Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 12[edit]

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

Draft:Stephen V. Cameron[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 pending consensus as to whether redirects left from page moves out of the Draft namespace should be kept. WJBscribe (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated a similar one yesterday that was redirecting from the Wikipedia namespace. Nothing links here except the userpage of the creator. Doesn't appear that anyone would type this in looking for the actual article. Gluons12 talk 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: R2 doesn't apply here as that criterion covers redirects from mainspace. This redirect is to mainspace. -- Tavix (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since the target was where the draft ended up moving to after being published. (I remember that there were a few related discussions on RFD recently, but I cannot think of any specific ones right now; I can only remember that BDD asked a question regarding these drafts to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation project, and I think the question was about precedence regarding these "Draft:" namespace redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an {{R from page move}} and really the mover, User:Dk3298371 should have taken it as WP:G6 housekeeping, the whole point of Draft space is to fiddle about but once finished to delete things out of it. I think a bot or somesuch tends to run over them anyway, I have had a few notifications when I have left dangling translations in Draft that I have abandoned or just completely forgotten about, so it is quite likely it would be deleted out of the usual housekeeping. But since it was not thus done, we might as well do it now. I think WP:G6 is fine, but no point taking it to CSD now it is listed here. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:36, 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.

IOS 6 Maps[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) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion as the name "IOS 6 Maps" is a recently created redirect that is founded on an invented misnomer that has never been used to refer to the software. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IOS 6 Maps has been used to refer to the software, see this tech radar article. -- GB fan 11:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little more to show that IOS 6 Maps is used, see this google search. -- GB fan 12:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I didn't explicitly say it in my posts above. -- GB fan 10:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a formal name or nickname by the company, if the only coverage is a tech article speculating on the name of the product. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term, commonly used and unambigious more than 1,500 hits on Google News link the term to the target, don't see why anyone will vote todelete this. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 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.

Ci Ling[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) 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure (neelix redirect). This is in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the target as being the pinyin. I am not sure if we generally redirect for transliterations of foreign-language terms. Definitely has affinity with the target. We do have {{R from transliteration}}, but it's not as if it's just another writing system but a translation too, so to have that and {{R from other language|zh}} might be a bit much (i.e., are those two essentially mutually exclusive?) Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'd rather we just let people search the words. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible search term for someone who has the transliteration but doesn't know the English translation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Ambiguous, could also refer to P. longispinis, see zh:长刺菱蟹, although they have different characters. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep transliteration of language related to topic, like Zhongguo. That bug doesn't appear to be specific to China Siuenti (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice to see youback, User:Siuenti, I've missed you. If Siuenti says keep, it means keep. One more off the Neelix list, about 20000 to go.{{R from other language|zh}}? Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Chinese speaker here. I was going to close this as keep but I figured I'd like to chip in some more research in case this RfD is referred to in the future, and I don't want to supervote. I agree that Ci Ling is the Pinyin transcription (without tones) of the Chinese title of this film. The case of ambiguity with P. longispinis = zh:长刺菱蟹 shouldn't be a problem because this species doesn't have its own article on the English Wikipedia yet (Wikipedia:Primary topic). On further investigation I found that 长刺菱蟹 (chang ci ling xie) is actually parsed changci lingxie (not *chang ciling xie), literally "long spike chestnut crab", and is a species in a family of other lingxies like 短刺菱蟹 "short spike chestnut crab", 长手菱蟹 "long hand chestnut crab", 强壮菱蟹 "strong chestnut crab" etc. So it would be wrong to refer to any of them as "ci ling". Deryck C. 21:47, 21 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.

Evening newspaper[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 both. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target beyond a blasé and wrong unsourced single sentence.

