Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2015.

Etre Supreme[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 Cult of the Supreme Being. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN The Traditionalist (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Is this even a proper French saying? French for God is Dieu. For some reason this makes me want a hamburger. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess it could go to Cult of the Supreme Being (French: Culte de l'Être suprême). Somewhat prefer deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the US, we just call it a Quarter Pounder. I believe the version with cheese is the "Etre Supreme with Cheese". --BDD (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to where Ivanvector says. His somewhat preference is a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I think: Neither do I, but I think that is where it should go. (I checked the French linkups.) Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll go along with it, then. Retarget per, uh, me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector's findings. Also the appropriate use of "per me" is hilarious. Please don't kill me. --Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2015 (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.

Bóg[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) 14:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN The Traditionalist (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research by the way. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Someone who frequents these boards is keen on expressing frustration that fellow editors don't do their WP:HOMEWORK, and I'm trying to be better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bóg in Hungary would be a placename (it isn't), and in Spain: this is WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to vagueness per discussion above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (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.

Bumsla[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. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the Latin name of the city, yet the city is in the Czech Republic. Doesn't seem strongly related to me. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although noted as a Latin name in the article, I couldn't find any source for this; it seems to be a legitimate name, but one that mostly appears in Jewish contexts. (In some places it's called Hebrew or Yiddish, but the best RSes I could find, e.g. [1], simply note it as a name used by Jews. It was originally inserted in the article as a "Hebrew/Latin" name, way back in 2006, but the "Hebrew" was later removed.) Whether this makes it any more relevant to a city in the Czech Republic, I'm not sure, though the article does mention that "in the 17th and 18th centuries, Mladá Boleslav was an important Jewish center." Sideways713 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally, I'm quick to support deletion for foreign language names, but Latin is a bit of a special case. Since Latin was used as a scholarly and diplomatic language in Europe for so long, I would argue that older European cities like Mladá Boleslav do have a connection to Latin. Readers may come across the Latin forms in old books, treaties, or secondary sources referring to the same. In this case, the Latin name is also apparently important enough to be mentioned in the lede. This would be a surer thing if the city existed in Roman times, but I'm still comfortable with it as is.
That's all if this is really Latin. I don't really know Latin, but the name doesn't look especially Latin to me. Even if it's just Hebrew or Yiddish, though, I think Sideways713 demonstrates that this is a legitimate, useful alternative name. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per the above comments, on balance this seems to be a genuine alternative name for the city. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lingua franca langauge used in local publication scholarly works for the period in which Latin was used as the language of the educated classes. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not English, not Latin as lingua franca is, not remotely related to English: Slavic. My first thoughts were either Burma or Bum slap. I don't think this is helpful to an English-speaking audience. WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mainly per BDD. I'm not sure what language it is either, but it definitely seems to be a valid alternative name for the city. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was partly convinced by the arguments against Latin being a valid WP:FORRED redirect for this, but the area which is now the Czech Republic was part of the Duchy and then Kingdom of Bohemia, a part of the Holy Roman Empire for about 800 years. Latin was certainly lingua franca in the Empire, so it's certainly valid for this redirect. I can't say if it's the proper Latin name either, but it was in the article prior to this discussion, so I'm convinced enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2015 (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.

United States of America/OldPage[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) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old page that was previously information that was copied over from CIA World Factbook, turned into redirect. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 02:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the redirect contains merged material in its history, our copyrights do not allow deletion (as this would also delete credit for the authors). See WP:Merge and delete for more information on this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MAD ; rename to United States (America) without leaving a redirect behind at "OldPage", to get rid of the WP:SUBPAGE location. (or some other viable search term name (or existing redirect which contains no history))-- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and implausible. This would be a perfect candidate for what I like to call the "Qantas Flight Numbers" treatment. (See: Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history and you can follow the redlink to the RFD discussion.) -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopaedic aid. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since subpages are no longer used in mainspace, those that remain are redirects with old history, and there are still lots of these around. From the category, These redirects are kept to retain edit history, and to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally. 'Nuff said. – Paine  11:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (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.

