Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2014.

British & Dominions Film Corporation[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. Talking to yourself, Si? --BDD (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to British and Dominions Imperial Studios as {{R from incorrect name}}, assuming they are the same outfit (the dates at the small sections in their current targets seem to suggest so.) Si Trew (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "British Dominion Film" and hooked up a lot of old films' infoboxes to British & Dominions Film Corporation. The article Donald Gray had the wrong target, otherwise mainly a linking job. Wilcox is the boss, B&D is the firm. We could probably do with Rs at "British and" instead of ampersand, and also "Dominion" instead of "Dominions" as {{R from incorrect name}}. Si Trew (talk) 01:09, 5 October 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.

Windows Technical Preview[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) 15:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single version of Windows since Windows Vista has had a "Windows Technical Preview". (I still have Windows 8's.) Why should it redirect to Windows 10? Codename Lisa (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Codename Lisa. It was only created today 4 October, presumably from the text in Windows 10 saying a WTP was released on "October 1, 2014" but that article has so many recent changes I'm having trouble tracking down which exactly introduced it; it was some time on 1 October.
As an alternative retarget, I tried Microsoft Developer Network, but there is only a gloss in the lead ("...responsible for managing the firm's relationship with developers and testers, such as hardware developers interested in the operating system (OS), and software developers developing on the various OS platforms...") but Windows Technical Preview is not mentioned explicitly there. Community Technology Preview redirects to Software release cycle#Beta. (I still Windows Vista's.) Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we really ought to have something that explains this piece of terminology - it's very likely that someone will look it up when the hear one has been released. However I can't find anywhere that we actually do - would Software release cycle#Beta be a good place to add that content? When we have the content somewhere this will be a good redirect to it, but I'm hesitant to delete per WP:REDLINK as I don't think it likely that this would make a good article on its onw? Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this should redirect to that then? kcowolf (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Retarget, perhaps even more closely to Software release cycle#Open and closed beta, a subsection of "Beta" at that article, where MS is mentioned for their Community Technology Preview of Windows Vista. Not quite the same term but this is the closest we'd get at the mo, I think. Technical preview also redirects to the Beta section of that art. Si Trew (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying no, though I feel it would be against WP:EGG. The more appropriate way would be [[Windows]] [[Technical Preview]]. Redirect would not be a policy violation but it is... sloppy and confusing. Si Trew knows about my aversion to sloppiness from past discussions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine for links within articles, but we also need to cater for people who search for this in other ways (internal and external search engines, links from other websites, etc, etc) and the whole phrase is at least as likely as just "technical preview" in those situations. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, cater for them by letting them reach the search page, which is a super-valuable asset. They already come here via Google (a search engine). Give someone who knows what Windows is some credit. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Codename Lisa. That is what the search engine for. Since none of us can find a decent target, leave it to the search engine, that's what it's for. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 13 October 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.

Kaenbora[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) 14:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not in an indeginous Australian language, because at the target the original word was 'Kambera'. A Google search is also no help and returns merely results from online dictionaries, which also demonstrates the harmfulness of such redirects. - TheChampionMan1234 11:58, 23 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, Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As The Champ says, one just gets spurious results on dictionaries etc, essentially mirrors. (cyclopaedia.net seems to be worst, as it has in German and French, "here is what it says in English Wikipedia", and then has it in English - great help). The search results did bring up a sponsored link for a flight search with monde-du-voyage.com from Khon Kaen Airport to Bora Bora Airport, with 0 flights available at any date I try. So that's handy. Si Trew (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Si Trew's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 8 October 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.

朝鮮民主主義人民共和国[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) 14:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Chinese/Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:18, 22 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, Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. A bit off-remit, but perhaps we should change NK article to say "Hangul" not "chosŏn'gul", since Hangul is the common English name for the alphabet. Unless that would be inaccurate? In any case, the pipe is unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKEN. Si Trew (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added {{R from title without diacritics}} at the R chosongul (R to Hangul). I doubt that is controversial; ideally it should R to the R at chosŏn'gul in case that became an article instead of an R, but a bot would make short measure if I did that. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew & numerous previous discussions on East Asian country redirects in unrelated languages (as noted by Siuenti, this is not hanja). 61.10.165.33 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 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.