At least in the UK, an evening newspaper is a quotidian newspaper that is issued for reading in the evenings, traditionally: printed during the day, after the morning papers' print runs, and tended to be regional rather than national. Things like the London Evening Standard, Cambridge Evening News, Manchester Evening News, Bristol Evening Post and so on. In these modern times, many of these titles no longer are printed for evening consumption and some such as Cambridge Evening News (now Cambridge News) and Bristol Evening News (now Bristol News) have dropped the "Evening" out of their title. But as Wittgenstein says, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", or put likewise, "if you don't know, shut up". There is no point in having this specific redirect to the confusing, wrong section Newspaper#Daily, there is a huge distinction between a daily newspaper or morning newspaper (both -> Newspaper#Daily) and an evening newspaper. Traditionally, evening newspapers would have more up-to-date news about things that had happened overnight or until about midday that day, whereas dailies were usually finishing their "final" print run around 2am. Si Trew (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention at the target is " Afternoon or evening papers, once common but now scarce, are aimed more at commuters and office workers". Not true, not sourced, just a one-sentence unsourced piece of rubbish which I can happily remove on those grounds alone. Si Trew (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "evening newspaper" can always be highlighted and anchored in that Daily section. I don't believe it needs to be sourced for WP:BLUE, but if you need some sort of article, here's one from 1988: [2] You can always rephrase it so it is more neutral. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a technicality, User:AngusWOOF, it says "evening paper" not "evening newspaper" but no big deal there. No it doesn't need to be sourced, but I am at liberty to remove it in which case there would be no mention of it because then I would take WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I've no intention of doing that, but I could because the onus is on someone to add content to the article not to remove it. Since you have given a source, and I am sure I can find more others given the time, I think best that I work on this a bit in a sandbox. Really I think the defining point is that what would be Stop press in the dailies i.e. overnight printed would be fleshed fuller in the evening papers. I don't think that subtlety or rather obvious thing is brought out these days with round-the-clock news etc. I suffer sometimes from insomnia and watch or rather have on in the background BBC News Channel for hours on end. I can tell you from first experience the news does not change that much in an hour.
The good Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Looney Party once had on their election manifesto to make newspapers and news bulletins the size to fit the news, rather than the other way around. A policy I wholly endorse. Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there is discussion of evening newspapers at the target. There's no confusion to be had, someone looking for information on evening papers, will find (admittedly scant) information on evening papers, but it's better than nothing. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Our coverage of this type of newspaper definitely needs expansion, this source or this source could potentially aid in that endeavor, but I don't have the time right now.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:17, 25 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.

List of Hispanic-Americans of Spanish and Mexican origin[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) 14:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very misleading. Hispanos "are people of colonial Spanish descent in what is today the United States". But not all Hispanic Americans of Spanish or Mexican origin would qualify as hispanos. I don't think there's a good place to retarget this; we have a List of Hispanic and Latino Americans, but that's much broader. We have a List of Mexican Americans and List of Spanish Americans, but that's an WP:XY problem. BDD (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's pretty WP:RFD#D5 nonsense in English, anyway, with the "and" instead of the "or" (what, they had to have the mother's side from Spain and the father's from Mexico, or what?) Even the somewhat-more-sensible List of Americans of Hispanic origin is red: this is nonsense, pure and simple. Hits are 2⁄90 and links are exactly zero. Si Trew (talk) 15:47, 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.

List of Hispanos de Spanish and Mexican origin[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) 14:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting twist on WP:FORRED. Spanish clearly has affinity for this topic, but replacing just one word in the English phrase with a Spanish one looks like it makes for a very unlikely search term. BDD (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice find. It took me three attempts to spot the error, the word before it threw me off as I switched languages at that point (not consciously, only kinda in post mortem I realised what my brain did and why I missed it: explain it after this closes). I refer you as usual to my grand old gentleman, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Alfred_Candidus_Ferdinand_Windischgratz where WP:CONSENSUS was to delete "with special prejudice against those that mix English and German (e.g., "Fürst of", "Prince zu")". (Yes, this is Spanish not German, but I assume the same applies). Si Trew (talk) 15:32, 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.

