Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2014.

Iphone 8[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. Though I'm involved, it's been two weeks, consensus is unanimous, and the backlog is horrendous. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to iPhone 6 below, this is entirely speculative and unhelpful to anyone searching for such a potential device anyway. BDD (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Agree with BDD. Entirely speculative and WP:CRYSTAL. Apple Computer could decide to name it the iPhone Seventee or the Dog And Bone 23 or whatever. Si Trew (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too far ahead to be a relevant search term -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should not make for every version of iPhone just another page for redirection to iPhone official page on Wikipedia. It doesn't make any sense. Just leave main page and delete all redirects.Lighthouse01 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there could be a case for iphone 6 but this is simply too far away.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this concept has clearly not been a topic in realible sources. Unlike the iPhone 6 redirect, which is supported by reliable sources, the iPhone 8 redirect has no mentions in sources. JOJ Hutton 22:55, 27 March 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.

IPhone 6[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. People seem to agree there should be coverage of the speculation about future iPhone releases on the iPhone article, and that this is at least a plausible search term for that information. Although Lighthouse01 prefixed their comment with "delete" they actually seem to be advancing an argument for keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the sixth-gen iPhone is the iPhone 5. If this is intended to refer to a future product, it should not be here TheChampionMan1234 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: With no further comments after a week of listing, I closed this as delete. I've restored it per a request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading and condescending. Misleading because we have no content on a device by this name, and we shouldn't imply otherwise with a redirect. We're only going to disappoint a reader using it. Condescending because a reader searching for "iPhone 6" almost certainly knows what an iPhone is, so linking them there probably isn't doing anything they haven't thought of before. The only legitimate concern I heard voiced about this on my talk page was that the redirect may help prevent creation of a new speculative or hoax article. If that's the case, perhaps we should WP:SALT it. It's already been deleted several times. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some relevant history: iPhone 6 was kept in September 2012, but subsequently, iPhone 7 was deleted, as were iPhone 6S (link) and iPhone 6C (link). --BDD (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iPhone 5 has been released, so this is a likely search term to point to the development of the next iPhone model. (though not anything further like 7, etc, which should be deleted). -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we cover development of the next iPhone model? How do you know there will be a "next iPhone model"? --BDD (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if there will be a next model or not, reliable sources speculate on the issue as a matteer of editorial content, so sourced material can be provided. As "iPhone 6" would be a search term for the next development for the iPhone, it should point to iPhone. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should have only one page for iPhone mobiles and I think that's enough. Every version of iPhone should be on one page of iPhone and not complicate. Users searching for term iPhone X (where is X - version number) should be found on that page. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reason not to have a redirect that at least directs to iPhone. Massive media coverage on purported iPhone always discusses the iPhone 6 in relation to iPhone. [1], [2], [3] Better to have readers get redirected to an actual article than to get nothing at all.--JOJ Hutton 18:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What do we say about the iPhone 6? --BDD (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to say anything as of yet, but if every reliable source on the planet earth links the term "iPhone 6" with the "iPhone" then there's no reason to not have a redirect. I'm not making the connection, reliable sources are. JOJ Hutton 12:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
iPhone is overrated. I think one Article is enough. Also for all cell phone models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthouse01 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 April 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.

;qjkxbmwvz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 27#;qjkxbmwvz

Philip Saliba[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. For future reference, these requests should go at WP:RMTR. I'll handle this one. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no meaning for the brackets to be around his last name. Requesting Philip Saliba be deleted so the article Philip (Saliba) can be moved there. Rusted AutoParts 18:13, 20 March 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.

