Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2014.

First Battle of Picardy[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 1st Battle of Picardy to First Battle of Picardy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article has been written which should have this title (mistakenly called 1st Battle of Picardy by me), so this needs to be deleted so the page can be moved. This redirect is circular, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion below.TheLongTone (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (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.

1st Picardy[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) 13:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be a particularly likely term to use as an abbreviation of title article has been moved to (1st Battle of Picardy) TheLongTone (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history I left this: I started an article First Battle of Picardy but it redirects to Race to the Sea or goes to a page titled 1st Picardy, which is the abbreviation in the Race to the Sea template. I've tried to edit the redirect following Wikipedia:Redirect and only managed to bugger things up more.


The new article on the 1st Battle of Picardy is a good start - but I believe it should be called the First Battle of Picardy (for consistency). Then, the redirect can be fixed to point to this newly created article, and a link added to the Race to the Sea#Battle of Picardy, 22–26 September article. MWadwell (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above, there's a redirect in the way.TheLongTone (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the title is not specific enough to establish the target, while not being plausible search term. This redirect arguably qualifies for WP:CSD#R3. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until it's ready to be retargeted. "First X" is a common short form for "First Battle of X", and the same is true of other numbers; see our redirects for First Bull Run and Third Ypres for some examples. Any time we have a "First" title, "1st" is a reasonable alternate title. No objection to disambiguation if appropriate, but it shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (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.

Fryderyk Shopin[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, keep, delete, keep, and keep, respectively. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. � (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dmitrij. I can never remember how to spell this guy's name (how did he get a French name, anyway?), and those three are reasonable misspellings. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2014 (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.

Chrome 1[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. After well over a month of discussion and a few weeks since the last comment, I find a weak consensus to delete. --BDD (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version numbers are not particularly significant. TheChampionMan1234 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, Chrome has always used a rolling release system, so particular versions are not significant � (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Chrome versions are not significant milestones. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Google Chrome#Release history: I see no harm from these, neither I see a valid deletion rationale. All of these are partial matches for respective Chrome releases, and they are plausible search terms. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to Google Chrome#Release history. These are plausible search terms. "Not significant" is not a policy-compliant ground for deletion. For established redirects, to keep is the default action with only harmful redirects being deleted - see WP:RFD#HARMFUL and WP:RFD#DELETE. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chrome did never have “releases”. The version number is strictly internal — read what rolling release means. (Ignore the bulk of the artiicle, since only the header is relevant to individual programs.) � (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean by "strictly internal"? Version number of Chrome can be easily found from the program, and they are routinely referenced off-site (example). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chrome releases are not marketed separately, unlike eg. IE releases. � (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are not bound to decisions by Google's marketing department. When you need to describe the point at time when new feature was added, you may either refer to vague date (in April 2011) or to Chrome version (in Chrome 11); the latter is IMO much more precise and encyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not a marketing decision. I see nothing wrong with saying that some feature was added in Fabrikam version 1.45.678.9, even if it was a non-notable point release. And Chrome versions are just that. � (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exactly. It is nothing wrong to address non-notable point releases, and it is routinely done on Wikipedia and off-site. That's why deletion rationale here is flawed and these redirects qualify for WP:R#KEEP criterion 2. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of the Google Chrome releases was numbered with an integer. That makes the redirects "novel or very obscure" synonyms for certain versions of the browser, satisfying WP:RFD#DELETE. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2014 (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.

Taïwan[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. This has been relisted over a month without additional comment, so relisting it again seems pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially French and implausible typo TheChampionMan1234 00:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This redirect resembles the target's name enough to not be particularly astonishing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, and as an implausible typo. Additionally it misleads English-speakers about the pronunciation of the target title: the "ai" in Taiwan is a diphthong and is not pronounced with diaresis (as in the famous New Yorker example coöperate). quant18 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Taylor Trescott and since I created this redirect in the first place. Then again, should it be deleted, I won't throw a fit. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless, and deprecate FORRED since it is being constantly abused. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
Rich, in what sense is FORRED being "abused"? Such redirects are often deleted with clear consensus. Is this standard really being "abused," or do you just disagree with it? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention if that was ever agreed to it would mean that we would need to remove WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 since FORRED is basically a reiteration of that.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2014 (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.

Hert[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 disambiguate. bd2412 T 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This redirect page links to no misspellings of "Hertz" but to two correct uses of "Hert". : Noyster (talk), 10:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, there are three things called Hert or HERT according to Wikipedia, I have put a suggested DAB on the talk page. Siuenti (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Siuenti -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above: Noyster (talk), 06:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Apparently, it's also a synonym for "hart", meaning a male Red Deer. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Siuenti --Lenticel (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2014 (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.

They are supposed to be out of bed, you blithering idiot[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 procedural close — already deleted as G7 [non-admin closure] � (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random quote from a Harry Potter film. Unlikely search term. gobonobo + c 06:22, 6 August 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:RfU[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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as a helpful and logical target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this should be. - TheChampionMan1234 04:28, 6 August 2014 (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.

猶太人大屠殺[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. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This topic has no affiliation for any of these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 6 August 2014 (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.

COPY (command)[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 copy (command) [non-admin closure] � (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the best target for this. DOS is far from the only computer to have a copy command. I'd say copy and paste functionality seen in modern GUIs is a more likely target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to copy (command). This capitalization is used on many case-insensitive OSes. - TheChampionMan1234 04:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to copy (command) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to copy (command). Ideally this should have been disambiguated, but I can't find good targets for other operating systems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to copy (command). I think the discussion can be closed, since I (as the creator of the redirect) agree with the new proposal. (Of course, I had a rationale for creating it different in the first place, but that's a more general long-term vision how to create more consistency at least within groups of related articles without violating conventions established by different operating systems (as we often do now), and in that vision, the target would have been changed at a later stage, anyway.) Like Dmitrij, I think both "COPY (command)" and "copy (commmand)" should ideally point to a disambiguation page, and at present "copy (command)" is the closest to a concept-disambiguation page we have, so that's fine with me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (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.

Listcruft[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. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improper redirect outside of reader-space. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: XNRs to Wikipedia essays with limited acceptance; I tried to locate an article that would mention attitude towards excessive lists in established style guidelines, but apparently we have nothing on this topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR to essay not meaningful to the readership, as it is for the editorship. Further, crufty lists are not the sole province of Wikipedia, so the essay is not meaningful to other circumstances. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2014 (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.

Tomatœ[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. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, and this does not mean "Tomato" in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep {{R from misspelling}} -- we have tomatoe , and Dan Quayle couldn't spell potatoe ; -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this appears to have more to do with metal umlaut then with misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Its impossible to type this using English US Qwerty Keyboard- TheChampionMan1234 06:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible diacritic � (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. œ isn't used in English, and "Tomatœ" isn't the correct name in any other language. The title is an implausible typo. G. C. Hood (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikt:fœtus is a spelling that shows "œ" is used in English, so not just Mœtley Crue -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entry you link specifically says that it is very rare hypercorrection case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is an English word that uses "œ", it doesn't really matter what that particular English word is, it shows that "œ" is used in English. My biology professor insisted on using that form of that word (I think he was emphasizing being a Brit and not a local). Other words exist with this form. onomatopœia, fœderal, diarrhœa, etc. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2014 (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/2014_August_6&oldid=1138579453"