Guy Sims Fitch[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) 23:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the name "Guy Sims Fitch" comes up in a single article by Gizmodo and it's now making the rounds on other websites. Without RS I don't see why we would keep this redirect. Redirects, after all, are a backdoor for IPs to create content without going through AfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as creator. I added a mention of this fictitious byline used by the USIA, per a media report, to the article. That mention seems to be contested, but even so the redirect seems useful as a possible search term.  Sandstein  16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insofar as sources are a concern, I've added another: Wilson P., Jr, Dizard (2004). Inventing public diplomacy : the story of the U.S. Information Agency. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 159. ISBN 9781588262882. Retrieved 27 September 2016. These commentaries were prepared by a group of USIA editors (...) A long-running commentary on economic developments was attributed for many years to a fictional Guy Sims Fitch, whose views were often cited authoritatively in overseas publications  Sandstein  16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to see better sourcing but I still don't see why Wikipedia needs to create a redirect as a search term. If Sandstein's sentence is in the USIA article it'll be found there. The redirect will now serve as a magnet for ne'er-do-wells to begin assembling an unwatched article based on a lot of conjecture. Delete the damn thing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If as you say the name is circulated on websites (I only read the Gizmodo story), then people will likely search for it. And it is only if the redirect is deleted that the page will be unwatched and may then give rise to an article (which I agree there seems to be no basis for).  Sandstein  17:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's mentioned and sourced at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned at target. Useful to the reader. Deryck C. 11:46, 24 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.

Guyane Creole[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 Guyane Creole to Guianese Creole and delete Guyane Creoles. WJBscribe (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Neelix reirects). Not sure. These two are tricky. The target has a section French Guiana#Languages, but there is only really one French Guianese Creole, which is not to be confused with Guyanese Creole, which is based on English and spoken in nearby Guyana, as the lede says. To me it seems rather WP:XY. All of "Guyane, Guianese and Guyanese refer to French Guiana, but Guyanese people are from Guyana (obviously the etymology of both is the same). This is all rather subtle, I think, for ignorant but intelligent readers, but I imagine compromises had to be made: nevertheless, we needn't have them spread to the articles or redirects about the creoles. We haven't Guyane creole (lowercase "creole"), Guianese creole or similar, that I could find. It would have been less confusing had the real world made a larger distinction between the French and English words and uses thereof, but it ain't the case. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, Guyanese is a DAB. Guianese → French Guiana, I might DAB that for the language, people etc like is done for the English one. It may be instructive to find out how the French Wikipédia deals with this... anyway I've added Guianese as a "See also" to the dab at Guyanese. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fr:Guyane is IW linked to en:French Guiana, so that's not much help. The IW for French Guianese Creole is fr:Créole guyanais and for the English there is no IW to an article on French, so that doesn't help much either. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added xref on both the projects' talk pages. I hope that is the way to do it. Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si Trew,your suggestion for a dab page at Guianese sounds like a good idea. I don't know about Guyane Creole. I'm undecided between keeping (if users type Guyane they probably mean the French one) and deleting (because of WP:XY confusability). As for the plural Guyane Creoles, well, I don't know either. If it's retargeted to a SIA, then that had better list all the creoles of the two places (and have a title like List of creole languages of the Guianas), which would also include Ndyuka language and Saramaccan language for French Guiana, and the now extinct Skepi Creole Dutch and Berbice Creole Dutch for Guyana. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, User:Uanfala, I make a start with the the DAB at Guianese. For now let's just differentiate the French and English ones, I am aware of the "native" ones if I may put it that way for brevity, I make a start and report back. Thanks for all your help, User:Uanfala, with the language ones, a lot of ours lately seem to be with these, and I only really can have a stab at Latinate, Germanic and Finno-Ugric ones (I can guess some Estonian and Finnish from knowing a bit of Hungarian, but very much those are a guess but then I trace through their relative Wikipaedieattatok. Never needed to list at RfD for any of them, but WP:FORRED is being suggested for "promotion" to WP:CSD status at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects_from_foreign_languages, I should hope you may contribute to that discussion). Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Guianese Creole. "Guyane" is the French word for French Guiana, so it's plausible someone could use the French word to search for the relevant Creole. -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Guiane Creole" to Guianese Creole but delete "Guiane Creoles" because there only seems to be one such language that is correctly referred to as "Guiane Creole". Deryck C. 11:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 24 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.

