Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2016.

KTM Port Klang Line trial route[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 Port Klang Line. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:16, 9 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.

Lists of cheeses[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, default to keep. This is a timely test case for the {{R from alternative capitalization}} argument, as recent advances in the Wikipedia search engine's design has made these redirects less useful than they once were. There is a strong minority opinion that they shouldn't be kept because of the incorrect capitalization, but the keep opinions are also strong and I don't think this discussion is heading towards a consensus to delete. Opinions may or may not change next year as MediaWiki keeps changing... Deryck C. 12:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created all of these. A redirect of the exact same nature that I created on the same day (i.e. October 4, 2015) as these was speedied early today per CSD#R3. At the time I presume my line of thinking was that these were reasonable {{r from alternative capitalization}}s (RTYPO was probably considered as well; RCAPS wasn't codified until two weeks later). While there isn't a particular affinity for this error in relation to cheese, and the search engine currently isn't case sensitive (neither of which are particularly strong deletion rationales), I've seen redirects along these lines kept (WP:CHEAP/WP:NOHARM). Should these be retained or deleted?—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say keep them all. Many readers are too lazy to capitalize words in the middle of a sentence, and I really don't think there is any harm in keeping these. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say delete them all (with the exception of the Mexican one, which I can't comment on as I'm not versed in the occult science of redirectability to lists). Capitalisation variants are handled by the current search engine and by any sensible future engines. The harm in keeping unnecessary redirects is explained at WP:COSTLY. Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Notecardforfree. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, annoying. I should be able to type in lower case and get where I want to without a little message pointing out how lazy I am. Siuenti (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mexican cheeses since that is a likely search term when all the other articles are in that format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all as they're standard, harmless {{R from other capitalisation}} redirects. Deletion would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NCFF and Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 17 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.

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories[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. This has been up for a whole day at RfD and given the obvious BLP issues, there's no value to keeping this open for the week, since given the responses so far, deletion would certainly be the outcome. If anyone has a proposed target that is not a BLP violation, be bold and create a new redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation, not a sensible redirect. There are no doubt many conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood; a Google search for Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theory returns a whole bunch of bizarre claims and conspiracies. Redirecting this phrase to a single incident in a single person's biography is flagrantly unwarranted. Why not Barack Obama or Frank Gaffney or any number of other people associated with Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While I did decline PROD, that was for a somewhat different reason, also, PROD is inapplicable to redirects anyhow. Simply too vague to be an appropriate redirect to the target article. Safiel (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champion (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 July 2016
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.

Wnco.com[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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This website isn't mentioned at all at the target, and it appears to be defunct. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This was an email address domain used by Southwest Airlines, but was never really listed up front for southwest like iflyswa.com. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this redirect get so many hits if it's defunct? There are seven a day, even before this RFD. — Gorthian (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Southwest are still listing wnco.com e-mail addresses in recent releases, e.g. a Form 8-K from last week [1]. I guess people are wondering why it isn't working and whether it really has anything to do with Southwest? FWIW the domain name is registered until 2018. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. With so many hits, this is obviously useful. (Thanks, 210.6.254.106.) — Gorthian (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing reluctantly to "delete", based on 210.6.254.106 and Deryck's reasoning. People will just have to find another shortcut. — Gorthian (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP and Gorthian. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It really needs to be mentioned on the target, and I'm not having great luck finding reliable sources explaining what's going on here. This is the only thing I've even found which discusses the domain name at all. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, leaning towards delete. It is common for organisations to have different domain names for their websites and for employee emails, and it is not uncommon for the email domain name to have no HTTP functionality. Another example off the top of my head is Tonbridge School which uses http://www.tonbridge-school.co.uk for their website but tonbridge-school.org (no HTTP functionality) for emails. I think what we've established is that wnco.com is almost certainly owned and operated by Southwest Airlines. But alongside many past deleted domain name redirects, I don't see much value in redirecting all domain names owned by a company; indeed RfD has deleted some in the past, where the subsidiary or the regional operation connected to the domain name isn't discussed at the target. But I'm unsure about a domain name for the main company. Probably delete, again because it isn't mentioned at the target. Deryck C. 12:39, 18 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.

