Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 11, 2014.

Water safety[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. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users are unlikely to be seeking New Zealand information when searching for "water safety". Users have complained on talk page. Also, the pages that link to "Water safety" do not relate to New Zealand. Better to delete and have a red link to encourage article creation. Brycehughes (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of water safety is about not ending up in the water in the first place, or life jackets, that sort of thing. Being able to swim is actually a pretty small component of it. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC) See this page from the American Red Cross for example. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 12 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.

Trinidad James, Cap1[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) 16:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trinidad James and Cap 1 are two different people. Gorobay (talk) 15:59, 11 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.

Wikipedia:ADVENTURE[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. --BDD (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, perhaps? TheChampionMan1234 09:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Sounds good, as long as all current links are fixed first, to point directly to the target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Retarget per nom and Steel1943. Makes sense. Nice to see you back Steely. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per nom. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Retarget per nom. I'm okay with a hatnote to the old target. --Lenticel (talk) 08:45, 16 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.

Android 5[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) 00:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per below TheChampionMan1234 09:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Quick test: Does it lead to info on this subject? Answer: No. Hence, it is simply confusing. See also, WP:RFD#DELETE, item #10. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since the current Android is 4.4, it is conceivable that people looking for information about the development of the next version of Android would use such a redirect. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any information about the development of the next version in the article? Siuenti (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. It is not mentioned at the target. You could have told us that by a two second search. The redirect is purely WP:CRYSTAL, then. They might call it Google Marvin 7000 for all we know. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But someone searching for information about the next version would probably not care what it was called. Siuenti (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For now, it's WP:CRYSTAL, and will be until official press is released about the topic. Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deceptive redirect. Leave it for a real article, per WP:REDLINK. — Scott • talk 12:18, 15 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.

Windows 9[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: (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per below. (see my previous nomination) TheChampionMan1234 08:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Quick test: Does it lead to info on this subject? Answer: No. Hence, it is simply confusing. See also, WP:RFD#DELETE, item #10. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better quick test: How is this redirect harmful, and does it have any positive benefits? Answer: It's not, and yes. There is already press coverage on the next release. Someone searching for information on Windows 9 should at least be redirected to an article giving information on the overall series. All the keep arguments given in the previous RFD still apply; moreover, that RFD was closed just a month ago---what has changed since then to justify this RFD nomination as more than a spam nomination to try to force through a deletion through repeated nomination? —Lowellian (reply) 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong answers. It is harmful, because it sends the reader on a wild goose chase, wasting their time. It has no benefit because there is no coverage on the next release. Someone searching "Windows 9" in Wikipedia must come up with the truth: Nothing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving information on the series is not a wild goose chase. And saying that "there is no coverage on the next release" is blatantly untrue. Google gives 1,950,000 hits on "Windows 9", and Google News gives hundreds of results, so there is lots of coverage on the next release. And again, what has changed since last month to justify this as more than an attempt to force through a deletion through repeated nomination? —Lowellian (reply) 06:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It IS a wild goose chase of the masochistic type when we know for sure what the reader wants is exactly not that. (We know by now that readers who search for "Windows 9" are looking for two things: Confirmation of rumors; new features.) In addition, it is a well-known fact that not even a 0.001% of Google search results are useful. Out of all this 1,950,000, you find nothing Wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia is not Google and has a different mission. Having a redirect with no corresponding info is a violation of that mission. Finally, as for the last month, nothing has changed, including my opposition to this redirect. It was not useful back then and not useful now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not deleted back then and should not be deleted now. —Lowellian (reply) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since the current "version" of Windows is "8.1", it is conceivable that people looking for information on the development of the next version of Windows would enter such a term. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's exactly why this redirect must be deleted: As you say, people look for info and this redirect deceives them into thinking they got it. Only, after an hour of reading a lengthy article, they find none. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, on the contrary, the redirect gets them to information about the overall series, giving context to the term. Without the redirect, a searcher would get no information at all. —Lowellian (reply) 07:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Codename Lisa. Microsoft have a habit of branding things differently over the years, so this is WP:CRYSTAL, they might call it Windows Shorthorn or Windows Unigate Dairies or Windows Liver and Bacon for all we know. I'm a bloody Microsoft Most Valuable Professional and I don't know, the marketing guys change it at the last minute. Si Trew (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, no one is claiming that "Windows 9" will necessarily be the final name. Second, whether Windows 9 is the final name is irrelevant to this discussion, because what is relevant is that it certainly is the most common developmental name by which it is being called in the media. This is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue, because it is not predicting that this will be the name in the future; instead, this is the developmental name being used by the media in the present. Once some final name is confirmed by Microsoft and an article started, at that point the redirect can be pointed to that article. This is no different then, for example, "Bond 23" being the name by which Skyfall was referred to in media reports long before the movie was given an official name, and "Bond 23" long being a redirect to the James Bond series before being changed to point to Skyfall once the official name was confirmed. —Lowellian (reply) 07:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • & Keep Also likely typo for Windoze 8. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete. Deceptive redirect. Leave it for a real article, per WP:REDLINK. As Lisa notes, we are not Google. — Scott • talk 09:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/WP:CRYSTAL. The subject isn't discussed at the target page, so the redirect is deceptive and misleading. If we are to treat it as a typo like Rich suggests, retarget instead to Windows 8 and tag it as such (I don't think we should actually do that). --BDD (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no reliable information on the subject yet.� (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUST DELETE. WP:BALL said, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Even if it's redirected but we can't just get future but not officially announced products' article redirected. Windows 9 may not be the final name. It may be (or may not be) 8.2, 8.5, or 8.1.1. Thank you! CloudComputation, posted at 11:33, 3 June 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.

IPhone 6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 30#IPhone 6

Firoozbakht’s conjecture[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) 00:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all redirects have been fixed. it was just a small symbol issue. a conflict due to the similarity between the apostrophe and the single quote characters. Compfreak7 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Compfreak7: Procedural delete. History is created by User:Lowellian with a page move on 14 Feb 2014, trailing a redirect. Lowellian should have cleared up his muddy footprints but didn't. Compfreak has, but can't then CSD as author. Obvious delete, WP:APOSTROPHE (MOS:PUNCT) prefers straight apostrophes. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's the "other" apostrophe, but hey, someone might use it. I'm not seeing any harm with this redirect, especially considering that it is not misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entirely plausible that someone might use it. Siuenti (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article existed at its previous title for almost two years, so has a good chance of having links from other websites. — Scott • talk 10:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neither new nor harmful. (Moreover redirects from move should rarely be deleted.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
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_May_11&oldid=1090409092"