Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2014.

Example of low wage job[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 18#Example of low wage job

Mega Man X2 (blank)[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) 18:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Blank" is an implausible disambiguator because it has no relation to the topic. However, it isn't speedily implausible because the redirect's history implies repair of a cut-and-paste move, mistaken/vandal move, or page-blanking vandalism (I didn't bother digging into the target article's history to figure out which).

The only currently-active editor who was previously involved with the redirect is unaware of any attribution concern and has no objection to deletion. SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Nonsense disambiguator, the only links to this title are the two created as a result of this RFD, and the redirect's creator doesn't even oppose. Also, I don't see how this redirect is the result of a cut-paste move fix as there is nothing substantial in its edit history. With that being said, let's get rid of this thing so that the community can resolve more controversial matters. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Strictly speaking, ERW1980 (talk · contribs) created the first revision now at "Mega Man X2 (blank)", but s/he redirected it to a different/wrong target, and I did not contact him/her due to his/her inactivity. The current redirect results from this move by Hibana, which is why I judged R3 to be technically inapplicable. Sorry for the somewhat unnecessary nomination - it was because I wasn't sure which CSD applied, and I wasn't familiar with the appropriateness of G6 for this kind of situation. I did not mean to imply that a c&p move was the most likely possibility; I only said that out of confusion over the chain of moves/retargets/deletions. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SoledadKabocha: Fair enough. As you noticed, though, the editor who created the "(blank)" title doesn't oppose it being deleted. Also, for some odd reason, it looks as though the Mega Man X2 title that was left over as a redirect when it was moved to the "blank" title was eventually converted to an article. So, in a case like this, I would think that speedy deletion is quite appropriate, well, at least I don't see the confusion or lost histories that would occur should this redirect be deleted. I guess we'll just have to see how an administrator handles my speedy deletion tag; I may have missed something important. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. I haven't looked at the circumstances of this redirect, but CSD only applies when the page unquestionably meets the letter and spirit of the criterion. If you aren't sure, then it is always best to list it for discussion, so you did the right thing here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per my interpretation of what happened here, it looks like it does; however, I have removed my CSD tag due to the concern listed here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 29 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.

Devaraja Prathapa Varma[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 18#Devaraja Prathapa Varma

Proclamatin of 1763[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. Page views have gone down, but are still around 60 a month, which is too much to just account for RfD interest (of which there doesn't seem to be a great deal anyway). Since this could only really be a misspelling for one thing, as far as I can tell, there's no harm in keeping. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as an unlikely misspelling. Sammy1339 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Im not sure how popular it truly is: there are only 6 links in existence to this redirect, and none of them are in the article space. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait. It's too early to judge from the stats available whether the popularity of this redirect will continue or not. Unless the Foundation's stats person Ironholds can offer any insight, I'd recommend closing this discussion without prejudice and then looking again in 3-4 weeks to see what happens to the viewing figures. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look with my other hat on. Ironholds (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not too early. The hits went from exactly zero to over 15000 in one day, then back to exactly zero the next day, and have been steady at exactly zero for almost a week. Obviously whatever typo was sending people there was corrected, and there's no need for this redirect. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible typo, no competing targets I'm aware of. WilyD 11:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD#DELETE R8 "Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created". I think it improbable that someone misses out six alphabetic characters and a space ("R", "o", "y", "a", "l", " " and "o"). It was created the same day as this RfD, 28 October.
I've just marked it as {{R from misspelling}}, in case consensus is to keep. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the speedy deletion criterion is implausible, not improbably. The exclusion of "Royal" is also obviously not a typo, but just a common short form. WilyD 10:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does speedy come into it? I agree, the wording should be the same, but "implausible" and "improbable" are synonymous in this context. Si Trew (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RFD link you posted says "Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created". WilyD 11:26, 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.

Cirillo[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 convert to article. Which has now been done. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to surname article/listify there are many people with this surname [1] with articles. I propose this redirect be converted into a surname list article. The current usage is for the botanical abbreviation "Cirillo" -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert per nom. I'd have just been WP:BOLD and done it myself, as it doesn't require deletion. Just make sure the current target is linked from the page somewhere (a hatnote or see also if it isn't in the main body). Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert per nom and Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 28 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.

Wikipedia:Ayuda[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) 18:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not for Spanish speakers. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd have kept saying add a Wikidata interlanguage link to es:Wikipeia:Ayuda, i.e. its version of the redirect at Wikipedia:Help, but Wikidata won't let me even though neither R itself has language links (only their targets) – another example of bad design for Wikidata. Since Wikidata thinks it knows better, let it. Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading, this does not lead to a Spanish page. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:11, 13 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.

Abgestossen[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) 18:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 02:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not used in article space, get about 1⁄3 to 2⁄5 hits/day.
What languages? German → Italian? Neither is marked as {{R from other language|de}} but I presume so; Google Translate gives it as "repel, repelled, repulsion". The first sentence of de:stacatto gives etymology as 'von italienisch staccarsi für „(sich) abstoßen“), „abgetrennt“'. a French-German online dictionary has it also as roughly "repel, repelled, repulsion"; fr:Stacatto offers "piqué" as an alternative, but en:piqué is a false friend. I would suggest these are, also.
:de:Abstossen, :de:Abgestossen and :de:abgestoßen are redlinks, so it's pushing it to have them in EN:WP. :de:abstoßen is a redirect to a DAB at de:abstoßung. Again, that lists topics to do with repulsion; it does not list de:stacatto.
abstoßen, abgestoßen and abstoßung are also redlinks at EN.WP. Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 28 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_28&oldid=1050183310"