Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2016.

Human factors in Aviation safety[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. I've also followed Rich Farmbrough's suggestion. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, WP:LOWERCASE Dawnseeker2000 14:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to "Human factors in aviation safety" - sorry I didn't notice the stray capital. The target section is linked from pilot error and I created the redirect as suggested in MOS:LINK2SECT. It is an {{R with possibilities}} as I believe the topic is sufficiently notable to have its own article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and also create "Human factors in aviation safety" - tag with {{R with possibilities}}. Remove tag from Human factors in Aviation safety, and re-tag {{Redirect from alternative capitalisation}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Roman eating and drinking[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 Roman food. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very unlikely search. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But reatrget to Roman food as below. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Terrorists[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) 21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic and non-specific name. It currently redirects to a template on Indian fugitives as a result of a move. Mar4d (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having looked at Category:Terrorism templates. I have come to the conclusion that no plausible target can be found for this redirect for all the templates in that category are also as specific as the current target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Terrorism, which is the best fit. That template also has a sections titled "Terrorist groups" and "Adherents" which would seem to be what people using this would be trying to find. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would not make sense. The current target is a navbox, and your proposed target is a sidebar. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK there's nothing that prevents redirects that formerly targeted navboxes to be retargeted towards sidebars. Both are templates, and my proposed target would be the best fit for a redirect of this name.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was taken to CSD by User:Smsarmad on 10 October with the rationale "This title is a POV. This template was serving the purpose of grouping together a set of articles just like a category does and we previously had a discussion about a category with the same title that was deleted on similar grounds. So it can be considered a CSD#G4 case" (with this edit) but was declined by User:Pppery with the comment "Consider RfD - redirects do not have to have neutral titles and the rest of your rationale applies to the target of this redirect, rather than the redirect itself".
  • (Speedily) delete. It's a {{R from page move}} by User:Smsarmad and essentially is WP:G6 housekeeping; which slightly complicates (not much) its deletion: we can just add links to the relevant discussions at the talk page of the target to preserve attribution etc; such as the {{old rfd}} from this discussion when it closes. The current target was only created on 9 October and moved very shortly thereafter, so it's extremely unlikely we'd break any external links.
I suppose it is aLSO WP:RFD#D8 "novel or very obscure synonym". Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:IARring, I've been WP:BOLD and "fixed" theten WP:NOTBROKEN transclusions of the redirect. Since the navbox now at target was onlz created on the 9th, and moved very shortly afterwards, we've no need for this vestige. We can put the attribution, {{old rfd}} etc on the target's talk page. I've updated the name and title fields in the target. All this should really have been done as part of the page move, but never mind. Currently my "what links here" doesn't seem to have updated yet (the external tool shows 0 transclusions of the redirect). Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Cat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 19#A Cat

Hopper 7[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 18#Hopper 7

You-To-Be[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) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. SSTflyer 09:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, not plausible. (Interesting fact:If you search this on Google, it will correct you to search for YouTube, so I assume Google is automatically fetching these suggestions from Wikipedia redirects, still, that further clarifies my vote, considering such redirects will do harm to external search engines.) - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "you-to-be" might be a joke pronunciation of YouTube, if this is documented I might reconsider. Otherwise I think it's a bad target - "you to be" has plenty of meaning of its own. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment We've also got U2BE, EU Tube, EUtube, Eutube pointing to the same target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This looks like a non-notable joke term and nothing more. It's not really helpful as a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Microsoft China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 18#Microsoft China

UK Driving Licence codes[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, and change the section to #Driving license codes. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These could be refined to section "#Driving licence categories", but that lists categories, not codes. Doesn't look like anyone searches this way. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense without links to the given section. Neither has any internal links, no hits in the last 90 days for "license", one or two a day at most for "licence". UK driving licence codes (not nominated) is a {{R from merge}} and should be kept, but there's no need for these variations and since they are both incorrect names and one is also incorrectly spelled, I think the sum of all the individually minor problems with these pushes them into "delete" territory. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table header says "Categories". The words "code" and "codes" are absent from the article except once, "codes", in an external link. It's harmful to have WP:RFD#D2 confusing redirects when there are no "codes" at the target. They could just as sensibly be retargeted to The Highway Code, so these are a bit WP:XY, too. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change my mind, Keep and retarget to Driving_licence_in_the_United_Kingdom#Driving license codes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Full UK Bike[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) 17:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not at target, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Stats are 0 in 90 days, no internal links. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this phrase usually refers to a license, it can refer to a test. In both cases it is almost always used adjectivally and followed by the noun. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I also don't think that this is of use to anyone. We should be rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

HTTP user agent[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 both to User agent#Use in HTTP. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget HTTP user agent to User agent. "User agent" is deliberately defined to be broader than "Web browser": the term encompasses software acting as, er, agents on behalf of an end user , such as web crawlers. The all-caps variant has a better target and seems to be preferred by my drop-down search if I use mixed case ("HTTP User Agent" or "HTTP User agent"). Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Si Trew, but to section #Use in HTTP. I think you could have just done this, no RfD needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, the {{R to section}} would be better (for both). Perhaps I could have just done it, but it rather fell out of another RfD which I meant to crossref, I have forgotten which now. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Woolwich Boys[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 move Woolwich Boys (gang) over this. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to this due to a recent edit which removed the redirect (but also blanked the page itself). It is true however that the target article has no mention of this supposed gang. Should this be deleted or is there a better target available? Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I RFDed too fast. Looks like there is a target Woolwich Boys (gang). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me it can't, because a non-admin can't move a page over another that has history. Anyway, what's the hurry? Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_October_11&oldid=1138581265"