Arabes[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) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a really improbably mispelling to me. I say we delete it. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. English has confusing plural rules. See English plurals. Someone could easily think that the plural of Arab is Arabes, especially for speakers of ESL. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the time someone types "Arab", the plural "Arabs" will have popped up. No need for unlikely misspellings. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. @Bermicourt: search suggestions are only available to people with javascript enabled who are using the internal search tool. There are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia, including following links from bookmarks and external websites. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely misspelling, as it's a common ending for English plurals and is the spelling used in French and Latin. Peter James (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It is not a common English spelling for plurals, and WP:NOTDIC to teach people how to spell. This is WP:RFOREIGN as Peter points out, that it is French. I can't think of a single other English noun that has an E in plural before an S. WP:RFD#D8 makes no sense. (I can speak a bit of French and Arabic by the way.) Other arabic-derived terms such as berbers, barbars (via Greek and Latin), kebab (or kabob or kabab) from Turkish does not go to Kebabes nor Kabobes nor Kababes, We have kebabs -> kebab but not kabobs; the various alternatives are listed there but none takes the Magic E -> Silent E in the plural. I know we should write English as She Is Spoke but this is just wrong and WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For JavaScript-less browsers, typos, and non-native English speakers.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment - Yeah, what a strange plural this is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector: Why the relist and not a close? There's twice as many keeps as there are deletes and the keep !votes seem to have the stronger arguments. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, this feels like it's not quite done. On one hand, it could be a plausible misspelling of a pluralization; on the other, it's a redirect from a foreign language with no affinity for the target. The discussion is certainly going in a particular direction, but I thought more discussion was appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense, thanks for explaining. (By the way: I asked it purely out of curiosity, I'm not criticizing the decision.) -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to manhandle my way to a better explanation. -es is a common plural ending in Latin and Greek in 4th conjugation if I remember correctly (only did woodwork at school), which then declines according to the rules of that declension (e.g. Forceps -> Forcipes), so it is a common misconception that those words derived therefrom must be plural when they are in fact singular. But it is in no way common in English to add an E rather than to elide one. It does happen occasionally, usually with an apostrophe, for disambiguation, but this is generally handled by the 19th century rules on apostrophes, which are rather a jumble. For example it is not St Jameses Park (there is your "-es" for you) but (St James's Park (that is what we write today): the "-es" one may have in speech is represented by apostrophe ess in written text. Greengrocers' apostrophes are not Greengrocers' apostropheses, even though apostropheses would agree in Greek, as would thesis with theses. In short, this is not English. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of the -es added in English for many fricatives/affricates (such as "watches"), some vowels ("potatoes"), as well as "-f" sometimes becoming "-ves" in plural, so a misspelling in English influenced by other plurals in English and existence of the spelling in other languages. Peter James (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (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.

Hardware system[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1#Hardware system

Untitled Indian film projects (concluded)[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) 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2015 (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.

Invisible sky man[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) 14:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8 as this is a "novel or obscure" name for God. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good one – (that was some "good shoot, man! You know what 'shoot' is, doncha man? That's 'shit' with two o's, man!") – Paine  15:24, 25 July 2015 (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.

Undeveloped The Office spin-off[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) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have The Office (U.S. TV series)#Proposed spin-offs, but this redirect implies something different than what we have there. Both "entries" in that section were developed: one just evolved further into Parks and Rec and the other developed into The Farm (The Office). -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (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.

What are monocotyledons[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) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, WP:NOTJEOPARDY!, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (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.

デジタルバーサタイルディスク[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) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. DVDs aren't exclusive to Japanese. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google translates this to "digital versatile disk" but they are not special to Japan in any way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (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.

Dynamic address translation[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) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am finding, it seems that this term is not synonymous with "virtual memory". In fact, I would say that these redirects should be deleted per WP:REDLINK since it seems that this term could be its own encyclopedic article/subject. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question in Google Books, I see a lot of books using "dynamic address translation" to mean some sort of network address translation (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details); is this usage actually correct? 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking that this redirect might be a connection with that term as well. However, from what I have found, the closest match that relates to "network address translation" (NAT) is "dynamic network address translation" (DNAT). However, it seems that DNAT and "dynamic address translation" (DAT) are two different concepts. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual memory is not generally dynamically readdressed: in fact, that is the point. Physical memory -> Computer_data_storage#Primary_storage may be readdressed through or by virtual memory allowing computer applications still to run in the same address space.
The VAX/VMS Software Handbook 1981 gives details, if you need sources, and someone else said they also had one, but neither of us completed the tidying up (or to put it less generously, the other editor didn't bother to start on it.) Si Trew (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2015 (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.