LAU[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. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the disambiguation page, Lau. There is no clear primary topic of this TLA. bd2412 T 16:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the pre-existing links to LAU are now piped to Local administrative unit (job completed a few minutes ago, thanks bd2412), this redirect can be changed without impacting existing articles. I doubt if there's a clear primary topic for "Lau", but for "LAU", redirecting to Lebanese American University seems, pragmatically, the most useful choice to benefit our readers - it's the only meaning (of two) on the disambig page that looks at all likely for users to type in. And the pre-existing links to LAU as "Local administrative unit" were all created a long time ago by a bot, so it's unlikely there will be any significant number of new additions with that meaning. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are additional meanings - Lambda Alpha Upsilon, a fraternity with chapters in 17 universities; and an airport code in Kenya. Also, there is always the possibility that someone will type all caps when searching for a meaning of Lau. Some empirical data would probably be helpful here (page views, Google returns). bd2412 T 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree some evidence would be helpful. The recent change to "Lebanese American University" was made by User:Krodrik, who stated "Changed target page to Lebanese American University, which high school students in Lebanon seek very often on Wikipedia". But I've no idea whether that claim can be backed up. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 20 March 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.

Thai Grand Prix[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 retargeted. to Formula One#Future The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RFD2 Confusion. Destination article makes no mention of a Thai Grand Prix. The event never really advanced beyond a rumour (WP:CRYSTAL) and the redirect was created prematurely. Falcadore (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between reliable source reporting a rumour, and the rumour itself. One is WP:RS even if factually incorrect. Were the article to have information reporting reliable sources (sports pages in newspapers, telly coverage etc) then it should stay. If not, it should go. Si Trew (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article does not have any information, as mentioned up top in the nomination. --Falcadore (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no information. I was just wondering if some should be added: sure, it was speculation, but since there was that speculation in reliable sources, whether it would be worth making an article to describe it. Of course we don't have articles about the specific speculation from tipsters and so on, but we have an article on tipsters. The Big Bang Theory is in a sense speculation but we have an article on that. So I suppose really I am saying, if this could be reliably sourced (which to me seems to be the case) is it worth making an article about it, that I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be in favour of that. In any given year half a dozen to a dozen new races are rumoured, advocated, announced and very few of them actually turn into events. We typically don't give coverage to every city in the world who puts out a press release that says we'd like to have the Olympics or we are looking into making a bid on the Olympics, why do that hear? Why have a potentially long rambling gossipy paragraph detailing all the things that did not happen? --Falcadore (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The proposal has been covered in mainstream news outlets including Reuters[4] and the Bangkok Post[5], so WP:CRYSTAL probably doesn't apply. If there are valid targets I don't see why the redirect shouldn't be kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is not a valid target as there is nothing at the destination. --Falcadore (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my point ia suggesting whether there should be. I am not a big follower of Formula 1, but it would seem to me that bids for new venues are quite notable events in themelves, and, yes, failed bids for the Olympics likewise – I think it would be quite notable that Paris was quite annoyed (to say the least) when it lost the Olympics to London for 2012. Now, Formula 1 is a slightly different thing since essentially in my opinion Mr. Ecclestone likes to tout for trade, but still, it is not as if Ickleford or Sulysap have been bidding to hold a race. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would if it was a bid, but Formula One does not work like the Olympics. There is no bidding competition. A potential organiser comes to an arrangement with FOA who administer the world championship, they then negotiate with the teams if it is an expansion to the calendar and then the event goes ahead a couple of years later once the venue is built and ready. Sometimes, like the Rome Grand Prix a race gets the go ahead and contracts are signed, but then the race does not go ahead. That deserves an article or a mention in other articles. If no commercial arrangement is reached than it is more or less some racing people in Thailand saying, "We'd like to have a race." Whether the press picks up on it or not I do not believe that to be a sound basis for an article. --Falcadore (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and you put it very well. But what to do? What would a reader expect to find if they chucked in "Thai Grand Prix" into their favourite search engine? In my view, they would be surprised to get nothing back, on the other hand leave it to (insert name of favourite search engine) instead of false or vague information on Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they typed it into a search engine they find a lot of positive talk that it will go ahead and it will be a great thing, but nothing about an actual motor race. Or possibly information about Thailand Rally a dirt-road rallying event which is the only international motorsport event to have ever been held in Thailand.
An article can always be recreated if it does go ahead at a later date. --Falcadore (talk) 08:52, 19 March 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) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Falcadore, a well-reasoned argument. Thailand Rally would not be a good retarget, that is just wrongfooting people, so it is best it just gets deleted, then. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Formula One#Future, where it's discussed with references; delete if that information is removed. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD as that is where the information currently is. It would not surprise me if there was sufficient information available for an article about proposed Formula 1 Grand Prix, given that over the years there has been much speculation and discussion in reliable sources about many different proposals that got to various different stages. Almost none of them could support their own article, but collectively there is almost certainly more than sufficient material available. Until such an article is written though, we should point the redirect at the information we do have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD and Thryduulf. If there is information there, it can be an {{R to section}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 6 April 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.

