Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 14, 2017.

Bombing Busters[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. AfD of Sanuk Games has closed as delete, so there's no reason to keep this ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target PRehse (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually, I did find it in the target, under § Games published: "2014 - Bombing Bastards / Bombing Busters - Android, iOS, Linux, Mac, PlayStation 4, PlayStation Vita, Wii U, Windows, Xbox One - developed and published by Sanuk Games". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the redirected-to article may be non-notable, so I have created an AfD nomination. If that turns out to be "Keep" then I think the redirect should be kept as well, otherwise, it should be deleted along with the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The target's AfD is really a separate issue. PRehse, would you consider withdrawing the RfD, seeing as it actually is in the target? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term was addd in the target after it was RfD'd. It is still of no importance.PRehse (talk) 15:23, 15 November 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.

Legendary Dark Knight[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) 18:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for deleting the first two is that they are too vague. There are many "dark knights" in fiction that are considered "legendary". The rationale for the last two is that they are unlikely search targets that have gotten few if any hits. Sparda is really the only plausible redirect for this character. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Legendary Pictures also produced The Dark Knight (film) so that would be a plausible redirect. Also Batman has been referred to as the "legendary Dark Knight" [1] Is Sparda referred to as the legendary dark knight throughout the video game, like it's his title? Or is it just a single quote from the game? Also note there is a "Legendary Dark Knight Mode" that could redirect to Devil May Cry 4. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the thing - it's still overly vague, and yet not clear enough to make a disambiguation. Best let the search function do its job. As far as whether it's a title, I'm pretty sure he isn't referred to all the time as "The Legendary Dark Knight Sparda", other than in isolated instances.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, let the search engine work its magic. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 20 November 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.

Boeing 767-233[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 2#Boeing 767-233

URI scheme[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 4#URI scheme

Prostitution in Morocco[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 moved. I went ahead and fulfilled this as a technical move request seeing that the draft has already been accepted. In the future, note that requests like these don't require a full discussion. You can use WP:RM/TR or {{db-move}} if a redirect with history is preventing a page from being moved. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a delete for this redirect, in order for us to accommodate a new page that is in draftspace right now. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:57, 14 November 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.

Clinton Family Foundation[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) feminist 15:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate organization, as indicated by various reliable sources. Examples: [2], [3]. Even Clinton Foundation indicates these two entities are not the same. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my formal basis for supporting a delete is WP:RFD#DELETE condition #2: The redirect might cause confusion by causing some readers to think the Clinton Family Foundation was the same as the Clinton Foundation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the private "Family" foundation is mentioned in the lead and further described in its own section. Readers who want the public org. will type its name in the search box. Readers who want the private org. will either type the public orgs name or the private orgs name. Either way, when they read the lead and the article, any confusion will be explained to them. This redirect is needed for those readers who type the full name of the private org. in their search boxes. Since there is no article yet, those readers should have some explanation on which to land. This redirect serves that purpose, doesn't it?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tightened the focus to the section #Private philanthropy, where the family foundation is distinctively mentioned. This is a good search term and a redirect with possibilities of becoming an article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. anthis is much better handled by a disambiguation note of some sort--the possible confusion needs to be dealt with, not hidden. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To editor DGG: how is the confusion being hidden by keeping this redirect? Isn't the ambiguity handled well in the Clinton Foundation article?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's noted at the target that they're separate foundations, so I don't understand where the confusion might arise. I could understand WP:REDLINK deletion here, but I believe the status quo to be more helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Paine Ellsworth as the topic is treated in the target article, where any possible confusion is resolved. – Uanfala 13:18, 27 November 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.

Juli Briskman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 29#Juli Briskman

Bhesan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#Bhesan

Lady Bee[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) 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target PRehse (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You removed it yourself, so could you elaborate a little more why you think this should not be mentioned and not redirected? —Kusma (t·c) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so I did as part of a clean up as per WP:LISTS. It wasn't linked at the time. Less convinced of the need now that my actions were reminded. Still the act is not notable and has no importance to the target company.PRehse (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are schools whose mascot is the bee, so they use Lady Bee or Lady Bees a lot. [4] [5] Then there's an artist called Ladybee for Burning Man [6] They seem to have as much notability as the DJ that isn't listed on the Mad Decent article. There's also a Kenyan gospel singer called Lady Bee and she has notability in news articles [7] [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. It seems that there might be notable artists that use the name per User:AngusWOOF's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 16 November 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.

CTV (Singapore)[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) 21:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in article, and potential confusion with other uses of CTV. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete news articles show discussion on CTV receivers or Connected TV in Singapore. Website mentions CTV NP. A redirect for CTV (Ngee Ann Polytechnic) could be created, but it would need notability and weight in the school article itself. CTV stands for Campus TV in this case, and might be too localized for Wikipedia notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:47, 15 November 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.

Engineering system[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 Systems engineering. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were originally two articles: MIT Engineering Systems Division and Engineering system. The former was renamed to Engineering systems, and at some point the latter was merged into that. Then it was renamed back to MIT Engineering Systems Division, and a further redirect to it was added from Engineered systems. Much more recently, the entire article was redirected to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, effectively orphaning all three redirect pages which previously went to it. Since the original target article no longer exists, deleting those three pages seems to me the most sensible option.

Also, adding RFD tags to the redirect pages seems to have broken the redirects. I'm guessing this isn't meant to happen, but am not sure how to fix it. Robin S (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to fix the break either. In any case, this is only a temporary situation. Anyone really interested can manually click the MIT link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there was an engineering system lemma in 2007, see here but I am not sure what happened to it after it was moved to engineering systems. I would prefer both lemmas redirected to systems engineering. Mdd (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Systems engineering The topic originally tried to distinguish itself from systems engineering, but it was never sourced properly, so it isn't clear how it could be different. Systems engineering seems to cover engineering and systems and has links to that and other systems related topics. If it is supposed to cover interdisciplinary approaches to systems, then retarget to Systems theory. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Systems engineering. I don't recall what my original motivation was for creating one or two of these redirects to an MIT page. I don't see how this makes sense now. These redirects are general (terms) on their own and they are much closer to Systems engineering than MIT. It would have made more sense to have redirects specific to MIT or MIT engineering. Thanks for contacting me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robin S, what is your opinion about retargeting as proposed? – Uanfala 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all for input, and sorry for not commenting sooner. The proposed retargeting seems sensible to me. Robin S (talk) 21:15, 28 November 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_November_14&oldid=1088106312"