Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2013

Steve Bertrand[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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is the lead singer of a band named Avion, neither of which were found notable. There is a second band named Avion and this page redirects to the other band's article. This redirect should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (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.

Simon Gardner[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 to facilitate creation of an article. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per the example "The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted." At least one actual "Simon Gardner" exists (and would be notable, but has not yet been created) and being redirected to "Gardiner" causes confusion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:38, 16 January 2013 (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.

Category:Eros Ramazzotti discography[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 per reasonable and uncontested nom.Tikiwont (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here and it's not clear why it redirects to ...songs rather than ...albums. Either way, I can't see the value in this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 16 January 2013 (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.

Halifax, Nova Scotia[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. Wizardman 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit-warring on this redirect needs to be discussed, and that discussion should take place here. Please discuss whether this article should redirect to Halifax#Canada or Halifax Regional Municipality (or some other target). I remain neutral on this topic. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 18:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality - I am from Halifax. When people type in Halifax, Nova Scotia - they presume they will be directed to the most up to date understanding of Halifax, which is HRM - the HRM article should include, for example, a general history that covers all the regions of the HRM starting in 1749, which includes the development of dartmouth, history of Halifax becoming a city, to the development of Bedford, etc. (with links for more detailed history to the various districts of HRM). While people may not know there are different districts to HRM - they will learn about them when they read the up to date article.