Jiuzhou Port[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) 18:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "Jiuzhou Port" article was redirected in January, 2014 under the reason that "Jiuzhou Port is one of the seven port areas of the Port of Zhuhai, it is better treated as part of the wider port". However, Jiuzhou Port specifically refers to a major ferry terminal in Xiangzhou District of eastern Zhuhai City (with passenger ships to Hong Kong and other cities), while Zhuhai Port is more commonly used as an unofficial name of Gaolan Port (a major cargo port) in Gaolan Port Economic Zone of western Zhuhai. This is because Gaolan Port was firstly named "Zhuhai Port" when it was established in 1990s and then changed to "Gaolan Port" in recent years. The article "Port of Zhuhai" may confuse the readers who have never been to Zhuhai or don't know the common and local appellations of both ports. Whilst, there is no such designation of "Port of Zhuhai" (though "Zhuhai Port" seems to be similar), namely, this name is possibly fabricated. (You may refer to the official website of Jiuzhou Port http://www.zhjzg.com/en/, and the Chinese-language Wikipedia of Jiuzhou Port http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B9%9D%E6%B4%B2%E6%B8%AF for further information) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythria (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep and you are hoist by your own petard. For a speaker of English who doesn't speak Chinese, this would seem a likely term at the English Wikipedia. Or as James Thurber said in Fables for Our Time, "don't get it right, just get it written." Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling commment. I must be one of the very few Wikipedians who has actually built a petard, well actually a trebuchet. Although "hoist with his own petard" is in Shakespeare I think (We think it sport to see the engineer/Hoist with his own petard) nobody ever knows what a petard actually is. I should like to add the pics on Commons but can't work out how to get them off of Google. It's pretty obvious old Bill didn't know what a petard was either because you can hardly be hoist by it, and I guess he was thinking of a trebuchet, maybe that didn't scan in iambic pentameter. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 13 March 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) 16:20, 20 March 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.

