dash does not exist. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as useful search terms. In addition, looking through the history of Virtual sim, I found that it was later renamed Virtual SIM, then finally Subscriber identity module, the target of these redirects. Terms that help describe a topic at one point or another should remain, such is the case with these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Steel1943. Not all methods of searching or browsing Wikipedia are case insensitive, and links from anywhere other than current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia are not shown by whatlinkshere. This, along with other reasons like discouraging the (accidental) creation of duplicate articles, is why keeping redirects from alternative capitalisations is a Good Thing. Tag them as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} and they can be easily checked to and links to them fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "micro sim" is a simulator based on a microcomputer; Virtual sim is a type of simulation, not restricted to cellphones, but found in all manner of simulation. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of "virtual sim" meaning simulation? I would have thought simulation by definition was virtual. Virtual simulation redirects to simulation (and should probably be changed to redirect to the section simulation#Common user interaction systems for virtual simulations) but it would seem somewhat of a tautology to me. Google brings up for me a few companies called Virtual Simulation and Virtual Simulation Systems and Virtual Simulations, Inc. the last of which at least says that they use Virtual Reality in their simulations: but those are just company names. The only way I could think these were "virtual" (and declaration of interest: I worked on military simulation systems for a number of years) is in apposition to a "real" simulator, i.e. that it was entirely computer-based or at least used no element of the real system they were simulating, rather than using elements of the real hardware or mock-ups of that, which is done to simulate the physical layout of the military hardware for training squaddies etc to get the physical job of loading and unloading missiles etc right, fault-finding on the hardware and so on, rather than the mental job of accurate aiming of weapons systems and so on. But it does not seem to be used in any sense like that. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual sim: [3][4][5] etc (yes, it means that it is not a "hard" or "real" physical simimulator, but all computer based with screens replacing hardware or using VR glasses instead of a mockup) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for the reasons Steel1943 so eloquently elucidated. Xoloz (talk) 21:33, 22 April 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) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested (amongst all my waffle) retargeting to section Simulation#Common user interaction systems for virtual simulations. Would you go along with that? Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rivoli Cinema[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 Rivoli Cinemas following the work done by BDD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Redirect is evident vandalism. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I suspect it should redirect to Rivoli Theatre, some of which by American custom mean movie houses/cinemas. The redlink 'Rivoli Cinemas' also occurs on a dab page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Beirut has two interpolated mentions of "Rivoli". Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC):[reply]

My mistake. It seems the references to Rivoli Cinema in Beirut are legitimate. So the DAB should include Beirut. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that "Rivoli Cinema site" is a nickname for Beirut VII, an archaeological site in Beirut. If either this or a disambiguated version of "Rivoli Cinema" do redirect to Beirut, I submit that they should be more specifically targeted to Beirut#Archaeology and prehistory. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Rivoli_Cinema, but forgot to mention here. I don't know what the procedure is now with whether we can make a procedural close or leave them both open concurrently? I've referred it back to here. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 23 April 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) 16:55, 30 April 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.

User:Storm05/1959 Yellowstone earthquake[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. There's really no way to tell when a user makes a move like this whether they want to leave a userspace redirect or if they just don't know about CSD procedure. I'm going to endorse the majority decision here and delete, but should the user return and want the redirect restored, I'll do so on request. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably can do without this. Just found this after moving the earthquake article Dawnseeker2000 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to user's decision. Why would you want to delete a redirect from user space? Admittedly, the user (who seems to do a lot of work on storm, judging by the main user page) could just add a link to mainspace, but that's up to them, isn't it. What's the policy on redirects from user space for the user's own use (as opposed to those in the other direction from main space to drafts etc in user space, which are obviously bad)? It is a vestige of the user creating the article in user space in the first place, then moving it to aricle space. Ultimately I think we should leave the decision to the user. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter. This is left over from the page move, but it doesn't serve any purpose. I saw it laying around and wanted to clean up. The user doesn't seem to be active, so it's probably not going to be possible to ask.Dawnseeker2000 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, their last edit was in 2006. So, Delete per nom. No incoming links (beyond those related to this RfD). Si Trew (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Userspace Batman!: [6]. Delete this one, and then mass-nominate the rest. --NYKevin 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I always U1 my userspace redirects with the edit immediately following my moves to articlespace. I take the view that a userspace redirect comes under WP:CHEAP and that WP:NOBAN applies.--Launchballer 22:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been inactive since 2008 (not 2006 as claimed above). In all likelihood, we are never going to hear from this person again. They certainly are not about to U1 anything. Of the pages in their userspace which are not redirects, every one I looked at was blank. There is no actual content here. --NYKevin 23:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the history of those pages? At least one of them - User:Storm05/January 2, 2006 Tornado Outbreak, which he last edited - has history as an article. As articles go in mainspace I can probably perform some fixes and put them in mainspace on his behalf. And before you accuse me of double-standards, articles are not redirects.--Launchballer 23:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, it's a WP:STALEDRAFT. MfD eats those for breakfast. --NYKevin 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even consider them a stale draft because the content isn't currently visible. Rather, a cryonically frozen draft.--Launchballer 23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Yes, since the creator seems more dormant than Old Yellow, I think you would be doing Wikipedia readers a good service by moving/copying these into article space, even if they are a bit rough. Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 7 May 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_April_30&oldid=1085561811"