As well, technically, to follow the misguided logic of separating the HRM and the City of Halifax articles, the City of Halifax article should only begin at 1842 when Halifax became a City. Cornwallis did not establish the City of Halifax, he established the Town of Halifax. Alas, you should be advocating a third article on the Town of Halifax. All of which is very unnecessary. --Hantsheroes (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like any town that graduated to city status, it is the same municipality. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but there are some exceptions for historical purposes. TBrandley (what's up) 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality. As a west coast Canadian, I can say with fair certainty that all major international maps show Halifax in relationship to Halifax Regional Municipality. I'm surprised the issue of primary topic for the subject has not been established for this city. Under the three points for primary, the municipality is by far the top result. Mkdwtalk 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't actually true. Most major international maps still separate out all the parts to their individual pieces. The HRM covers 5,490.18 square kilometers. I would go as far as to say there probably isn't a single (major) map that labels the entire area as the HRM. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality. It is the intended target, as the other Canadian Halifaxes are either not in Nova Scotia or are not about communities, but are about other things, such as the Parliamentary riding. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality, with a dab hatnote pointing to Halifax (former city), the article on the city historically known as Halifax, Nova Scotia. That is the only other article which a user looking for the article on Halifax, Nova Scotia is likely to need. Let's try and sort this once and for all. It is clear from several discussions at Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia that users do look for an article on a place called Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the present redirect does not help them find it.--Mhockey (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The former city, which was only dissolved 17 years ago, is still very much a large topic. The current municipality is a large area, and many people referring to Halifax, are referring to the smaller area that was the city. Can anyone make a case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Users remain divided by this point, as seen in the latest discussion in August 2012. 117Avenue (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion was on a proposal to make Halifax a primary topic, but this discussion is about whether to make Halifax, Nova Scotia a primary topic. If it's not a primary topic, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us that it should be a dab page. That would help users find the page they need much faster than the current redirect to a dab page, which is just unhelpful. --Mhockey (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is no primary topic for Halifax, but if you would read the whole discussion, you would see some commenters claiming the HRM is more primary than the former city, and some the former city more than the HRM. 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality It is ridiculous in the first place that there are so many articles on the city of Halifax. There is only one Halifax, Nova Scotia, and it's current iteration is the HRM. The "former" city of Halifax is still Halifax, it's just a technicality that includes all the other regions included in the municipality. When you put in Germany in wikipedia, you aren't automatically redirected to a disambiguation page including West Germany and the Austria-Hungary empire. Get real. The new official name of Halifax is the HRM, but Halifax, Nova Scotia is the one and only. NickCochrane (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Halifax, Nova Scotia and the HRM are not the same thing. Very rarely when someone is saying Halifax, Nova Scotia do they mean the entire HRM. The HRM covers a very large percentage of the entire province. They are entirely distinct topics. Yes they are obviously related by they are not the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the HRM article being treated as the "Current" Halifax, while Halifax is "Former"? NickCochrane (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the former ceased to exist as a legal entity called a city. There is an HRM which encompasses the area the city used to be in and then a whole lot more which deals with municipal governing but is not a city like Halifax, Nova Scotia used to be. However, on maps and when you address your mail, and in many other ways all the communities that make up the HRM are all treated as distinct entities by the government and others still except when it comes to dealing with municipal affairs. -DJSasso (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but users searching for Halifax, Nova Scotia are still searching for the active city. The "Former city" is not what they're looking for. HRM is closer from a practicality perspective as to what Halifax is. Etobgirl (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And not Metropolitan Halifax? 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not! People are looking for the current city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the place where people live, eat and breath, not the history, not the downtown core, not the metro, not the hydrostones, they're looking for the current iteration of the city - what the demographics are, what the population is, all of the important issues. NickCochrane (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point you are missing. There is no current city of Halifax. There are no cities in the entire province of Nova Scotia any longer. The legal entities known as cities no longer exist. There are regional municipalities. You keep referring to it as the current city. There is no current city and it is factually incorrect to call it such. It would be like saying Quebec City and the province of Quebec are the same thing because they have similar names. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is the irony - Quebec City has one article - and Communauté métropolitaine de Québec is one sentence. No confusion. The HRM is the municipal region, but it's being treated as the current city of Halifax. I don't care what the primary topic is, but we're really arguing semantics - there are simply far too many articles, we need to find the primary topic and direct all the attention to reflect past and current Halifax. The actual place, beyond this really quite stupid wikipedia argument. NickCochrane (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Etobgirl. I'd make the argument that most people searching for Halifax, Nova Scotia are indeed looking for what is labeled here as the former city or metro region. Its unlikely that they are looking for info on the areas that are up to an hour or two drive away but are still part of the HRM. But I can see the argument from your POV which is why I think it should stay pointing to the disambig page.-DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality. As per above. Etobgirl (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality. It serves as the primary topic, and current location, unlike the former city, but I would suggest adding a disambiguation hatnote to the other article. Most people are probably search for the current location, not historical information about a former city. TBrandley (what's up) 23:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you prove that it is the primary topic? 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my observations, the Halifax Regional Municipality is the primary topic, as it is the current location, and users will probably be looking for information regarding its current state, not historical information. And if they were looking to find some historical facts, there will be links in the article to Halifax (former city) and Metropolitan Opera, some of which will serve as disambiguation hatnotes. Other editors may disagree, but that is my opinion. TBrandley (what's up) 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is the thing - it doesn't matter what the article is called, but whatever the primary topic is, that's what users/researchers/students are looking for. The Halifax (former city) article is written as a historical account. The HRM article is written as the primary topic, the current city, whether that includes a significant chunk of the province or not. LenaLeonard (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality. As per above. LenaLeonard (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I mention having lived in Halifax to Brits I meet travelling, they do a double-take, because to them that means the namesake city in the UK, not sure its article title; shouldn't "Halifax" be a dab page?Skookum1 (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Halifax" isn't the issue, it's the more specific "Halifax, Nova Scotia". "Halifax" should certainly be disambiguated. If you told them "Halifax, Nova Scotia or Halifax, Canada", it wouldn't be as big of a double take. NickCochrane (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commant I don't know if it works the same way in Canada, but in America counties are referred to with the word "County" at the end. So (if NS were American) Halifax would refer to the city, not the county. The county would be referred to as "Halifax County" not "Halifax". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. "Halifax Regional Municipality", the entity which is not at all a city is a sister... city to three other cities. Also, the former city of Halifax «is referred to as "Halifax, Nova Scotia" for civic addressing and as a placename.» so people live and get their mail there, no? redirect to any of them, but the articles should have their scope defined (or refined :-) and get cleaned up. Then it would be obvious where to redirect (or maybe make a small cross reference?) - Nabla (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All Halifax, Nova Scotia articles have hatnotes, if that is what your are referring to with "small cross reference". 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Short version, I'm saying that maybe "Halifax, Nova Scotia" should be a small overview or cross reference article (thus not a redirect) explaining, probably a summary of Halifax history (town, then city, now part of / dissolved into a larger metropolitan entity). Longer version: Hatnotes are not what I was thinking, but yes they may help. Nevertheless, looking at a few of them they currently look a bit confusing. The hatnote says to look at "Halifax, Nova Scotia", but the link is to "Halifax, Nova Scotia (disambiguation)", which then redirects to "Halifax" (the general disambiguation page, Canada and elsewhere). There is a fairly good chance we are sending our readers in a wild goose chase: search for Halifax, go to "Halifax"; I want to learn about the city of Halifax, in Canada but there is none there. There are what looks like bits of the city (west end, downtown, etc), there are seemingly larger parts (mainland, regional municipality); so, say, I try "Metropolitan Halifax"; then a hatnote tells me I might want to look at "Halifax, Nova Scotia"; bingo! there is my city article, I may think, and happily I click it... just to get back to "Halifax"?! So which article is about *the* city of Halifax, in Canada? Come on, I live in Portugal, I would be praised for my high level of geographical culture for knowing a Halifax in Canada, I'd expect a "City, State" or "City, Country" article, don't expect me to know Canada's specific naming conventions for one town (oops, I mean one regional municipality :-) so explaining the situation upfront might be an option - Nabla (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think our Portuguese friend here has made the most sense of anyone. Thanks Nabla! NickCochrane (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you :-) - Nabla (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2013 (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.

Ｗｅｓｔｅｒｎ Ｓａｈａｒａ[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. WP:R is woefully silent on this subject; it says nothing about non-western characters. Since a Latin/ASCII name is available, this redirect serves no purpose, and it is not Wikipedia's job to fix misconfigured input locales.

