Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2016.

Earth Magnetism[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 all to Earth's magnetic field, with no prejudice against speedy individual renomination. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The retargeting of Magnetosphere of Earth to Magnetosphere#Earth's magnetosphere per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 5#Magnetosphere of Earth has caused most of these fixed double redirects to point to the wrong target; the only exception probably being Magnetologist. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly redirected all the redirects that clearly refer to the Earth's magnetic field there. The only ones remaining are Magnetologist, Surface magnetic field, which seems applicable to non-Earth bodies, and Geomagnetic maximum, which could potentially redirect to a specific phenomenon.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some additional reading, my preference is to retarget "Geomagnetic maximum" to Earth's_magnetic_field#Intensity where minimums and maxima in field intensity are discussed and "Surface magnetic field" to Magnetosphere, since it could apply to any stellar body's magnetic field. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget except for the following.
    • Delete all proper noun designations such as "Earth's Magnetic Field" or "Magnetic Field of the Earth". News articles and journals refer to "Earth's magnetic field" and "geomagnetic field". See NOAA FAQ
    • Delete Earths magnitism. Typo. If someone's going to search for this term they will find Earth's magnetic field by the time they type in mag.
    • Delete Earths magnetism. The term isn't used together like that in news articles or journal. It's usually Earth's magnetic field. And could get confused with Rare-earth magnet.
    • Redirect Surface magnetic field to magnetic field. That doesn't necessarily refer to the Earth.
    • Keep Geomagnetism and its variants as mentioned in the NOAA FAQ.
    • Delete or redirect magnetology to magnet, as the single news article that pops up is about the use of magnets in alternative medicine. [1] and there's a website called Magnetology that makes magnet books for children. Magnetologist might be too vague as well. The book searches show it to mean the study of magnetism and magnets, so that isn't specific to the Earth. [2]
    • Delete Geomagnetic maximum Article does not explain this term. Maximum of what?
Did I miss any? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (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.

Redirects to Template:Pampanga Radio[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) 11:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"San Fernando" is an ambiguous term. It can be any place in any country. Sixth of March 10:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have no objections to the redirects being deleted, my comment was just a minor correction of the nomination statement. -- Tavix (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2016 (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.

Christian Warren[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect page should be deleted and later become an independent article about the author of Brush with Death. RekishiEJ (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This did not need to go to RFD. be bold and make the article yourself. Pppery (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, but I currently do not have enough time to research this historian and write a Wikipedia article about him.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't clear whether the author or the book is more notable for an article to be created. [3] But it shouldn't be pointing to the football player as it is not a name that player goes by. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK then, if no one wants to create the article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:34, 20 July 2016 (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:192.168.1.1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 22#User:192.168.1.1

Vuil[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 and retargeted to Dutch profanity#Miscellaneous profanity. Good find, Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. wikt:vuil says this is Dutch and Afrikaans. -- Tavix (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2016 (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:Alphabetical list of WikiProjects[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such a list exists at the redirect's target. The only plausible option for retargeting this redirect would probably be a soft redirect to Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject, but that may be pushing it, especially since that link contains subpages and redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless there's a better option, since anyone searching for this wants to search for WikiProjects, and this is presumeably the best target, since it is only one click away from (mostly) alphabetical lists of WikiProjects. The page suggested in the nom lists subpages, so is not very helpful and would take too long to navigate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That special pages takes 50 clicks to get to WikiProjects pages that start with "D". A list sorted by topic then alphabetically is the next best thing to a list sorted alphabetically, especially when the suggested alternative is prohibitively difficult to use to find any WikiProject that doesn't happen to begin with one of the first letters of the alphabet. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject does not fit due to including subpages as you said, then this redirect should be deleted, not directed to a list that isn't purely alphabetical. Pppery (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there's a better option. A non-alphabetical (but quite organized) list is better than no list. — Gorthian (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (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.

Maasikkaay[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, defaulting to retarget to Quercus infectoria as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non standard transliteration of a Tamil language term for galls of Quercus infectoria used in Ayurvedic medicine. Current target isn't even the right species of oak. Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Quercus infectoria as a likely (mis)spelling variant of Maasikkai, which returns a fair number of google hits and is the form it's listed as at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3336400/pdf/ASL-20-31.pdf. I definitely support also creating the more standardly transliterated māccakkāy (மாச்சக்காய்: [4] [5]). Worth noting though: I don't know what's what in Tamil stuff, but my general impression of South Asia is that standard transliterations (God bless them, I add them to articles whenever I can) seem to be used only by cataloguers, philologists (not even linguists) and sometimes by area specialists. A non-standard romanisation is what everyone else uses when typing in the search box (and when writing the articles). Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2016 (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.

