Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 14, 2014.

Chrome 1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 6#Chrome 1

MW7[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) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28#MW8 TheChampionMan1234 08:07, 14 July 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.

PowerBook G6[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) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invented name. There was no PowerBook G5 either. TheChampionMan1234 08:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this redirect is actually harmful — neither MacBook Pro nor Mac Pro are PowerPC-based, which the redirects suggest � (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ï¿½: these are misleading. Also note: Gx in names of Apple "Power" series means the CPU (PowerPC G3 and PowerPC G4), and not "generation" as this redirect implies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:37, 19 July 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:Euro-bank-stub[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. This page has been around for over 7 years and was the original title of the template. WP:RFD#HARMFUL is relevant, and the consensus is that this redirect is not misleading. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the current name is misleading - this tag is for banks in Europe (regardless of which currency they use), not banks which primarily use the Euro currency. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, all the banks that use the Euro are in Europe. 117Avenue (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, this redirect remains after template move, so deletion will break historical revisions of multiple pages; this alone is enough to keep this redirect. Next, it is a template redirect that someone may remember and use occasionly, so deletion would violate WP:SURPRISE. Lastly, "euro-" is common prefix for anything European. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dmitrij. It's very unlikely that people would talk about "euro banks" or "dollar banks" and such—banks typical deal with various currencies, even if they focus on one. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 23 July 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.

Zapped (film)[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. Preferably, we want to avoid inexperienced users having to navigate search results [1] and we should aim to get them to the article they are seeking as quickly as possible. I am unconvinced that keeping this redirect results in any harm (WP:RFD#HARMFUL) and I find the 'keep' arguments convincing. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unhelpful disambiguation, both Zapped and Zapped! are films. It should be noted Zapped (2014 film) and Zapped (1982 film) exist. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, likely search term, anyone using it will either be taken to the right film, or see a hatnote to the film they are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that having this appear as a search suggestion is confusing, and implies the articles may not be at the correct primary topics. Deleting this page will cause "Zapped (2014 film)" and "Zapped (1982 film)" to appear as suggestions when someone types "Zapped film". 117Avenue (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Search box is not the only mean of searching the Wikipedia. There are also search boxes in browsers, and DuckDuckGo offers "!w" shebang. Deletion would harm users of these tools. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How? As I stated "Zapped (2014 film)" and "Zapped (1982 film)" exist. 117Avenue (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I search for "Zapped (film)" (which is what I would enter if I want to find info about a film called Zapped), I'll be redirected to Zapped (2014 film) and informed of Zapped (1982 film). If I am searching for 2014 film, I've saved extra clicks; if for 1982 film – saved nothing. Be this redirect deleted, I'll be presented with search results I never wanted to see at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, deleting this page will cause "Zapped (2014 film)" and "Zapped (1982 film)" to appear as suggestions. If you choose to ignore them and press enter, you will get these two results. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing as suggestions where? When I type "!w Zapped (film)" in my address bar, I am redirected to 2014 film. Your suggested deletion will make me one step away from it, without facilitating getting to 1982 film. Not an improvement for me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: hatnotes would suffice disambiguating these two, and both articles have them. Zapped has more page views, so it is the primary target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the primary topic, which is why it is at an undisambiguated title, but "Zapped (film)" is ambiguous, and should not exist. 117Avenue (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What is the connection between ambiguity and deletion? What criterion of WP:R#DELETE do you refer to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, it would cause confusion, which is #2 on WP:R#DELETE. Why would it redirect to the 2014 film, if the 1982 film is also valid? WP:INCDAB also applies, and since there is no disambiguation page to link to, as it would only be two entries, it should not exist. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no confusion at all, only ambiguity. 2014 film is obvious primary topic: 55214 page views vs. 14557 page views – even if all Zapped! viewers came there via Zapped (unlikely given the number of incomming links), remaining 40657 is much more then 14557. WP:INCDAB does not apply, because there is no DAB and everything else is out of the scope of WP:Disambiguation guideline. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 film has more views in the past month because it aired June 27, 2014. I didn't want to nominate this redirect until the viewership went down, because I wanted to help those looking for it. But the 2014 film is a kids movie, the views will go down, the 1982 film is the blockbuster. Then again this is just a little redirect, and I've argued more than its worth. 117Avenue (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judging on previous examples I would expect 2014 film to recieve more views for quite some time. Anyway, particular stats only affect target (which is pretty obvious for comming months), not necessity of this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:27, 22 July 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.

MOIN UDDIN AHMED TIPU[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 G8 (target deleted) [non-admin closure] � (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page.It is useless,since no one will type ALL CAPS in the search box.Nor someone will link to the page using ALL CAPS. Ssaz 12 (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {{R from alternate capitalization}}; I would say that it is quite possible someone could forget the capslock left on, type away and press enter, without looking. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - typinng in te earch box is case insensitive unless different titles which deffer only by capitalization are an issue; in this case, we have no access to the redirect in 90 days. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:45, 14 July 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_July_14&oldid=1037877300"