Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2017.

April 10, 2011[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#April 10, 2011

iPhone 7S[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. Note that WP:SALT should only be used when content has been repeatedly recreated, and that's not the case here. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone 7S (not to be confused with the iPhone 7 Plus) is the successor to the iPhone 7; this re-direct makes no sense. Georgia guy (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. This is heavily rumoured to be announced soon, and it's a new line, so the redirect is both incorrect and useless since it doesn't mention the 7S. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:33, 18 June 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.

Joseph Vodvarka[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. The discussion has shown that this person is mentioned in multiple articles and the rough consensus is that deletion to reveal search results is the best course of action. Deryck C. 22:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with four incoming links. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Fail to see how WP:REDLINK would apply to someone who's only claim to notability is failing to win a party's nomination for an election, and this name seems unique enough. If you can provide a draft to show how they would meet notability standards, I would change my !vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom, or failing that retarget to United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016. From a cursory search there seems to be a decent amount of coverage of his campaigns, especially relating to the lawsuits and ballot access questions surrounding his 2016 campaign ([1], [2], [[3], [4], [5]). See here WP:BASIC, which is clear that politicians who've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources but do not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN may still be notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016 for now. We can always expand the redirect into a full article later, but in the meantime, I think its best to send readers to the article that has the most information about this individual. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results since he's been a candidate in multiple elections. It'd be better for a reader to be able to choose between his 2010, 2012, and 2016 elections rather than being funneled into just one of them .-- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. I have no opinion on the desirability of having a redlink to encourage article creation in this instance, but if several articles exist with relevant content we should leave it to the search engine, which in this case does display these articles fairly prominently. – Uanfala 12:24, 1 July 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.

Haitian Standard French[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 7#Haitian Standard French

Jessie L. Embry[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) 17:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only briefly mentioned in the target; plausibly notable in her own right as a historian (WP:RDEL#10). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not strongly associated with Cherry. Has plenty of other write-ups so no bias against creating separate article if notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure if she's notable enough for her own page, but either way she's not that strongly associated with Cherry as a person. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:50, 19 June 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.

Regno Unito[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 the French ones, no consensus for the rest. Although several editors share the opinion that the redirects should be deleted per WP:FORRED, most of the specific rationales for deletion listed by this essay do not apply here (as demonstrated by Patar knight). The redirects seem to fall within the the category that WP:FORRED recommends evaluating on a case-by-case basis, and in this regard specific arguments have been presented (here and in the previous discussion) in favour of keeping the French redirects. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 13:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per WP:FORRED. There is no affinity between the United Kingdom and Italian, Spanish, French (incorrectly and correctly hyphenated), German or Dutch. The German and incorrectly hyphenated French redirects were discussed in August 2015, both discussions were closed as no consensus. The participants of those discussions were @GZWDer, WilyD, Mathrick, Rubbish computer, Tavix, DGG, BDD, A D Monroe III, BU Rob13, Steel1943, and Just Chilling: and SiTrew (who I will not ping as they are currently topic banned from RfD). I will also notify the UK Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC) I forgot to sign first time, so those pings will not have worked, so trying again: @GZWDer, WilyD, Mathrick, Rubbish computer, Tavix, DGG, BDD, A D Monroe III, BU Rob13, Steel1943, and Just Chilling:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because from time to time someone translates an article from German and leaves intact links that say something like this: [[Vereinigtes Königreich|GB]]. I cleaned up a number of those when I created that redirect, and just now I found two more that had been created and cleaned those up as well. That will probably recur from time to time. Maybe the WP:FORRED policy should be adjusted to take this into account. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that situation I would say that the redlink would indicate the presence of an error such that it would be cleaned up much quicker without misleading people that they can find information in German on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the relink serves a better purpose. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Almost none of the rationale for deleting these redirects under WP:FORRED applies here, because these all unambiguously refer to the UK. There is no possibility of confusion or conflicting definitions, and the original language Wikipedia should be very prominent if not first in search engine results, which have gotten much better since 2008 when FORRED was written. These are also low maintenance, because they shouldn't point at any other page. The only question remaining is relevance to English. In this case, the name of the country as opposed to some random dictionary word, would be of increased prominence, and all of these redirects are from major European languages spoken in countries which have all been major rivals of the UK. This means that not only are they more likely to be encountered in everyday life, they will also be more likely to be encountered in primary sources in that language. At the very least, the French ones should be kept because it is a language used in some of the official titles of the UK's head of state – Elizabeth II is "Reine du Royaume-Uni" via the Crown of Canada. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I don't think it was wise to bundle these when there were long, separate discussions in the past regarding a couple of these, so I'll default to keep all. I've argued to keep both redirects in those previous discussions, and I'll defer to my previous comments there. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:23, 17 June 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.

Third Kingdom of Norway[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. Deryck C. 10:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a neologism, as it gets zero hits as an exact phrase in Google (for that matter "Second Kingdom of Norway" finds 2 results, neither relevant), nor can I find any sources that suggest numbering of Norweigian regimes is common (unlike the French republics) - the official name of the country is just "Kingdom of Norway". Looking at the History of Norway article, it doesn't seem obvious how the figure of the post 1905 (or possibly post 1945?) monarchy being the third monarchy was arrived at (different Kingdoms seem to have started or started including present-day Norway in at least 872, 1397, 1524, 1814, 1905 and 1945). Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think that we can just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First Kingdom of Norway redirects to Kingdom of Norway (872–1397) and Second Kingdom of Norway redirects to Kingdom of Norway (1814). If numbering of Norwegian regimes isn't common, perhaps it'd be best to delete all of these. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First Kingdom of Norway" gets a lot of hits from what I remember, so I wouldn't support deletion of that. I didn't spot that "Second Kingdom of Norway" exists (I was only looking at redirects to the Norway article) but I would support deletion of that redirect per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, "First Kingdom of Norway" seems to be unambiguous, unlike the others. I'll agree you that the First Kingdom should be kept, and the other two deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:22, 17 June 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.