AWH Engineering College, Kozhikode[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) 02:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (neelix redirect). It's not in Kozhikode, it's 10 km away (according to the article). It's in Kuttikkattoor. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (weak): it is in Kozhikode district, according to Google and the odd article on Kuttikattoor. Kozhikode is a nearby city, thus readers might look for this according to that name, or be confused about its actual location, much like how York University has never been in York and wasn't in Toronto before 1997. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True (and Warwick University is not in Warwick, either), but in this case it's really an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} anyway, so we're just adding to any WP:RFD#D2 confusion. We don't have AWH Engineering College, Kuttikkattoo (or anywhere else) so it goes from being harmless to being mildly harmful to list it somewhere it isn't (but I guess we have analogues with things like New York State being just "New York" when DABbing a title). I hadn't noticed that the link in the article to "Kuttikatttoor" (what a lovely name!) actually is piped to Kuttikkattoor and Velliparamba, even though Kuttikkattoor goes there anyway, that's something that was WP:NOTBROKEN. The WP:FIRSTSENTENCE there starts with "Velliparamba and Kuttikkattoor are two adjacent suburbs" (and has been since the page move from Kuttikkattoor on 15 Dec 2015 by User:Prof tpms). Yet we don't have am R at Velliparamba and Kuttikkattoor), i.e. the lede reverses the order of the title. This is all a bit of a mess, then. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, Kuttikkattoor wasn't linked at all before, and I didn't know that redirect existed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There aren't multiple AWH Engineering College branch articles or other AWH Engineering Colleges to discuss, so this is unnecessary specification. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that's what {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for. Even so, it wrongfoots people. "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep See this listing on a Kerala government website as well as here. Looks like they use the district name sometimes. Considering that India is huge country with many engineering colleges, there might be one whose name in short is "AWS". I guess it wouldn't really hurt to keep this one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment after relisting. I'm not really that worried about this being kept, I'll change mine to Weak keep. There's still a bit of a mess at the targets because of the move with combining Kuttikkatoo with Velliparamba some years ago, but that is none of User:Ivanvector's fault: if two articles are not notable on their own, fusing them doesn't suddenly make them notable, it's not some kind of atomic reaction. Just leads to more confusion as Ivanvector has well shown, coming as an intelligent but ignorant reader (and we should all try to be that when we edit). Si Trew (talk) 17:21, 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.

