Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 23, 2014.

Pedro José de Zavala, 8th Marquis of Valleumbroso[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) 16:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE #1: this might cause confusion, as he was the 7th, not the 8th Marquis. —innotata 19:09, 23 September 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.

Jar Jar Abrams[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. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a joke or meme based on JJ Abrams directing the upcoming Star Wars film, which is not going to have Jar Jar. It's perhaps a natural joke for fans, but definitely qualified as a "novel or obscure synonym." I'd also suggest that since the target is a BLP, we exercise caution and delete this redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely a BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 --Lenticel (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the redirect so that if someone sees someone else talking about "Jar Jar Abrams" (a term which has close to 200k hits on Google currently), they would be able to search on Wikipedia and find who it is referring to. If nicknames are a BLP issue, then I would like to apologize for any issues it might have caused. That being said, I believe it helps make Wikipedia a tiny bit easier to navigate by linking people to the relevant article. Charwinger21 (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article "Jar Jar Abrahs" should talk about the joke, not to the person... Arussom (talk) 20:42, 17 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.

Micros~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 retarget to Long filename. There wasn't strong consensus for this action, but I didn't find consensus to delete, and no one seemed to want to keep it as is. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term � (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since this redirect is an example that most likely refers to Microsoft, but since very few default files or programs back during the Windows 3.1 era were actually titled "Microsoft.###", this title serves no value targeting anything. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Long filename where this naming pattern is mentioned in the lead. I remember having a directory after directory named this way in the Win 95 era. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: With your thoughts on this, do you believe that Progra~1 should be added to/grouped with this nomination? Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • erm, that can go either way as it is mentioned as the example at the current target of Filename mangling or retargeted to the specific article where it isn't used as an example. It certainly shouldn't be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel I used Win2.0 and Win3.0, (I used MS-DOS 2.x for that matter) and I can't offhand remember anything being "Micros~1". Sure, there were plenty of tildes in 8.3 filenames (and thhat is more MS-DOS than Windows): but I can't remember there being this specific one, and a search does not bear fruit for me. Is it a retronym? Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, would 8.3 filename be a better target, if retargeted? It's slightly misleading with just the eight and not the three! That mentions filename mangling, but THAT doesn't mention 8.3. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This post-dates those versions of windows by the best part of a decade - they were introduced with Windows 95, Windows 2 is from 1987. 8.3 filename would not make a better target as that does not discuss this method of mangling whereas Long filenames is an article dedicated to the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course... but was introduced at Windows 95 specifically to circumvent the "8.3" problem because of the underlying MS-DOS filesystem structure (if "structure" is not a euphemism). Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only time i’ve seen this outside a dir/x was together with a “Micros~2” in articlles discussing possible division of MSFT with regerds to antitrust issues. � (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't recall seeing this outside of directory entries (a friend used a DOS defragmenter on their Win95 drive and lost all the long filename associations and so saw "MICROS~1" (up to about 8 I think) everywhere), or contexts clearly referring to directory entries either). However, this is a plausible search term for someone looking for information about this topic but who does not know (or cannot remember) what the name of it is. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment filenames like "abcdef~1.ext" are a result of automatic mangling by Windows 95 and Windows 98 (and Windows ME), because you can't separately assign a short file name and an LFN, aside from the Windows generated version. So, no, Windows 3.x, 2.x did not have this sort of mangled filenames, they only exist in Windows 9X. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - shall we keep redirects for every possible combination of files thusly mangled? Also it would be "MICROS~1", filenames were capitalized in MS-DOS although IIRC lowercase was possible with creative hex editing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "shall we keep redirects for every possible combination of files thusly mangled?" No, that is a WP:OTHSTUFF argument. "Micros~1" is the redirect under discussion, and that is (as I've evidenced above) a logical and useful search term, as one of the most prominent examples of filename mangling. Would you like to give a reason why you think this redirect should be kept or deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point (you meant WP:OTHERSTUFF but good point anyway); I'll address just this redirect. Steel recalled, and I concur, that few files from the Windows 95 era had long names starting with "Microsoft" thus it is unlikely that the "MICROS~1" mangling would result. "PROGRA~1" is very common (from Program Files), "DOCUME~1" would be quite common (from Documents and Settings), "WINDOW~1" would be very unusual since the Windows directory fit with 8.3, and any examples I can think of from that era with other Microsoft software used similar short names, probably for this reason. Other than "Internet Explorer", which would not result in "MICROS~1". It's possible of course, but unlikely. Even today, Microsoft uses 8.3 names for critical system files (pagefile.sys, $recycle.bin, windows\system32, etc.) Ivanvector (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recollection is of lots of "MISCROS~n"s (up to about 7 or 8 I think), but I think these were principally directories rather than files ("Microsoft Office", etc). Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mangling was the same whether for files or directories (a directory in FAT is simply a special sort of file) so you might have, eg. C:\PROGRA~1\INTERN~1\CACHE\LOLCAT~1.JPG. The MICROS~1 mangling would be the result of a "Microsoft Office" directory, but I'm surprised you got enough of them to get up to ~8, that's a lot of Microsoft software titles on one machine. But you're right, anyway. Keep per WP:CHEAP Redirect per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 12 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.

Deseos[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 Deseo. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion request, but a retarget discussion. From Deseos (Mariem Hassan album) to Deseo (disambiguation). No reason to redirect it there. This nomination also includes Deseos (album). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Perhaps even directly replace with disamb content? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the DAB to Deseos, maybe? I don't see how this is primary or useful to sort-of disambiguate with "(album)" when it is already the primary topic — or rather patently not if it needs two retargets and DAB page to pretend it is.
I note Deseo is also an album (not retarget or DAB) but by someone else. So is Tres Deseos, Deseos de Mujer and Csaba Deseo (Hungarian not Spanish and isn't hatnoted as {{western name order}}: Deseo Csaba is redlink); hu:Deseő_Csaba and Mi Deseo exists and is Interwiki linked; Deseő Csaba and Csaba Deseő do not.
There is [Desire Street (film)]]... and many more. Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note neither R has the courtesy tag to say it's here. I am not worried about that, but others may want to tie it up. Si Trew (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deseos plural should direct to the Deseo singular dab, when the RM at Talk:Deseo is done. Among other plural Deseos, Deseos (Arte Mixto album) is a redirect/category year holder to Cuban band Arte Mixto, which isn't much less middling notable, merely older. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 26 September 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_September_23&oldid=1138579904"