Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2014.

Wikipedia:Deletion is not clean up[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. I did look at the existing incoming links to the template per NYKevin's suggestion of orphaning, but it appears that all uses were meant for the suggested retarget rather than the easter egg. Number 57 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not redirect to Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup? Launchballer 08:32, 24 June 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.

Lavender Fields[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) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Lavender Fields is also the name of an area due northwest of Mitcham, London and thus this should be deleted to encourage creation of an article. Launchballer 08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete to encourage article creation.--Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 25 June 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.

Chinese war[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 List of Chinese wars and battles. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds pretty generic to me. Perhaps List of Chinese wars and battles would be better. TheChampionMan1234 06:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Sounds reasonable — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this title does not seem to be a well-formed query for particular war with participation of China – it is not in plural form and lacks either name of the other combatant or some other specifier. Java War (1741–43) article claims the title as an alternative name of the war. Still, it may be used as search query, so a hatnote at Java War (1741–43) pointing to list of Chinese wars and battles could be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Clearly Java War is not the proper target. If you're looking for the battles of "'Chinese' Gordon" in his Chinese Wars, this is not the right place. Nor is it for the expeditionary forces of European colonial powers against the Qing Dynasty. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 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.

Kim Pyo[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. Number 57 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin expanded on the decision here. Cunard (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible redirect for surname plus second syllable of given name, like Than Smith for Nathan Smith; not how Korean names work. quant18 (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per implausible redirect. Sawol (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between Kim Jin-pyo, Kim Pyong-il and Kim Seung-pyo: not all English speakers know the way Korean names work. Besides, this redirect may help with searching for partially-remembered name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all WP:PARTIALMATCHes, which specifically don't belong on dab pages. Special:Search works perfectly well for the use case of finding people who happen to have these two syllables in their name. quant18 (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think WP:PARTIALMATCH applies here – it is not the kind of match that guideline speaks of. Also, I see quite significant risk of confusion, which is the excuse for including partial matches per this guideline anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there any source which has ever referred to Kim Pyong-il as Kim Pyo? If not, where is the possibility of confusion? People don't generally seem to find redirects for random name shortenings to be useful when those shortenings aren't actually used somewhere, regardless of whether they know enough about the name's culture to assess whether the shortening is plausible. Otherwise someone would have created a Will Clinton or Ed Heath or Deng Xiao redirect in the past thirteen years. quant18 (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, there are no sources. And there is no need for sources – this redirect would be helpful for locating article, which is quite enough. P.S.: obviously on English wikipedia there is no need for Will Clinton or Ed Heath; creating Deng Xiao would be a bad idea (as well as creation of this redirect was), but if it existed, I would !vote keep or disambiguate depending on actual article titles I would find – asian names are tricky topic for most non-asian people. That is: for me this DAB would be helpful if I ever were to search for Kim Seung-pyo without having name written down somewhere, because otherwise I definitely would give up before finding him. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • for me this DAB would be helpful if I ever were to search for Kim Seung-pyo without having name written down somewhere – Special:Search is far superior for this purpose. It alerts the user that there's no actual article called by the erroneous title entered in the search box, and it provides a list of articles which have kinda-similar text in their titles or bodies. And it does not require any maintenance, and it does not encourage misguided editors to go and create a bunch of other similar "disambiguation" pages for non-ambiguous titles. quant18 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually I used search to locate the entries for proposed DAB, and it took unreasonably much time to make this list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages like Kim Pyo cause confusion. Sawol (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Kim Seung Pyo redirects to the target. I really dont know how the Korean names works, but a Google search provides lots of Kim Seung Pyo (without the -), so I wouldnt think it was strange to search for him with Kim Pyo. Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Pyo does not represent Kim Seung-pyo. Kim Pyo may represent Kim Jin-pyo. This is likely to lead to confusion and problems in Wikipedia. Sawol (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kim Pyo" doesn't give any results either for Kim Seung-pyo or Kim Jin-pyo, because neither is actually referred to that way. quant18 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 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.

澳[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) 16:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be a Chinese abbreveiation for "Australia", see wikt:澳 TheChampionMan1234 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Australia is not a Chinese region, while Macau is. The only place where a Chinese language redirect is relevant is for Macau, not Australia. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: apparently this is not the name of the country. Redirecting single-letter abbreveiations from foreign languages is overextension of WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete; a non-standard abbreviation and very unlikely to be something user is searching for on en.wp (Wiktionary and the Chinese WP are far more likely).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: According to the Taiwan MOE dictionary, this character alone may be a short name for either Australia or Macau (notably, it lists the abbreviation for Australia before Macau, suggesting the former usage is more common). This character is also used in compounds to form names of bays, harbors, etc. (such as 蘇澳, 三都澳, and 南方澳), so I suspect individuals searching for this term might just as easily be searching for the concept of a natural harbor. Indeed, when pronounced yù, this character may be synonymous with 隩, which means "cove" or "bay". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since according to our article, Macau's Traditional Chinese name is 澳門 --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 25 June 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 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 discussion and per previous Rfds and outcomes] Magioladitis (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#פֿאַרבאַנד פֿונ סאָציאַליסטישע ראַטנרעפּובליקנ

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.

IWatch[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 Smartwatch#List of smartwatches in development. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nonexistent section, also violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL TheChampionMan1234 03:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Smartwatch#List_of_smartwatches_in_development -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 65.94.171.126: although an article on this subject would indeed constitute WP:CRYSTAL violation, the title itself is a likely search term, and we have relevant information, so I see no reason not to take readers to the information they look for. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entirety of the reliable sources link the term iWatch to Apple inc. this is confirmed in every reliable source. And furthermore I would propose a topic ban for TheChampionMan for continuous abuse of the RFD process. JOJ Hutton 12:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural oppose: This is not the correct forum for a topic ban. Take it to ANI or RFC/U, if you really must discuss this. --NYKevin 23:07, 24 June 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.

West Korea[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) 16:06, 1 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.

Malaysain flight[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) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the misspelling, Malaysian flight does not exist, anyway, clearly should not point to the MH370 article, it can mean any flight operated in Malaysia TheChampionMan1234 00:59, 24 June 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.

OCLUG[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. I'm skeptical that one city's Linux user group could really meet WP:ORG. In the meantime, search results will direct readers to our mention of OCLUG anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK, this means Ottawa Canada Linux Users Group TheChampionMan1234 00:55, 24 June 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.

Linŭ[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) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such spelling and impossible typo (if using English US QWERTY keyboard) TheChampionMan1234 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. “Linŭ” is the result of “Linux” in Esperanto’s x-system. Gorobay (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Linus has no affinity for Esperanto . WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8: although this is a case of mojibake, it is really not plausible for most users; those who may potentially suffer from the misapplied x-system conversion otherwise have enough problems with Wikipedia articles (and internet as whole) to be in need of better solution anyway. Interestingly, redirect's talk page claims that redirect was created via WP:AFC, but corresponding archive lacks requests for redirects to Linux. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. From a search on Google, it seems that some people, albeit few, use the Linux-Esperanto combination (what good nerd wouldn't aspire to this?) so why not keep it? Is there such a space problem that we have to slim down on redirects? I have also cleared the archive of some vandalism so the people who want to dig can now see my automated response in all its glory! ClayClayClay 09:29, 1 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_June_24&oldid=1138579721"