Your Country Needs You[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 Lord Kitchener Wants You. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really where anyone would expect to end up? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retarget to Lord Kitchener Wants You as {{R from incorrect name}}. Following from what Si Trew has pointed out, it makes more sense to do a retarget. Even as I pointed out below, the BBC have named the national selection shows that many different things now that a more "unified" title which is already in existence is much better. That way all the shows various names - and no doubt the BBC will concoct even more over the years - can be noted within the article body. Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Your Country Needs You" is the current title for the shows televised to find the UK entrants for Eurovision, which at the moment falls under WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The UK selection shows have gone under so many names though over their 61-year history, that I can understand why it looks so messy and confusing. Gotta love us Brits for complexity, even our language is confusing lol. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC though is it? There's an element of WP:SURPRISE for anyone typing this and ending up there. Also, it doesn't appear to be the current title, and wasn't called "Your Country Needs You", but "Eurovision: Your Country Needs You" --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the time. And yes it was "Eurovision: Your Country Needs You" in 2009, and simply "Your Country Needs You" in 2010 (The BBC mustn't have liked the word Eurovision in 2010). I know in 2016 it became "Eurovision: You Decide", which several sources show that in 2017 that too is to drop its "Eurovision" part, and has even been referred to under the 2010 title "Your Country Needs You". You'd think the BBC would stick with one title for their show, just like Sweden do for Melodifestivalen. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I thought it was still called A Song for Europe, but that's probably just my age! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must be a similar age then, as it will always be known as A Song for Europe in my eyes too. Wes Mouse  T@lk 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • (edit conflict) Strong Retarget to Lord Kitchener Wants You as {{R from incorrect name}}. Not at all where I would expect to end up. I would expect to end up at an article about the famous World War I posters. According to the RS in the article, no poster ever had the exact wording "Your country needs YOU", but still, I think that is more likely the desired article than a slogan used in one UK campaign for the Eurovision Song Contest. It's not as if the campaign chose the slogan out of the blue, they chose it precisely because "every British person knows" (my words) the posters and that it says "Your Country needs YOU". And anyone not fortunate to know it, or to be British, or a person, is probably even more nonplussed about why it should go to an entry about the Eurovision Song Contest. (Perhaps if they were Canadian or Australian and so on they might, but I am not sure these posters were ever published in the Empire outside the United Kingdom: that's exactly the kind of thing I would look up in this article). Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I hadn't looked at the target, as I said, any fule kno that it means the posters. There is a hatnote at the target, but beyond that it does not explain at all why the competition is called "Your Country Needs You", but I bet you all Lombard-street to a China Orange it is named exactly because any fule know. The BBC especially have an annoying habit of doing that kind of thing, and have done for decades, now, that they invent a programme title and make a programme fit it. So someone will say "Why not have a show called Grate Expectations" and we end up with a series about restoring antique fireplaces, or a consumer rights programme about sell-by dates on fresh produce will be called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugli". Strictly Come Dancing is perhaps a great example of that. Someone said "What if we combined Come Dancing with Strictly Ballroom, what could we do with that?" Ta-da! However their current habit is to think by putting "Celebrity" in front of any programme title makes it better, not worse. The normal contestants on Mastermind (TV series) know what they know, and it makes for an interesting quiz: the "celebrities" on Celebrity Mastermind know about television and nothing else (et cetera ad infinitum).Exempli gratia ad nauseaum.; sorry, rant over, but they are getting near to every programme becoming Celebrity What's My Line. Si Trew (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well everyone loves a quiz show, but e.g normal contestants on Pointless (a brilliant format, btw, things that must be right but that other people don't know, a reverse Family Fortunes) has built-in odds that you only have half a chance even to make the final in two chances, let alone win the jackpot if you get there. All your reasonable travel and accommodation expenses paid, no doubt, and a day out in London, sure, but not the usually quite modest jackpot prize. But on Pointless Celebrities even the losers get £500 for their nominated charity. Now, call that a faustian deal if you want, but the "Celebrities" can end up looking nothing but schmucks, however well-meaning they are. They don't have any general knowledge because they work in television. They, I hope, genuinely support the charities they nominate, but being nice people, I also hope, they can't say on the show "well thanks for the monkey (five hundred quid) and I have also waived my fee and not claimed any expenses off the BBC for appearing here today", because charity, real charity, is a very private thing. So they look like idiots for getting £500 for their charity while getting paid, let's assume, at least four times that much for appearing (and 10% to the agent please), and they look like idiots because nobody ever expected them to be good at quizzes, they expected them to be good at telling us the weather or how to cook an omelette or whatever it might be. This strange idea that if you are a "celebrity" you are somehow better ateverything is very very odd, or at least, that you are more interesting being bad at something than an expert is good at doing something is a very sad thing to contemplate. I love to watch programmes about experts being expert. I learn things from them. I am pitched Celebrity Safety-Critical Embedded Software for Large Vehicles to them but apparently that's not so telegenic. We will end up, though with. Andy Warhol was wrong, our telly is nothing but "celebrities" and "reality shows", no real intelligent telly at all. We even have the celebrity reality show, Celebrity Big Brother. Poor Lord Reith, poor Andy Warhol. I've still got my Radio 4, fortunately. O Tempora! O Mores! Si Trew (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: eat your snickers! You've gone off tangent on some BBC trivial nostalgia. Making me feel old. LOL. Wes Mouse  T@lk 19:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I do sometimes lead people up the garden path and then leave them there; but sometimes some use comes out of it because other editors chime in with things tha I hadn't thought of. I am eating my Marathon (chocolate bar) thaks. Packed with peanuts in every bite. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 13 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.

The nEo nAzi Swedish Resistance Movement[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 speedily deleted by Bishonen. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly erroneous page moves. (One was later moved to Error can someone please move this to Nordic Resistance Movement). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:55, 12 October 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.