Bandana in sex[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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These strike me as a bit vague and possibly misleading. The handkerchief code might be considered an example of bandanas used in sexuality, broadly construed. But the target article isn't really about their use in sex (i.e., in sexual intercourse, which I think the term implies). --BDD (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I completely agree. - Richard Cavell (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep searchers are looking for the topic instead of something that could be considered WP:XY. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the redirects are vague, they are plausible search terms for the article in question. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there were a sexual practice that involved the use of a bandana or handkerchief in sex, and it was discussed in the encyclopaedia, then there would be a risk of confusion, but to the best of my knowledge no such practice exists. I think these are plausible search terms primarily because the handkerchief code isn't necessarily widely known by that name (as the lede of that article, which contains four bold-face terms, suggests). It may be the case that people are familiar with the practice and want to read about it, but don't know the name, and so might enter a slightly vague or awkward search term such as these. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure they're widely used as blindfolds. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly – and perhaps for bondage purposes in lieu of rope; certainly other garments can serve that purpose. But so long as those uses aren't mentioned in any Wikipedia articles, I think the current target is the best option. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:10, 19 June 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.

Ireland (region)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no region called "Ireland" It could refer to Ireland (the Island), Regions of Ireland (→ NUTS 3 statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland), Northern Ireland, Subdivisions of Ireland (→ Local government in the Republic of Ireland), Islands of the North Atlantic. Should it be deleted, disambiguated or retargetted to Ireland (disambiguation)? Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And WP:RFD#DELETE criteria 1 (confusing search results) and criteria 8 (misnomer). Per Thryduulf if not deleted, at lease it should be retargetted to Ireland (disambiguation). Guliolopez (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A string like Ireland (region) can only mean Ireland as a region (which is what the current target is about), and I can't imagine it referring to a region of Ireland or anything else. It also seems handy for linking as the most straightforward {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} for the target. – Uanfala 12:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. The use of "region" to disambiguate implies something that the user is searching for a geographic region called Ireland, but also presumably something larger than a mere country (since they didn't use Ireland (country) or something like that). AFAIK none of the historic Irish polities controlled more than just Ireland, so the island is the best target for this, and that page already has a hatnote to the DAB page, which would be the second best target.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike Prussia (region), Palestine (region) etc. Ireland's borders have never stretched beyond its "island". Ireland (island) is only plausible. Although "Northern Ireland (region)", which stems beyond its beyonds as a continuance of the UK realm and is a region (or part, not whole) of Ireland, can be able differentiate itself between simply the north of Ireland; it has more of a case, but not advocating for such a creation. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But like both Prussia and Palestine, the traditional/historical/proper/whatever borders of Ireland extend beyond the current political polity actually called Ireland, which does not encompass the entire island. This is just like how the Kingdom of Prussia did not include all historical parts of Prussia and the Palestinian Authority does not govern all of what was even formerly Mandatory Palestine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly this is subjective, but I find it very hard to imagine this search term being used to refer to anything other than the current target – which, admittedly, is not a region in any sense that I know of, but redirects aren't required to be correct. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 17 June 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.

Senagalese parliamentary election, 2017[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' per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental misspelling. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 17:02, 17 June 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.

Justice League Unimited (comics)[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 typo version. Correctly spelled redirect has been created boldly during this RfD. Deryck C. 10:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo that barely gets hits. Unnecessary redirect. Delete, though I'd also support a rename without redirection to Justice League Unlimited (comics), which is the correct spelling but doesn't exist. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Justice League Unlimited article as it does mention a line of comic books based on the TV series. "DC Comics created an ongoing monthly comic book series based on the TV series, as part of its Johnny DC line of "all ages" comics." Move to Justice League Unlimited (comics) and Delete the typo version. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no need to move redirects around without good reason. Redirects can be created at any editor's discretion if they feel the need for a redirect. In fact, I did just that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 26 June 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.

5774 (year)[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) 17:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surrounding years do not exist as redirects, and this specific year is not mentioned in the 6th millennium article. Cannot redirect to 2013 or 2014 (Hebrew year 5774), as that would be a WP:XY situation. Note that 5774 leads somewhere else. HotdogPi 00:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was put in the June 9 category initially. Now it is in the correct place. HotdogPi 14:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is it likely that anyone will search for this? If the closing admin thinks so, I suggest a disambiguation page that has Hebrew & Christian years. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the closer. It's not the closer to decide this, rather the participants in this discussion. The closer simply interprets whether the discussion led to a consensus, and if so, what that consensus is. There could be consensus to disambiguate, but that would have to happen at a different title (either 5774 or 5774 (disambiguation)). If this disambiguator is too ambiguous to be useful, it is to be redirected to a disambiguation page as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} (see WP:INCOMPDAB for more information). -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it appears to receive only minimal traffic. The WP:XY argument mentioned above is also compelling. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:48, 20 June 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.

WM-US-CO[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 without redirect to Wikipedia:WM-US-CO. If anyone has some spare trout, consider giving some to the creator. -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Wikipedia specific redirect in the mainspace. No other user group has such a redirect. There are no other occurrences of {{soft redirect}} in the mainspace. This also has no links (I removed the only one that existed). This should be moved to Wikipedia:WM-US-CO without leaving a redirect. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:44, 17 June 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_June_17&oldid=1142586849"