Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2013.

Wartsila Marine Ltd.[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. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same issue as below. Gwafton (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wärtsilä Marine is not a very old article, it is written this year. It used to redirect to Wärtsilä. See the page history page. Minding the age of the article and the topic notability, it is highly unlike that deleting this redirect would harm any external link. --Gwafton (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect title was created on 27 March 2008‎ meaning that it is quite likely that deletion would break links. The point with redirects is that they are cheap and the default is to keep and we only delete if they are in some way harmful. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the link was originally not made to lead to Wärtsilä Marine but to Wärtsilä (the parent company). See the revision history. I changed it this year to lead to Wärtsilä Marine instead after writing the article. Wärtsilä is nowadays a diesel engine and propulsion system producer – it would be strange if someone had built an external link to lead through the shipbuilding company Wärtsilä Marine Ltd. (or Wartsila Marine Ltd.) to the Wärtsilä article. I still fail seeing the point at having a such useless redirect. --Gwafton (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely search term, no rationale has been offered for deletion. WilyD 09:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really ok to create a redirect page just with the company form added? Where is the sense? --Gwafton (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? It's very reasonable to believe someone might search for the term (or wikilink the term), and by creating such a redirect, we direct them to what they're looking for. Additionally, when such a redirect doesn't exist, it's not uncommon for someone to start a second article, not realising the first one already exists. The downside of having such a redirect is non-existent. WilyD 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gwafton, it's a bit of an eccentricity of RfD that redirects are commonly kept which nevertheless might not be a good idea to create in the first place. That's very different from, say, AfD. It's simply that—more so than at other XfD venues—the default action for a redirect that comes up here is keep. The nominator generally must argue that the redirect is misleading, harmful, or too obscure a search term to be very useful. Since that doesn't seem to be the case with this redirect or the other one related to the marina, they're likely to be kept. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. I don't agree with the practice but if this is the general rule these (absolutely useless) links may stay then. --Gwafton (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may not get a great deal of use, but they'll likely get some. Suppose someone comes across this form in another source and copies and pastes it into our search box. It would be helpful in that case. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 9 November 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.

Wärtsilä Marine Ltd.[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. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page, it is useless to have a separate redirect with the company form. Gwafton (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - no WP:RFD#DELETE reason cited. This is a long-standing, over 6 years old, title and deletion is highly likely to break external links - WP:RFD#Keep point 4. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely search term, no rationale offered for deletion. WilyD 09:27, 8 November 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.

Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn[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 Development of Star Wars Episode VII. WJBscribe (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect instigates confusion, on the basis of criteria #8 for reasons for redirect, in that it is a novel and/obscure synonym. The phase "A New Dawn" is a speculated title for the seventh Star Wars film, but there is no evidence confirming this. For the time being, this redirect only adds to confusion by making it seem like an official title that can be considered encyclopedic. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. If this does turn out to be the name, the redirect can always be recreated. If it doesn't, I very much doubt there will be anyone searching for this title once the true name is known. I'm sure there are a few people now who this redirect is benefiting, but, especially considering that "Star Wars Episode VII" is easier to type out, I'd wager there are significantly more people who stand to be misled by the redirect's existence. For what it's worth, and since I don't feel incredibly strongly about this !vote, if this isn't deleted, then it definitely should be retargeted to "Development of Star Wars Episode VII," to which "Star Wars Episode VII" already points. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:41, 12 November 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.

Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow[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 leaving a redirect to Talk:Joel Cohen (writer)/Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Sokolow has an article too, so this redirect makes no sense. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this is a former article from which content has been merged so whatever we do with it we need to safeguard the history. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirect is irrelevant as of now. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - deletion is impossible, given the license terms, both articles exist, so it seems like the most sensible solution. WilyD 10:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though the history needs to be safeguarded this doesn't predicate against deletion. We have have a standard procedure of moving such former articles to a subpage of a talk page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the target does deal with the working relationship between the two so this seems a perfectly usable redirect. I am not convinced by a disambiguation page which puts another step between the reader and the information they are seeking. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in effect. Specifically, move to Talk:Joel Cohen (writer)/Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow without leaving a redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 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.