Bhadri State[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. I find the arguments that this a plausible search term for those unfamiliar with the topic and/or our naming conventions far more compelling than the arguments that it should be deleted as misleading. Whether it is a plausible typo or not is irrelevant as there are other reasons for it to exist even if it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadri was never a princely state. It was a zamindari I so moved to Bhadri (estate). See [6] google search zero. Request deletion of redirect created due to move page Jethwarp (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a plausible mistake of fact for someone to make. Only by directing them to the relevant information can we correct their mistaken impression. WilyD 16:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which? I get this [7] and this as the first two hits, and this at the third. Now, if those reliable sources say it was a princely state then either those three are wrong or you are. You are probably right but what to do? THere are very good reliable sources saying it was. Or do you want to redefine what a "princely state" meant" in the days of the British Rule? Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @ user:SimonTrew - of the links mentioned by you - The Edinburgh encyclopaedia, Volume 14 By Sir David Brewster - mentions about Bhadri river [8], the [The History of a Himalayan Princely State: Change, Conflicts, and Awakening : an Interpretative History of Princely State of Tehri Garhwal, U.P., A.D. 1815 to 1949 A.D. does not mention about Bhadri State. and neither does [9] The Commonwealth Relations Office List, Volume 10, 1964 - please show me. Further one must be aware that princely state were defined differently in British India and were considered as an Independent nation and were given right to choose to remain independent or merge into Pakistan or India Please go to link Bhadri - which is considered as self-published source it also mentions Bahdri as a Taluq - and therefore not an independent country but just an Estate. and @ User Wily D - why would someone make a plasuible mistake to search for a place/or princely state, which did not exist this is clear case of WP:HOAX. I would request you to please reconsider your votes. The article was created with an intention of puffery, vanity and misguiding users of wiki - that is why I moved the page to Estate but the redirect remains - I strongly feel it should not, other wise people will be encouraged to create things. Jethwarp (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment doesn't make any sense. This is a redirect - it doesn't contain any facts at all, so the content of it can't be true or false, because it doesn't have any content at all. Whether it's true or false is not only irrelevant, it's a totally meaningless question to try to ask. Someone who hasn't gotten to the page yet, but perhaps came across a mention to Bhadri in a book, or an old journal, newspaper, whatever, where the precise political status wasn't specified might guess it was a princely state, especially if they're not terribly familiar with the political organisation of British India (which most people are not), but perhaps have heard the term princely state somewhere. WilyD 11:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry but I disagree, it is a perfectly plausible typo. The purpose of redirects is to help people find content. The content is there and the fact that the redirect is in some sense "wrong" is immaterial. I chucked in the term into my favourite search engine and got lots of results. Now, they may be incorrect in some sense but they exist. And to point Bhadri State to what you consider the correct name for the article seems perfectly sensible to me. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's an inconsistency here as well. Badrhi (estate) is named with brackets and Pratapgarh Estate is named without them. I don't see what is the point of the difference. Bhadri itself is just a stub and there is no hatnote to Bhadri (estate) or Bhadri State (per WP:TWODABS, it should be hatnoted). I can add that but don't like doing so while things are under discussion. These are really not tied up very well. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete For this to be a typo, a reader would have to miss a letter and capitalize another. Conceivable, but perhaps a bridge too far. The redirect naturally suggests a state-level administrative division called Bhadri, and there doesn't seem to have been such an entity, so it's misleading. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expecting readers to know our entirely arbitrary capitalisation convention is really unreasonable. About half of readers to will search for Bhadri state, about half for Bhadri State. WilyD 09:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully agree with User:BDD - the redirect is misleading and should be deleted - that is what I was trying to say by saying it is hoax as there is no such state level administrative division. As for typo error/convention - Bhadri (estate) can be moved to Bhadri estate - after this debate for redirect is closed. Jethwarp (talk) 13:18, 3 April 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.

Pratapgarh (princely state)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Pratapgarh (princely state)

Munawar Saeed[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) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a part of cast of this drama, doesn't mean we redirect it here. UBStalk 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete mentioned in various places, best to give a search results page. Siuenti (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Siuenti. Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 23 March 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.

Rick Monasterio[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 Jax 0677 (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelled article name and other name not in use. 112.207.206.180 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Dericks, common enough spelling. Rick is not as clear - is there any evidence he's ever called Rick? WilyD 13:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Dericks. See the history of the talk page redirect; these were created by a move (cf. {{R from move}}). Unless they could cause confusion, they should not be deleted. No opinion on the Rick; perhaps it should be unbundled. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 20 March 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.

Talk:Shout Out![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 Jax 0677 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title. 112.207.206.180 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to direct readers to what they're probably looking for. Is there a need to disambig I'm missing? WilyD 13:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not just discussing a talk page. WilyD 16:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep See the history of the talk page redirect; these were created by a move (cf. {{R from move}}). Unless they could cause confusion, they should not be deleted. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 20 March 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.

Srpsko Sarajevo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#Srpsko Sarajevo

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_20&oldid=1146508510"