Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2014.

Provdrive Racing 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 Speedy delete for criterion G7 by Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provdrive Racing Australia established with typo, should have been Prodrive Racing Australia, has now been established correctly and thus request deletion of original incorrect redirect. Ghanpac (talk) 23:28, 1 December 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.

Pokemon Z[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 in light of consensus not changing since the previous discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion ended in no consensus. The !vote reason I gave last time still stands:

As a Pokémon fan, I know for sure a Pokémon Z game does not exist, and if Nintendo were to make a Pokémon Z game, it would not redirect here. PLEASE delete .

Bottom line: Redirect not synonymous with its target. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep close - frivolous reposting of a discussion which closed three days ago. There was not a consensus for any action then; there is unlikely to have been a change in consensus in that time. Just for the record I'll repeat my original argument from that discussion: Keep per Si and Thry - valid and likely search term, given the recent speculation. If a game is released in the future under a different name, we can retarget then. Ivanvector (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Ivanvector (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Is this a reliable source?
  • Akash KJ (7 February 2014). "What to expect from Pokemon Z: HM Removal, Greater Difficulty and More in Store?". International Business Times. Retrieved 2 December 2014.
If so, the speculation in a reliable source (and marked as such in it) can be mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close nothing has changed since the last discussion. My comments there still stand. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 2 December 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.

Soundtrack list of 2012 film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#Soundtrack list of 2012 film

Jaromil[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 wrong forum. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaromil. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vanity page and doesn't even use the autobiographers real name, but a pseudonym. Then he points to this page on the internet as proof that he is famous. https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141201.180010.0780a0b8.en.html this page needs to go.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 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.

Communiqué[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) 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can imagine someone landing on these pages due to using software that's confused about which character set to use. Couldn't give you an exact scenario, though, so this won't be a !vote. Also think mojibake that has been respelled not to use Unicode characters is probably useless. ekips39 20:05, 1 December 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.

Adult comedy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#Adult comedy

Bawstun[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. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 00:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is not an "invented name" but eye dialect for the local pronunciation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Near the Black Cat Roundabout is a village called Chawston. The history section there says it is recorded in the Domesday Book as Chauelestorne and Calnestorne. I am not sure if that is any use to say so, just sprang to mind. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 21 September 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) 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to have been viewed a fair amount from 2009 onwards, though rarely reaching more than 3 views per day (and, of course, views went way up after the deletion nomination). ekips39 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't even sound like the Boston dialect at all, although, because I'm from near there, perhaps I genuinely can't see the difference. Still I vote delete even if I'm wrong because no one will ever hear this name spoken and not know that it means Boston. —Soap— 20:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they may see it written and not know. I'm British, and this or "Borstun" is how I'd represent my understanding of the local pronunciation of Boston, Mass. in eye dialect (I don't know that I've ever heard a local from Boston, Lincolnshire pronounce the name of that town). Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a good example here:
Whether this R is indexical, a description or opaque, I leave to others to decide. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 2 December 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.

template:cb[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. While there clearly are erroneous uses of this shortcut, there isn't consensus to delete it at this time. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the 'b' and 'n' key are very close together and I just cleaned up about a half-dozen typographical mistakes in articles: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. given how infrequently this redirect is used, I say we simply delete/salt it. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete CB has lots of potential encyclopedic uses. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're not arguing about CB but {{cb}}. Wikipedia is not a typing tutor or spelling checker and editors should know to preview things before saving (admittedly I am guilty of frequently not doing so, and having to fix it straight afterwards). As for "potential uses", if any come along their cases can be argued at that time. Admittedly it's not used much: does a bot replace it? Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, there is no bot which substitutes it. it's just that, apparently, it is used properly less than 20 percent of the time. if we deleted it, there would be glaring red visible problem, rather than an easy-to-miss stray </div> tag when someone types cn incorrectly. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone who types {{cb}} meaning {{cn}} has done enough damage already: Wasting time adding cn tags instead of finding references. Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia support services should not occupy locations for potential encyclopedic content (such as using template names that could be used for CB-topic templates) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This point has been argued over before at RfD (I can't immediately recall what the discussion was, but I'll link to it when I do) with no consensus reached for that opinion. The view was that unless all internal-facing templates include "Wikipedia" every template has a potential encyclopaedic use (e.g. {{db}} is not about Deutsche Bahn, Databases, DB (car), etc, etc; {{fact}} does not list articles about facts; {{hat}} has nothing to do with headgear; etc). Basically, the principle is that we should wait until there is an actual problem that needs fixing (not just a potential for one) and then discuss it then. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • right, and I demonstrated that there is a problem. Frietjes (talk) 01:35, 20 November 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) 18:32, 1 December 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.

Resuscitation[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 (non-admin closure). This discussion is stale and the nominator already developed the redirect into a chart article nearly two months ago. Ivanvector (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resuscitation is not the same as CPR - it describes the process of correcting physiological abnormalities (eg hypovolaemia in septic shock etc) and is a major part of trauma surgery, where the patient may be breathing for themselves/have a perfusing heart rhythm. I suggest removing the redirect and developing the page content. Mschamberlain (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cocked mine up, I wanted to imply what I should have said explicitly, that the CRP article links none of these I mention. Change your notvote if you want, but I felt it better to fix my comment inline. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 5 October 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) 18:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as moot, someone has created an article with hatnotes. Siuenti (talk) 17:27, 16 December 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.