Current computer and video game events[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. There has not been a clear consensus to delete or keep this redirect for the over three months that this discussion has happened. It is quite doubtful that any additional comments added to this discussion will help clarify consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially confusing cross-namespace redirect. Beerest355 Talk 20:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your argument doesn't work, because several of those listed were later deleted. Plus, most people there commented that some were deletion-worthy. Beerest355 Talk 22:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidently not this one. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beerest, only two were deleted, both speedy deleted without discussion (thereby being invalid speedy deletes), and in one case, it lead to a Portal project page and the other lead to a portal page that was no longer active. So, you "it's deleted" statement strongly supports the keep argument. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect is not titled in a way that implies a cross-namespace redirect. That'd be like if Prison redirected to WP:BLOCK - confusing to all people who are casual readers of the encyclopedia. Beerest355 Talk 22:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely being sent to a portal is much more useful than sent no where. unlike wiki: pages portal: pages are meant to be seen by the public. Tideflat (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CNSR. Useless. — |J~Pæst|  02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just FYI, that reference says to keep the old CNRs, and this one was created in May, 2006. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that note, although what is considered "old" is somewhat of an opinion… — |J~Pæst|  06:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome, JPæst! Yes, nobody's put a fine point on that age thing. One CNR from mainspace was recently deleted that was created only last year. It continues to be an administrative judgement call. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being sent to a relevant Portal seems a perfectly helpful use of the redirect and, in any case, the practice is to keep old CNRs except where they are positively harmful as per WP:RFD#DELETE. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a particularly plausible search term, but on principle I see nothing wrong with redirects to portalspace, and think this is a perfectly valid instance of one. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 19:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not seeing the value on this one. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly, I'd say the value would be in the unknown, but potentially large number of external links that has grown since it was created in May 2006. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible search term and too confusing for cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_Zero 08:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a good thing if it confuses you, to be sure. However, this WP:CNR has been around since May 2006 and should not be deleted so external links won't be broken. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: There are currently only six links to the redirect, Paine; four are links from RFD, one is a list of cross-namespace redirects to be deleted, and one is a talk page message notifying the creator of the redirect about the redirect's listing on RFD. Not a single link to the redirect even expects the redirect to remain in tact, so then how is the breaking of links to this redirect even a potential problem? — |J~Pæst|
    Hi, JPaest. By "external" links is meant links from outside Wikipedia, i.e., links to this redirect from other websites on the vast Internet. The What links here page shows only those links from inside English Wikipedia. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cross namespace redirect of no obvious utility that is more likely to create confusion than aid navigation. WJBscribe (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is technically an XNR, but this more closely resembles an article-space to article-space redirect then it does an XNR in the sense the term is normally used. Article-space to portal-space redirects are not like article-space to project-space redirects. The Portal namespace, like the article namespace, is meant for readers not editors. With article-space to project-space redirects the reader is (usually) being sent to a page meant for editors. With article-space to portal-space redirects the reader is being sent to a location meant for readers, not a location meant for editors, just like with article-space to article-space redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It seems there is still no clear consensus. This discussion may end up having to be closed to "no consensus", but there is the possibility a clearer decision might be revealed here in the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. This has been relisted enough. If there isn't a consensus at the end of the week, it's safe to say there isn't going to be one for now. By a raw count, we're at 6-5 in favor of keeping after three months of discussion. I think it's safe to say that that's a "no consensus" if there ever was one. We can revisit this in a year or two. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from relister: PinkAmpersand, agreed on closing this to "no consensus", considering that I JUST noticed the "August 8" listing date; I had overlooked that detail, considering that the first relisting happened in early October. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 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.

Gregory Gilliam III[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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its relevance is unclear. The target article, nor any other articles, does not mention this parsonal name.[1] Kusunose 06:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Probably WP:MADEUP, especially since its creation was the sole action of SPA Ballupson. A Google search for the name returns nothing but social media profiles, so it's liekly that Gregory or one of his friends was just messing around. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:RFD#DELETE point 5. In the unlikely event that someone is seeking information on this person they wont find it at the target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:04, 8 November 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.

Multiple redirects to Liberal eugenics[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. WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete because these meet criteria 8 for novel terms that are not in the vernacular. In other words, by placing neologia in Wikipedia, the result is to create language. "Libertarian eugenics" and "Biolibertarianism" were both created 3 February 2007 by the same user. The variations on "new eugenics" were created and modified by that same user on different dates. Only neo-eugenics has any non-trivial history beyond being created to synonymize with "Liberal eugenics." Heathhunnicutt (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The standard for having redirects from alternative names is not that they are in the vernacular, that largely defeats the purpose of having redirects from alternative names, and Google results show that these aren't that novel:
"Libertarian eugenics" -wikipedia 645 results, "Biolibertarianism" -wikipedia 1,770 results, "New eugenics" -wikipedia 31,200 results, "Neo-eugenics" -wikipedia 20,500 results. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Emmette. If the idea was to propagate neologisms through Wikipedia, I guess the creator of these redirects succeeded. --BDD (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 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.

Multiple redirects to Grodno 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 keep Hrodna Voblasts, no consensus regarding the others. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of foreign language redirects to same EN:WP article. Highly unlikely someone would search EN:WP for these names.Ajh1492 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hrodna Voblasts as this is a valid historical name for the region. Delete the rest as non-English search terms. Green Giant (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I lack the precise linguistic skills to determine, but these look like transliterations of Russian and Belarusian names for the region; some certainly resemble the transliterations present in the lede of the target article. Foreign-language redirects are typically kept when they're in a language connected to their subject. This applies especially to endonyms. Compare to Deutschland, España, or Ukrayina. --BDD (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 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_November_7&oldid=1138579235"