Civil Aviation Administration of the Democratic People's Republic of 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) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK. Completely different topic at target. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I may have put the redirect in place because Air Koryo and the DPRK Civil Administration are the same thing, but if that's so I'll need to get a source to confirm it WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: it is worth establishing whether this is a former name for the company or not as that will likely affect the outcome significantly
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've got RS (from online archive of Flight Global journal) that UKAMPS was renamed from Sokao in 1953. Have added that ref to the target article. Have found nothing to say it was renamed to the aviation authority in 70s. The U. S. Federal Aviation Administration calls it the "General" CAA of NK, as does a Danish journal, but that may be only a transliteration and anyway it is no use here to work out if it was actually renamed as stated. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 5 October 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.

XHICG-TV[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 after 4 months, improvements have been made during that time, and there is more consensus here to keep than delete. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of spelling mistake (since corrected) at Television stations in Guerrero. Should have been XHIGG-TV. No station with this callsign exists in Mexico. Raymie (t • c) 04:57, 25 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, - TheChampionMan1234 07:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix and wait. Gets 5 to 8 hits a day (peak of 12 on 16 Aug), above noise level. These might come from its listing at Canal de las Estrellas, the very target of the redirect (in section "Affiliates"). Fix that and wait to see if the stats drop. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went WP:BOLD and fixed it at the target, Canal de las Estrellas. However, XHIGG-TV also redirects there, so I am not sure what good that is. At the least, it should be a {{R to section}} to Affiliates, which is the only place it is mentioned (in a table). Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm a bit concerned that this is a misspelling we've propagated, but this is still getting ~50 hits a month, though this is down from over 100 before Si's fix. If the monthly hits drop to single digits, I'd happily see this deleted, but for now, I'm convinced doing so would do more harm than good. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 29 November 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.

Democratic People's Republic of Choson[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 is a long-standing redirect, over 9 years old, and such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". This is harmless and, since it appears in sources, is also a plausible search term. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed foreign language name in the title. - TheChampionMan1234 07:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valid alternative English name used occasionally in printed sources [1][2]. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 61.10. Correct target, does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 6 October 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.

Api api[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. There may be a restaurant by this name, but this variant on the city's former name is clearly legitimate. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable restaurant - TheChampionMan1234 03:11, 4 October 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.

Malakka (schiereiland)[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) 13:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a foreign DAB marker in the title. - TheChampionMan1234 03:10, 4 October 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.

芹菜糖苷[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 Magioladitis (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic with no affinity for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
  • Comment is there a way to copyedit the article or must the infobox occupy the entire width of my browser? -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@70.51.46.146:} Yes: the ImageSize field of the {{chembox}} governs the size of the image, I stuck that to 1px on a test edit and that pulled it in> But what seems to make it really spiel is the IUPACName; there is one <br> in there but it is still very long and I think that is what is governing the width. (I am on 1280px wide). I've played around but not with much satisfaction, I got it quite short but although I did molecular modeling for some years; I am not sure whether it is better to split before or after the hyphens in the formula.Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the SMILES or InChi sections... Ideally the infobox should work at no more than 50% of main page section (minus the sidenavbar) on a tablet computer held vertically. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could be... we have to split that long formula somehow to reduce it, in all the fields then. On my screen it was not that large, so it was hard for me to test edit. I made a few test edits but mostly I would guess (without getting out my micrometer) it was about 30%, but obviously something is iffy since I don't doubt you are sincere. Is it different browsers? I tested on Firefox. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that comment. At 768 × 1366 or 800 × 1200 (a tablet held vertically) the width of the infobox is extreme. (My IP has rotated) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as the chemical isn't native to East Asia. --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 6 October 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.

Dominion (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 retarget to Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist an action that also has the agreement of the nominator. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (film) currently redirects to Zoe Saldana. It was the title of a film announced in 2011 but was never produced. Saldana's article does not mention it at all. Another film called Dominion is in production, and if it is notable, should have available for it a red link for a possible article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was bold and did just that. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 6 October 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_October_4&oldid=1039434255"