V ram[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 VRAM by nomimator (me). Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not explained or identified on the target article. Assuming that this term is an abbreviation for "virtual RAM", the closest article match I can find is Virtual memory, but the term is not mentioned by its specific name in that article either. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to VRAM. (The first revision of V ram, prior to redirection & AFD, was also about the same topic now covered by VRAM.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. I'm just going to implement that change, and close this request. (Not sure how I didn't see that.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (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.

Random Access Memory?[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) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the question mark at the end of the title of this redirect, I don't see this being a plausible search term. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't know why I created this one. Sorry for any problems this caused. Nightscream — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 24 July 2015‎

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.

How ram works[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) 14:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (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.

Goulddigger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1#Goulddigger

Enguerue[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) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this means. - TheChampionMan1234 05:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a redirect to Ankara. In December 2013, a vandal redirected Ankara to United Kingdom, and a bot "fixed" the "double redirect" before the vandal had a chance to self-revert. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Engürü is a valid alternative name for Ankara, according to Turkish Wikipedia. However, Enguerue is not a valid alternative spelling of Engürü. The German-to-English rule of respelling "ü" as "ue" doesn't apply to Turkish, and isn't seen in reliable sources or even unreliable ones. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible, per 58.176's explanation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 58.176.246.42 due to the widely known convention of converting umlauts from German in English, people may misapply this for Turkish, making this a valid {{R from mispelling}} so it should retarget to Ankara -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That derivation would make sense if "Ankara" was an English word. It isn't. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (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.

Abdin (surname)[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. Sorry about doing this early (I'm an oldtimer); feel free to revert if desired. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, confusing. The disambiguation qualifier would imply a redirect to a surname article, but it's not. -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It looks like Abdin is just a variant romanization of Abidin, which is an already-existing surname disambiguation page. Since we do have multiple articles on people with the surname Abdin (and more once the variants are included), I think re-targeting the page in question to point at the relevant disambiguation page would be better than deleting it, and I have now done so (feel free to redirect if desired). I am not particularly familiar with Arabic, so I may be in error about the romanization. If a more knowledgeable person speaks up, please listen to them instead! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 24 July 2015 (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.

Richard Parker (footballer)[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 Richard Parker (specifically Richard Parker#Sportspeople) as an ambiguously-titled redirect due to lack of substantial evidence presented below that qualifies either subject referenced below for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of this term. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is all a bit screwed up, basically there is no footballer called Richard Parker. There was previously a page created under the name, but the player's name was later found to be Reginald Parker. Beatpoet (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Richard Parker (rugby league). While "footballer" almost always means "association footballer" in Wikipedia usage, Footballer redirects to Football player, which includes rugby league. So technically, we have one article on a footballer named Richard Parker. I see the potential for confusion. I'm not super concerned about it if there's no other article for readers to find, but deletion does make sense. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also worth asking why we ever thought Reginald's name was Richard. If it's the mistake of one editor, fine, but if it's an error made in reliable sources as well, then it's definitely worth noting somehow. I see he's listed as Richard at brentfordfchistory.co.uk, the only web source on the article, though I don't know how reliable that is. Could we be confusing two people here? --BDD (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BDD, I believed the player was called Richard Parker because he was listed in the Timeless Bees Brentford book under that name. That book is incredibly reliable and this player's name is the only one that has turned out to be wrong. brentfordfchistory.co.uk is reliable too, but I think it has borrowed many names/stats from Timeless Bees. Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 lists Parker as Reginald, and that book is pretty much the definitive record of players of that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatpoet (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for clarifying. If such an important Brentford F.C. book has listed him under this name, I think we should keep this, tag it as {{R from incorrect name}}, and mention it in the article. Something like "Reginald Parker, sometimes erroneously cited as Richard Parker, was an English footballer..." --BDD (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a number of RS use this name (even if it is wrong - presumably because of an old new report or something) then I view it as a possiblt search term and therefore a valid redirect. GiantSnowman 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BDD, it seems like this is a genuine error in some RS, so could be a plausible search term. page needs cleaning up to make this explicit. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Richard Parker (rugby league), since rugby players are also called footballers, a hatnote can be added for the mispelling. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2015 (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.