Abbingdon Girls' School[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 08:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable Abbingdons (with two b's) to map. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added the information to the article with a reliable source. Given that it appears in an overview section for the character in a guidebook, it seems reasonable to include it, especially since the contrasts with the character's backstory in the first era of Tomb Raider games. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight's edit, although I cannot withdraw because of the delete vote. SSTflyer 01:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's enough for it to get its own notability. Yes, it's a school that Lara Croft attends, however, none of the video games in the franchise notably focus on her girls' school days. Abbington is hardly Hogwarts. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this spelling and name is unique to Lara Croft. I also found this academic book game design specifically mentions the school as part of an example of lore to be emulated in good video game design. In any case, two other schools are mentioned for the first era of the Tomb Raider franchise, so there it seems the local consensus is that they are valid for inclusion in the article, though you could always take it up on the talk page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it's a trivial detail in the backstory of the version of Lara Croft in the second of three Tomb Raider eras, and not an established part of the character. The reference for that particular detail is a gameguide, not the game itself. By that logic, we could create a redirect for Earl of Abbingdon, as that's what the character of Richard Croft was in that era. Typing in "abingdon", there is an article on Abingdon and Witney College. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameguides are generally considered authoritative, and in the link I posted in reply to AngusWOOF, an academic book on game design references the school as part of the excellent lore of the game. I've created the Earl of Abbingdon redirect to the actual title Earl of Abingdon, as a {{R from misspelling}}, since we don't seem to have coverage of the father on Wikipedia so there's no other target for that. As for schools in places named Abingdon, I would say that small details matter. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, was or wasn't the fictional school actually mentioned in any of the games or not? I assumed it just appeared in a gameguide. Because if it did appear in one of the games, I could understand the redirect. But if it's just in a gameguide, that doesn't seem noteworthy enough to me (not discounting its use as a reliable source though). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answering that would me watching playthroughs of at least three Tomb Raider games and/or dig up the novelizations/comic book series, which I'm not going to do. I've provided a reliable source that shows it's part of the character's backstory, and another reliable source that shows that backstory is an example of exemplar character lore and includes the name of the school. Given that this is the only thing that this specific term refers to, I don't see the benefits of deletion. You delete it, people search for it, and they get a search results page with one entry: Lara Croft. Where's the benefit in that? If there was a valid retargeting option, that could be done, but there doesn't seem to be one given the specific spelling of the title. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep. Patar knight's arguments are sound. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the arguments for keeping are moot when you consider that, in the past 12 months it's had 0.69 hits per day. It doesn't seem to be serving any useful purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an obscure reference that isn't showing up in general news searches. If she had a horse when she was young, would that horse's name be a searchable item? There's a Forbes magazine reference to her as a Countess of Abbingdon though. [6] One possible reason why it's getting some hits is because Abingdon Boys School is a notable Japanese rock band, so folks searching for that would find the girls school to be a curiosity. As for other Abbingdons, John Leland mentions an Abbingdon Abbay in his book [7]. But I'm getting a lot of redirects to Abingdon in the Google searches, so perhaps it may be useful to merge the dabs there. Again, I would be more convinced of its usefulness if it had more stronger references in the game like "you're that student from Abbingdon Girls School" or it had some scenarios involved her visiting her old school. Like her mentor Werner Von Croy, who was an actual character in the game scenario. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's harmless and getting hits; 0.7 hits/day isn't high, but it's not all that low for a redirect either, and well above noise level. People are using this, it's leading them to the best possible target, and this topic is covered there. Sideways713 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2016 (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.

Russavia[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect is not discussed in the target article, and so, in my opinion, should be deleted as per WP:R#DELETE criterion 2. Everymorning (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't have an opinion yet, but I wanted to let other editors know that Russavia was the username of an editor here (now banned) who apparently took on the "mission" of defending the Polandball article to the extent of creating the same article on 50 different language wikipedias after the one here was deleted. (Details at Wikipediocracy.) Thus, there is a relationship, but it probably won't ever be mentioned in the article. — Gorthian (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2016 (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.

1984 (number)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was previously retargeted to 1984 (disambiguation), until I (before creating an account) retargeted it to its current destination to avoid link pollution on the year article (1984). However, the target section has only one fact about the number in question, and most XXX (number) redirects do not exist even if there is a fact in the order of magnitude article. The `for the number see 1984 (number)` message (which is a standard part of the {{year dab}} template) is underirable and thus this redirect should be deleted. Pppery (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That it can be converted to a binary number isn't particularly notable or significant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A recent discussion involving all number redirects to that page where the number isn't mentioned resulted in "no consensus." I !voted delete in that discussion, but this should be kept for the same reason. Someone searching for information on that number will find information on the number at the target, so it's a helpful redirect to have. Sure, it's not much, but deleting this will give our readers no information. In this case, something is better than nothing. -- Tavix (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and the arguments in the prior discussion linked in his !vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:48, 21 July 2016 (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.

"Captain Flint" (character[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable typo. Why would someone type the name with quotes and missing a closing paren. Pppery (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with delete, but I was getting all the links in other articles referring to the Arthur Ransome "Captain Flint" character so that they connected to the true ref - this link must have been done in haste and omitting the closing bracket (not detected by bracketbot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible stylization with bad modifier. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY (i.e. "titles with punctuation or obscure errors that have no specific affinity to them e.g. a period at the end or a disambiguated title with one parenthesis missing").—Godsy(TALKCONT) 14:59, 13 July 2016 (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.

MDY redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 21#MDY redirects

Mainland Australia[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, since there's no objection to the original request. -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this term means the single continuous landmass of Australia excluding Tasmania and other small outlying islands, then it deserves its own article like contiguous United States, rather than a redirect. Quest for Truth (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (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.

Othello/Reversi(board game)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 problems with this redirect. The first one is that although "Othello" is the same as "Reversi", we shouldn't have a redirect from a title beginning with "A/B" where A and B are related somehow as subpages are disabled in mainspace. The second one is that there is no space before the opening parenthesis. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (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/2016_July_12&oldid=1088109691"