The Morning Star[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 Morning Star. Deryck C. 21:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from #The Sun and #The Sun (newspaper), both below. This paper is not called WP:THE Morning Star, it is the Morning Star. We have Morning Star (newspaper) but most if not all internal links are in fact to the British newspaper so I assume this is by WP:CONSENSUS, so it's probably better to keep but mark as {{R from incorrect name}}. Added mostly to get any kind of consensus on what we do with papers named after celestial bodies, this one seems a fairly obvious keeper but at least then would give us some kind of back marker for less-obvious ones. Morning star → the DAB at Morning Star. The Morning star also → Morning Star (British newspaper) but The morning star is red. None goes to Venus. I thought I signed this but may have forgotten, doing so now, belatedly. Si Trew (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Morning Star - I understand the nom is not really arguing for a change, but the newspaper is not the main topic for "Morning Star", and it's not called "The Morning Star", so the current redirect is unexpected and is not justified. Compared to The Sun, this paper is far less well known; as it's sometimes used as a source, it's not surprising that its incoming links dominate other uses (plus, just guessing, incorrect incoming links may have been fixed at some point). Not the main topic, so retarget the redirect. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind at all, @Warofdreams:; it will be far easier to "correct" those "incorrect" links than the 4,000 or so for The Sun. Yes, a lot of the articles are for references from contemporary writers of the time when this paper was in its heyday. There's a link from George Orwell, I happened to notice, and he never wrote for them (I think) but almost certainly was mentioned by them, and definitely he quoted from them; I haven't checked the Orwell target but don't need to cos I can see why that would be linked one way or another, I just picked that more-or-less at random.
I haven't even !voted on my nom myself, I am genuinely trying to get some kinda general consensus on what we do with "The" newspapers that don't have "The" in the title and for which the noun after is a WP:COMMONNAME for something else. Obviously we will have to take each case-by-case but if we found some kinda rules of thumb it helps to see where the WP:CONSENSUS might lie before listing, so some can be WP:BOLDly done isntead.
The Planet, for example, → Planet (disambiguation), not to Planet; The Times is the full and correct name of the paper (although often for disambiguation purposes in the US is called The London Times, which it is not, to distinguish it from The New York Times). Some papers do have the "The", so The Guardian is no trouble, and The Mirror is a DAB even though for a while in the late 80s I think the Daily Mirror thus called itself. Generally The+Daily should cause no ambiguity e.g. The Daily Mail can be nothing other than the Daily Mail, but there are lots less clear-cut than these. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly added the hatnotes at The Evening Star:
  • For newspapers known as the Evening Star, see Evening Star (newspaper).
  • For evening newspapers known as the Star, see Star (newspaper).
Like, that makes it really clear. Let's give people a gamble on which DAB they choose.... Si Trew (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Morning Star, which is a disambiguation that lists a surprising amount of things that could plausibly be "The Morning( )Star". Redirecting our readers to the disambiguation would seem to satisfy the principle of least astonishment. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:26, 21 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.

Singapore basic facts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for search or navigation. Psychonaut (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. I am pretty sure we had one a few months ago for another country's "basic facts" in the same form, and that was deleted. I'd have a struggle to find it but other editors have better memories than I do. This is just clutter, anyone who wants to find facts, basic or otherwise, about Singapore will search for Singapore. Singapore advanced facts and Singapore intermediate-level facts are red, so this is at best an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (it doesn't have to have parentheses to disambiguate something). It's kinda harmless but clutter. The reason I tend to be rather a WP:DELETIONIST with these kinds of things is they create a maintenance burden years later once they diverge (retargeted, etc). The basic facts about singapore are in the infobox there at the top of the article, sheesh. How many other ways do we need to get people to the information they want? No links, page views 5⁄90 a day. Catch it while we can. If kept, see you all in five years time when someone has retargeted it. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is the name of a book series or method (as with Singapore math), this isn't terribly useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to keep this as the title of the redirect is just not useful. I am also not aware of any book by this name either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 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.