Northeastern Australia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1#Northeastern Australia

Bandaiyan[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 see that WikiProject Australia was notified about this. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable neologism/term. - TheChampionMan1234 01:50, 24 July 2015 (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.

Garaoke[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 1#Garaoke

Rhetorically asks[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) 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a particularly probable search term to me. Compassionate727 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. If this redirect falls in the forest, does anybody hear? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep Not a search term (of course) but might be convenient for use in prose. For example, the sentence: “The poem, in which the speaker rhetorically asks why he has lost his ability to write poetry, uses boating references” can certainly be written this way: “The poem, in which the speaker [[Rhetorical question|rhetorically asks]] why he has lost his ability to write poetry, uses boating references” but if this redirect exists, it can be written this way: “The poem, in which the speaker [[rhetorically asks]] why he has lost his ability to write poetry, uses boating references” saving a pipe-link.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good thought. I had to check if that's currently the case. There is exactly one usage of this phrase in the prose of an article: Ed "Too Tall" Jones. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Traditionalist 's reasoning. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: We can add it to other articles. There are plenty which contain these words. It may also be used when creating a new article.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right, I understand that. I was just checking to see the current usage of the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to it being used. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an R to a section in an article that does not mention it. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOUN. Not mentioned at target, nor anything similar. No WP:RS, no WP:V. I know in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed, but this is pushing it: WP:RFD#D5]] nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2015 (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 X[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) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to Windows 10. Now that the ‘GWX’ (as in Get Windows X) app is much discussed, this orthography starts to get somewhat used � (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Windows 10. It would also seem to me that "X" would be the roman numeral for "10." Compassionate727 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no Windows OS version named "Windows X". There are no other Roman numeral redirects to versions of Windows, such as Windows XII → Windows 7 or Windows XIII → Windows 8. It's nonsense, and speculation based on rumours. +mt — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 14 July 2015
  • Changed my mind to disambiguate Windows 10 and X Window System. I still don't see any mention in Windows 10 that it is also called Windows X, but I can see that there are some confused people out there that might think that. +mt 06:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it be based on rumor? This redirect was created the day the Windows 10 beta dropped. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the current target is based on "X" being a placeholder (like Windows 9x) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like we have a couple of potential retarget options. Is one of them the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If so, we should retarget there and hatnote to the other. If not, a disambiguation might be a good idea. -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 10 is more likely. X Window System is really a partial title match, but could be hatnoted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that. X-Windows has a lot of variant names. It would more likely refer to Windows/X (X-Windows) than Windows 10 -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just some humor: The Mystery of Windows X Wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GWX is a red link, so it's apparently not that much discussed on Wikipedia. I had to look that up to see what it was: the infamous "Get Windows 10" nagware. BTW, I've removed that update from my Windows 7 system, and hidden it from Automatic Updates. "Windows X" does not support my beloved Windows Media Center, so upgrading my "Media Center PC" is a nonstarter for me. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Windows 9x is another disambiguation option, i.e. "Win x" could mean "Windows 95 and 98 OS family". A likely reason to favor "10" over "X", and to skip "Windows 9": already done that in the 90s. Windows X Some interesting commentary. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you have X Window System implementations that run under Microsoft Windows, such as Cygwin/X and Xming. See X.Org Server § Adoption, Windows X-server. Because of all this stuff, I suspect any actual usage of "X" by Microsoft will be limited to obscure internal file names such as GWX.exe – it's like their way to obscure the fact that file has anything to do with Windows 10... it's just an "important Windows 7/8.1 update", right? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2015 (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.

List of Pokemon Orange Islands Gym Leaders[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 first two to List of Pokémon characters#Orange Islands Gym Leaders, delete third. — Earwig talk 04:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders that redirects to the section on this topic, but I don't think any of these titles are plausible search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible but probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably consent to delete that one if it were on its own, and if the closer wants a split result, that's fine with me. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2015 (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/2015_July_24&oldid=1046516392"