Blogsouthwest.com[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 11:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Wikipedia is not a blog, so there isn't and shouldn't be discussion of Southwest's blog website at their article. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's a blog by the official website, but not notable on its own. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the blog from the article's external links as well as some of the other ones that are coming from the official website anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 9 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.

Bloodless[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 between soft redirecting to the Wiktionary entry and deletion. This will default to soft redirection as the alternative to deletion. I will note that {{wi}} has a link to search locally, so those concerns should at least be partially alleviated by this result. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bloodless" can refer to a number of concepts -- I recommend deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like the question is whether this should be soft redirected to Wiktionary or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A view or two each day is probably enough to warrant a soft redirect to wiktionary. Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate between bloodless coup and bloodless conflict. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Uanfala. — Gorthian (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – and do not retarget to Wiktionary. The word is an adjective with an unspecified noun. If there is no page, the search results page that comes up will prompt the user to browse those listings or re-enter their intended keywords. Senator2029 “Talk” 14:28, 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.

Ditto (Pokèmon)[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 11:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proper spelling of Pokémon uses this é. Using è results in this being an implausible redirect. There are no pages that link to this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Use Pokémon or Pokemon for English wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 03:19, 14 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.

Liberation of Iraq[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. Deryck C. 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary redirect from a heavily (fringe) POV, rather inane and politically extreme/far-right term. We don't have "liberation of Poland" as a redirect to Invasion of Poland either. The term liberation is sometimes used when a country/territory that has been under foreign occupation is retaken by its original government and/or their allies. It is never used in the case of an unprovoked and criminal war of aggression against a sovereign country in violation of international law that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and systematic war crimes by the aggressor-perpetrators, and strong and mounting[3] calls for putting the aggressor-states' leaders on trial for war crimes. Tataral (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg article talks about a different event altogether, the Independent and globalresearch.ca articles both put "liberation" in scare quotes, the Standard and kurdistan24 ones look like opinion pieces and the reference in Investors.com sounds vaguely ironic. Still, I'm striking through my delete !vote. I'm having a look at the search results in The Guardian [10] and the phrase does indeed appear to be used, although almost entirely as part of quotations (presumably by advocates of the war). Well, if people have used the term to refer to the invasion, then we should keep it. There might be a case for looking into whether the phrase has been used to refer to historical events. As for the two dab alternatives tentatively given by AngusWOOF, they're sensible but I'm not sure if a dab page consisting entirely of partial title matches would be helpful. Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The implication in the Bloomberg article is that the true liberation of Iraq began 25 years ago as opposed to what most people refer to as the liberation, which is the 2003 invasion that 1991 is contrasted to throughout the article. Scare quotes, irony or not, they are reliable sources that use the term to describe the war, it doesn't really matter if it's used in earnest or as derision. Opinion pieces in reliable sources would still have to go through an opinions editor and would still indicate some level of usage by reliable sources. The better search for this though is Google Books, which indicates that it was the title of a progress report on the war and was used in the title of a series of essays on the war, among many others. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a hatnote or a See also section for the PTM? Someone could be looking for either of those two titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 10 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:CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2016/ Functional Tests for Questionnaire Controller[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 11:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear how the target page relates to any active or formerly active part of the Wikipedia namespace. The creator of the target page's most recent edit was moving the page to the redirect's title in March 2016. It seems that whatever the purpose of the target is/was, it never happened on Wikipedia as the redirect is titled "Spring 2016". Also, on Wikipedia, the redirect's title could be seen as misleading since this page does not relate to the target of Wikipedia:CSC. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 9 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_9&oldid=1143743098"