Worthington College[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 24#Worthington College

Boston Bay College[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only brief mention at target article, not as detailed as the other fictional locations. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete that sounds like a neighboring school. Not a primary setting for the series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:51, 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.

Dawson's Creek/Episode guide[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a {{R from move}}, but no incoming links, and not a valid WP:SUB. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:10, 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.

Htpp[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) 17:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, seems to have valid usages as an abbreviation. Note that HTPP does not exist yet. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep as reasonably plausible typo, {{R from typo}}{{R from initialism}}, only because of the absence of same in another lettercase. For myself I make loads of typos (but rarely genuinely don't know how to spell something), but WP:Wikipedia is not a spelling checker. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plausible typo, but if HTPP can refer to several things, then a dab page is in order. I've drafted one at HTPP. Maybe retarget there? Admittedly, the current target is probably what most users are likely to be looking for anyway, but I don't really fancy the idea of a misspelling hatnote at the top of Hypertext Transfer Protocol – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we now deleted this, the case-insensitive search engine will take anyone straight that DAB anyway. So, thanks for making that, but I think we can then now Delete' this, not because it is wrong but because it is clutter (otherwise, retarget to the DAB Uanfala made and mark as {{R from incorrect capitalisation}}{{R from initialism}} but I think there is no need for that). I agree we don't need the hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 13 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.

Product tokens[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 product key, without opposition. -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think, as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. Lots of things have product tokens. Products, for example. Gsearch is a bit clouded by mirrors etc to here but it seems to be used reliably as a synonym for software licence, or rather not the legal instrument itself but the assertion to a software product that one legitimately has that licence (a product key, I suppose). Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to product key. That seems more likely and what the product-token header in the HTTP message is essentially passing from client to server, but this is not specific to HTTP jargon, other things do seem to call it that, even if not many. Si Trew (talk) 15:19, 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.

The Sun (newspaper)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#The Sun (newspaper)

The Sun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#The Sun

Useragent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. While UserAgent is a {{R from camelcase}}, this isn't, and although created in 2005 this is patently not camelcase. Since search is pretty much always case-insensitive now, this is dead and should be given a decent burial. I don't buy the argument that "something is old therefore keep it" of itself. This averages just over 1 hit a day, so it is borderline noise level. No internal links. With the Neelix redirects, consensus seems to be to delete WP:MADEUP words, and I don't see how this differs from that consensus just because it happens not to have Neelix' hand in it. (Our consensus should not differ on whether something is or is not a "neelix redirect", only our procedure for dealing with them swiftly.) Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's the fundamental question of "Is it truly helpful?", which this fails. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 16 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.

UA string[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete both as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, "UA" is not at target. There are ten redirects of the "UA" or "User Agent" form to this target (many but not all to section #User agent identification) so I doubt it would be hard to find the target via search, except that "UA" is not mentioned at the target at all. Were a reader to think a "UA" was a "user agent" they would probably have the nouse to search that way; if not, it's probably a WP:SURPRISE. The target is listed at the DAB at UA. Note case difference on plural form. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W3 UA and others[edit]

These have all been boldly retargeted by User:Champion. I think they fall under the same head of not having "UA" at the target. They were all created by User:Joeblakesley back in November 2004 with the ES "this should probably be split off from Web browser as it is a slightly wider term but redirecting there for now". Well, my sentiments exactly, twelve years later. The bulk of the target is only about HTTP user agents (of which I guess WWW user agents are a subset) so my "UA is not at target" niggle is easily remedied by just putting "(UA)" in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Hoever, back in 004 the search tool was even more awful than it is now, so I am not really sure we need all of these now. I'm not against them being kept but I think it's reasonable to list them when for nearly twelve years they targeted Web browser but now all target User agent. I list them here because my gut feeling is we should probably split the target, the stubby section 1 to be left at user agent and the meaty section 2 to be moved to make an article at HTTP user agent with a {[tlx|main}} from user agent. I can do that WP:BOLDly but hesitate to do so while these discussions are ongoing.Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 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.

List of cults[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#List of cults

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_12&oldid=1141906094"