Linux Command: tar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#Linux Command: tar

First Essex Thameside[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. Consensus is against deleting at this time, as a broad principle, but this should not preclude individual discussion if some of these are found problematic on their own (e.g., not being mentioned in their target article). --BDD (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Essex Thameside is a dormant company that was established as a bid vehicle for a contract. As the bid was unsuccessful, it will never trade and fails WP:BRANCH and WP:GNG. The subject article is not deemed sufficiently notable to gain a mention on the parent FirstGroup article.

While on its own not an issue, there has been a recent trend that has seen an article set up as as redirect for each short listed bidder, in this case Abellio Essex Thameside, MTR Corporation (Essex Thameside) and NXET Trains rather than after the winner has been selected. This is an overkill, as the details pertaining to the franchising process are always covered in both the overviewing article (Essex Thameside) and that of the incumbent (c2c). Only when the tender is awarded, is there sufficient information to justify an article being established, this often has a different trading name from the original bid vehicle, a recent example being Virgin Trains East Coast.

The First East Coast, First Thameslink and First West Coast articles have been established on the same lines. Over the past 20 years, FirstGroup has bid for over 25 franchises in the UK, and it would certainly be an overkill to pollute lookup lists with each of these, mostly dormant/wound up companies, if the current practice were applied. D47817 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note - I have added the rest of the nominations listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abellio Essex Thameside which was closed and directed to this forum. I did this by hand; some of the links are probably incorrect. Ivanvector (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not necessarily as is. These bidding company names will appear in reliable sources that date from the time of the bidding and so are all plausible search terms that Wikipedia should have. The target should be the article about the franchise they were used to bid for, where they should be mentioned, unless they are discussed in more detail elsewhere (e.g. an article or section about the specific franchise round or the parent company's article. I don't have time currently to research where this is for all of them). Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment True, the crux as mentioned below is do we want to encourage/discourage the practice of adding dormant entities in the first place. As previously mentioned the unsuccessful bidders are always listed and cited in the successful bidder's article and where it exists, also the 'overview' page. D47817 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to post what Thryduulf said. The practice of creating these redirects should be strongly discouraged, but since these have been with us for a while, they should stay, but possibly be retargeted. The problem is I'm not close enough to the topic to figure out what each one of these is, or if the target is appropriate. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If they are to remain, the target is appropriate, its more is their existence appropriate at all. D47817 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a word, yes. The company names get coverage in reliable (and unreliable) sources and so they are likely search terms. Indeed I disagree with Ivanvector's assertion that the creation of these redirects should be discouraged - notability is not time bound. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose you're right. Of course notability is not temporary, I was questioning whether it should be notable to create redirects for every bidder on a particular rail contract, or whatever these are (I still don't quite get it). But redirects are cheap - as long as they are properly targeted, why not keep them? Gets readers to what (I assume) they're looking for. Ivanvector (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment While the parent companies, do have extensive histories, the bid vehicles (i.e. the companies being discussed) are generally formed as part of the tender process. For example in the recent InterCity East Coast franchise tender, the FirstGroup,[1] Keolis/Eurostar[2] and Stagecoach Group/Virgin[3] entities were all formed in October/November 2013, at the same time as expressions of interest were called for.
My issue with retaining, is the precedent it sets. There must be thousands of companies formed every year that bid unsuccessfully for contracts. Do we really want to encourage the practice of setting up redirects for all of these? As previously mentioned, FirstGroup have made circa 20 unsuccessful bids, would be an overkill to have all of these set up. Bit like on a construction company article such as Balfour Beatty where while appropriate to list the major projects it did complete, would not be so for every job they bid for. D47817 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Companies House extract company no 8765536 East Coast Trains Limited
  2. ^ Companies House extract company no 8758112 Keolis/Eurostar East Coast Limited
  3. ^ Companies House extract company no 8753471 Inter City Railways Limited
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.

Mcdicks[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Steel1943 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE item 3: "The redirect is offensive or abusive".
I note Maccy D's is in Wiktionary, but not Maccy D's is not in Wikipedia (McDo is, though). McDicks, McDick's and Mcdick's are all redlink. I must admit I find it amusing that there are only two pages in Category:Scottish restaurants – but McDonald's is not one of them. (I was half expecting it to have been added there as a joke; urbandictionary.com defines "Scottish Restaurant" as "McDonalds".) Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) updated Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not much to add really. Has been viewed about as much as Bawstun, above, but anyone who wants to search for McDonald's will surely think to type in the proper name; and those searching for Mcdicks may simply have been wondering if it existed. ekips39 23:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an offensive redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the snowball gaining momentum above. Ivanvector (talk) 19:47, 2 December 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.

Penguinone[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. Thanks, Si Trew, and can you verify that there's still content to be had from the Japanese article, removing the tag if appropriate? --BDD (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. I suppose it could be, but the article's a mess already, so adding more stuff to it doesn't seem like a bright idea. It is covered here and here, though. ekips39 04:04, 1 December 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.

The Cosmic Jokers (album)[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, rename target, unlink reference in target. JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a redlink, not a redirect to the group. Otherwise, we're just sending the reader in circles from the Discography section. The article on the group doesn't give any information about the album anyway (besides the release year). Kaldari (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The band appears to be called The Cosmic Jokers, so the target and the redirect The Cosmic Jokers should be swapped. Si Trew (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the album redirect, and swap the band redirects as suggested by Si Trew. There are a lot of links to this redirect and it points readers to the information they're looking for. The circular wikilink in the discography should be un-linked to fix the problem. Ivanvector (talk) 15:54, 4 December 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_December_1&oldid=1039433774"