Delete. Just a silly fullwidth form of the name; until I asked about it at WP:RDC some hours ago, it was getting about ten hits per month. How are you ever going to type this name? And even if you figure it out, you obviously know the name "Western Sahara", and by typing that with normal letters, you'll get to your destination; deletion won't hurt navigation. Note that this got deleted once before on similar grounds. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bad formatting. Mkdwtalk 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) I don't understand why we would delete when the redirect is getting hits... What purpose does that serve? I made this from a Taiwanese friend's laptop which types in these characters for Latin input. I don't know why it defaults to that usage, but it does. Since that's how he types and this gets a handful of hits, it's evident that this is useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a very unlikely format. It doesn't seem sensible that people would add the spaces instead of writing the name out flat. If its a matter of language-keyboard translation, redirect policy states that technically it should be avoided if its related to foreign language translate or bad translation. Mkdwtalk 18:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What spaces? We're referring to the name written in full-width unicode characters nothing to do with spaces. Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we have a general guideline on this? I didn't search hard but the most recent discussion I found on the full-width/half-width character redirect issue I found is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 8#Fullwidth text to standard text redirects which ended with a delete. I also found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 38#Fullwidth to standard width redirects where it's suggested and a sample search confirms the wikipedia search engine is able to handle automatically full width characters although it does give actual full width names higher priority so for example a search for 'Ｗｅｓｔｅｒｎ' has the redirect being discussed at the top (c.f. a search for western). However it's interesting we are getting 10 hits a month which is probably more then some redirects which should not be deleted (and considering Western Sahara only gets about 1000-1300 hits a day). Where are these hits coming from? A search using the wikipedia search engine (in which case the deletion of the redirect should do no harm), manually typing it in to the URL? A search on a general purpose search engine? Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we need the a redirect and a target that are identical. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

＊Keep． One possibility is someone using a Japanese IME set to full width alphanumeric - it may not be obvious how to change to full width (e.g. requiring fluency in Japanese) and the search engine doesn't seem to handle it well, for example [1] Furthermore it's unambiguous and doesn't get in the way of anything so no reasons for deletion apply. Siuenti (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Perhaps a bit obscure as acccessibility issues go, but it's not doing any harm. It would be cool if someone could draw up an {{R from misspelling}}-type template for situations like this. (Also it's really pretty.) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a request to the developers so that the search box will autoconvert double-byte characters to single-byte characters in the searchbox. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It makes no sense to duplicate every article on Wikipedia with a redirect from its full-width form. If this is an actual issue, it should be solved by fixing the search facility, as suggested by 76.65.128.43.—Emil J. 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be typed in if you use a Japanese keyboard layout with the wrong settings when typing in the URL, but then you are also going to type "ｅｎ．ｗｉｋｉｐｅｄｉａ．ｏｒｇ" which will result in a warning about a non-existing domain name, so you won't get to the right page anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bad formatting. TBrandley (what's up) 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an unambiguous redirect that gets hits so deletion would be harmful while bringing no benefits at all. Stefan2's point is incorrect - there are many ways to find Wikipedia articles and typing the URL in manually is only one way - bookmarks, external search tools, etc would not require typing in the url in fullwidth characters (although if it is technically possible, the WMF may want to register that domain). Also, when I tested it Firefox automatically translated ｅｎ．ｗｉｋｉｐｅｄｉａ．ｏｒｇ into en.wikipedia.org. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless, no reason to delete, and clearly useful for at least some of our readers. That said implement 76.65.128.43's idea. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bad formatting.--jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among other reasons already given, it sets a terrible precedent. A technical adjustment allowing automatic redirection in these cases would be nice. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2013 (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.

Jetix North Africa[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 all to Jetix (Arab world). Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention on the article about a North Africa or Middle East broadcast. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Jetix (Arab world). This appears to the be what the redirects are referring to. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A completely unreferenced article, and should be deleted as well. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jetix (Arab world) per Presidentman. While that article exists, these are good redirects to it. If you think that the target should be deleted then nominate it at WP:AFD (but note that simply being unreferenced is not grounds to delete an article). Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2013 (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.

Disney XD (Australia)[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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention on the article about an Australia broadcast. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No source about them.(Although some Australian hope they can have their own!)--jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:26, 22 January 2013 (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.

Disney XD (Vietnam)[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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention on the article about a Vietnam broadcast. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (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.

Disney XD (Croatia)[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention on the article about a Croatia broadcast. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (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.

Disney XD Romania[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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention on the article about a Romania broadcast. 117Avenue (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (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.

Global analysis[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 to facilitate creation of an article. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The target (differential geometry) of global analysis does not tell anything about global analysis (which is a subfield of differential geometry). Should be deleted. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a valid search term but after five years not yet a seperate article this should still lead somewhere. If the current target isn't good and cannot be expanded, maybe Geometric analysis is better (removing the link there). Non-mathematicians might think of other stuff say the analysis of Global warming or Global environmental analysis.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_16&oldid=1138578877"