Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2017.

Microsoft Explorer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 14#Microsoft Explorer

Wikipedia:COCP[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) 22:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was broken (didn't lead anywhere, didn't even contain a link) for almost 6 years ... until I fixed it a minute or so ago. I'm recommending delete to allow this title to be freed for a more useful shortcut target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2017 (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.

Christ's sake[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 20#Christ's sake

Cathee[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 is not a given name and it actually impedes search. Ruslik_Zero 19:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Dahmen is the only notable person with this name - but it's not really a name in itself, but a variant spelling of Cathy, even if it's an unusual one. Would it make more sense to target to Cathy (given name)? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as another Neelix redirect. We speedy deleted hundreds of first name redirects just like this during the big cleanup. They just make search results harder to use. Instead of getting directly to the target or a list of similar targets when you type the first name this forces you to a particular model from the 60/70's via the redirect. It's not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not that helpful when only one person has used this spelling variant. Revisit as SIA if there are more than one notable Cathees or create article if there's one who uses it as a mononym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a standard {{R from given name}}, used when there's only one notable person with the name. As such, Dahmen is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Cathee Dahmen uses Cathee as a mononym, then keep. Can someone confirm? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given names aren't WP:PTMs. If your name is Angus Woof, people would call you Angus. That doesn't make the name a mononym, but it's definitely reasonable for someone to attempt to search for you in that manner. -- Tavix (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would redirect it to Cathy (given name) and add Dahmen to the list. There are a couple of other people mentioned on Wikipedia with this variant, so it's not unique to one person. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment target's actual name is Catherine. This is more a nickname. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2017 (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.

Redirects to "Zaria"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 20#Redirects to "Zaria"

Jessica Holbrook[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) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article does not mention her at all so no point for a redirect Joeykai (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable journalist. [1] WP:NOTRESUME WP:LOWPROFILE History on this link shows an attempt to show she was the managing editor of The Post at one time. Other searches point to some clothing brand. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 3 August 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:REGNOW[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 deleted WP:G7. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an unlikely redirect. Until today, this redirect did not function at all since it wasn't a redirect; the previous content was its creator attempting to redirect this title to the account creation page. However, since this targets a page in the "Special:" namespace, it is forced to be a soft redirect. Most likely, if someone is attempting to create an account, they are new to Wikipedia and may not have the understanding of how shortcuts work, thus this shortcut will get next to no use since it targets the user account creation page, making the helpfulness intended with creating this redirect unnecessary. Also, since this is a soft redirect, it can confused less tech-savvy people since they have to make two jumps (soft redirect, then click the link to the target) before arriving at their ultimate intended destination. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this must have been a relic of something I was trying to do in 2015. I don't think it has any use now so is just clutter. Thank you for spotting it as due for cleaning up! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:34, 2 August 2017 (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 things named Anchieta[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) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it is our standard practice to have these types of redirects to disambiguation pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the word "things" is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2017 (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.

Stealth Trading[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) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in the target article this is an alternative name for the illegal practice; in fact stealth trading could just as easily describe a perfectly legitimate practice of breaking large orders into small pieces executed over many minutes/hours/days to avoid market impact. Plus the capitalization is incorrect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:REDLINK as I do see this used as a term, which seems perhaps to include insider trading as a variety. But I agree that it doesn't seem to be quite the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for caps. The lower-case term might be okay as an alias according to the dictionary definitions. The scheme of breaking up trades into small chunks goes under "stealth-trading hypothesis" but I'm not sure what article that scheme would redirect to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:10, 3 August 2017 (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.

Defendable[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 speedy delete all as useless Neelix redirects. I think the below demonstrates beyond any doubt that these will not survive a full deletion discussion. Hut 8.5 19:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more! - Defensibility, Defensible Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These words have use in debate, in military, and if referring to sports, Defense (sports) is a better target. I suspect a disambiguation page may be the solution. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Misleading, incorrect nonsense. Typical Neelix bollox. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged them all with {{Db-x1}} since it applies to all four of these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I'm not sure why an IP editor keeps removing the {{Db-x1}} tags I placed on these redirects, but I have no desire to start a pointless WP:EDITWAR. Steel1943 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • de-Neelix-ate, er, delete all per above. I'm not seeing disambiguation of very general terms. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all above. – PeeJay 15:20, 2 August 2017 (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.

"Untitled" redirects with formerly untitled targets[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) 16:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these redirects' targets now have titles. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all consistent with longstanding WP practice. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these are obsolete redirects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete Ironically, as the person who initially redirected Phantom Thread due to all reports seemingly substantiating that title, I think it might be good to keep the "Untitled" redirect page for now, just for this film at least. According to Brent Lang at Variety, whom I spoke to, the working title from press releases is still "Untitled PTA Fashion Project" or something close to that. "Phantom Thread" is actually just a working title. Even IMDb reverted it. Now, it MIGHT return to Phantom Thread, but I think it's likely to be a working title since this title sounds sci-fi-esque. And eventually altered into something else for upcoming festivals. We'll know soon, I'm sure. TL;DR, point is I think we can keep both for now since many people have been referring to it as "Phantom Thread" (so redirect one to the other), but prepare for a different title entirely.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 19:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cinemaniac86: There is an inevitable issue with keeping any redirect containing "Untitled" when the subject referenced by the redirect has received any title; the redirect will end up being misleading. Even if the ultimate title may be uncertain, since Phantom Thread is a working title for its subject, that is sufficient enough to deem the subject no longer "untitled". In other words, the helpfulness of such a redirect is now negligent since the redirect has the potential to be considered misleading, especially in the future once its subject is post-production or released. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Steel1943: Ahh, that makes perfect sense to me. I just wanted to be sure I was making the right decision, since I was the initial updater of said title. But thanks for putting that into perspective. That's a relief in any event, since I'd say it's acquired enough attention under its working title to be predominantly known as that for the time being. And yes, it can always be updated later. Or if they ultimately choose to keep the title, perhaps not at all.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 21:15, 2 August 2017 (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.

Untitled Trooper(album)[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) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator makes this an unnecessary WP:COSTLY redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2017 (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/2017_August_2&oldid=1088107865"