Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2015.

Do not revert during talk page discussions[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR Not for article readership - TheChampionMan1234 23:29, 30 July 2015 (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.

Self-proclaimed psychic[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 speedily deleted by The Anome. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was only used to link to Liar/Charlatan from the lede of Uri Geller in a non-obvious way. —Ruud 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think this is a G10, as its only purpose is to disparage. It's not disparaging to its actual target, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (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.

Sperance[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in its target article. Also, I have been looking around for some sort of definition of the redirect term on search engines, and I cannot find any. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:A misspelling of esperance definition; hope or expectation. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as seems implausible; a not particularly likely typo of an alternative name. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (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.

[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) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that this redirect should target Advertising per WP:DIFFCAPS (the part that promotes different capitalizations representing different topics) and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The only other contender that I see on the disambiguation page that matches it's capitalization is Ad (given name), and it doesn't seem like it comes close enough in notability to Advertising to keep it from being the primary topic for this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom - I agree. A user typing "ad" is most likely looking for advertising; a hatnote at Advertising would serve other uses. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I see advertising as the more likely destination.--67.68.31.200 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "ad" is the same as "Ad" and ad can refer to Anno Domini, so the current target is fine, since some people do not capitalize AD. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "people don't capitalize AD": you just did. Retarget' as above. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anno Domini can be abbreviated two ways "AD" or "A.D.". "Ad" or "ad", I'm fairly certain is simply incorrect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that AD most commonly represents Anno Domini (especially since it already targets that article), but the lowercase variant without periods seems to almost always refer to Advertising. A hatnote at the top of Advertising can be added to direct readers to AD (disambiguation) if by chance they are looking for something else. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2015 (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.

Senator from Comcast[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cited as a "common nickname" for Specter in its creation summary, this phrase nevertheless doesn't appear on his article. The "Senator from [Company]" (and variants) epithet is not uncommon in politics, but I was surprised we don't have any other instances of it. Henry M. Jackson was commonly known as Senator from Boeing, which is mentioned at his article but not a redirect. During the 2008 primary there were media reports that Obama's camp called Hillary Clinton "Senator from Punjab", though the actual phrasing was written "(D-Punjab)". That one's not mentioned on her article, and probably shouldn't be. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't appear to be common at all, only disparaging. If you google "senator from comcast" (without quotes) you get many results for Al Franken, but not because he is known by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: implausible. Rubbish computer 22:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wouldn't Senator for Comcast be the more natural way to put it, anyway? I was trying to find analogies with "MP for" or "Minister for" used sarcastically, when MPs are known to have some peculiar characteristic ("MP for Bad Hair") or conflict of interest ("Minister for Pollution"), but failed with that. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in American English. While, for example, Chuck Schumer is a Senator for New York, in a sense, the much more common way of putting it would be "Senator from New York". (That form is used in the article's lede, in fact.) --BDD (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, thanks for that: that's definitely an WP:ENGVAR, then. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (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.

Scott Hoeflich[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person served as Specter's chief of staff, but he isn't mentioned at Specter's article. Hoeflich is still alive and may be notable in his own right, but for now, this redirect isn't helping anyone. BDD (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (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.

Acidobacterium[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 Acidobacteriaceae. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect incorrectly links the genus Acidobacterium to the Acidobacteria phylum; these are not synonymous taxa. Teixiptla (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is genus Acidobacterium a member of the phylum Acidobacteria ? If so, it would still be appropriate as a {{R from subtopic}}. Is there a higher level taxon that Acidobacterium belongs to that we have an article on? Though you could just convert the redirect into a short stub article instead. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Acidobacteriaceae. It's very uncommon to have a genus redirect to its phylum, but a genus redirecting to its family is not so odd. Here, there's also substantial potential for confusion, since the redirect just appears to be the singular form of the target article; that's probably why it was created in the first place. We'll eventually want an Acidobacterium article, but this will be a substantial improvement in the meantime. I'm tagging with {{R with possibilities}}. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple options on what should be done with this redirect; one option is to keep it where it is (possibly) per the comment, and the option for retargetting. More discussion regarding these two options may be needed. (Also, thank you Tavix for completing this Relist: real life got in the way for longer than I expected.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that. I just didn't want another Bill Cunningham (politician) incident, so I thought I'd step in and finish it just in case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, if you're going to make a redirect from a taxon, you're going to have it point to the taxon one up in the hierarchy. Species to genus, order to class, etc. The main reason to deviate from that would be for monotypic taxa. If Acidobacteria only had one class, which had one order, which had one family, which had one genus Acidobacterium, it might make sense to redirect this way and discuss them all in one place. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nearest supertopic for this subtopic is the family article, so is a closer match than the phylum article, thus being a better redirect target -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2015 (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.

Chunghwa Yinmin Konghwaguk[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 the first two to Names of China#People's Republic of China, and delete the third. The first two are romanizations of a term used at that article, while the third is a more general term that consensus has judged FORRED to apply to. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - non-English redirects with minimal hits. Sideways713 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are Korean, and Korean is an official language of China. Siuenti (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Korean language in China. According to Languages of China, Korean appears under "minority languages" and not "official languages." Either that article is wrong or Siuenti is wrong. Whatever the case may be, the language is notable enough in China to have its own article, so retargeting there makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to delete due to 58's comment per WP:XY. There's a few potential retarget options, but nothing obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Names of China#People's Republic of China gives Junghwa Inmin Gonghwaguk as the Revised Romanization of the Korean for PRC, likewise Junghwa Minguk for the ROC. Thus I assume "junghwa" refers to China literally, and that the first two of these redirects can be kept as plausible guesses at pronunciation. However the third, Chungguk, seems too far off (vs. junghwa) to be useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Chunghwa Inmin Konghwaguk is the McCune-Reischauer spelling. Chungguk is the MR spelling of the Korean form of the short name Zhongguo and is mentioned at the bottom of the Names of China#Zhongguo and Zhonghua. Regarding Inmin vs. Yinmin, the Library of Congress uses initial Y in some cases when they spell stuff in MR [1], I don't know if that rule applies in this case, but in any case because of all the different flavours of MR (original, LOC, North Korean), it could be a plausible misspelling (though IIRC we usually delete misspellings of alt-language names). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (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.

Yilbon[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 Names of Japan#Other East Asian nations. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Ilbon (a plausible romanization of the Korean for "Japan"), since it's getting plenty of hits and Japan is arguably a Korea-related topic. No opinion on Yilbon, which isn't getting nearly as many hits. Sideways713 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Ilbon is a plausible romanization, is Yilbon also? Or a plausible misspelling? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per Sideways713. Using the other redirects we've been discussing as examples, it seems that "Il" and "Yil" are interchangeable in this Romanization system when they start a word. Ilbon is explained at that target, Yilbon is plausible enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, you meant "per TheChampionMan1234", right? Sideways713 supported keeping. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2015 (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.

Bearbrass[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 History of Melbourne. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of non-notable business, not mentioned at target apart from one reference. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to History of Melbourne. "Before being officially named, the town had several interim names — including Batmania, Bearbrass, Bareport, Bareheep, Barehurp and Bareberp." Sourced and mentioned at History of Melbourne. Though its in the title of a book cited at the Melbourne article, its but not mentioned otherwise there.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it make sense for this term to be mentioned in the main Melbourne article? Would a section, either there or at History of Melbourne, on early names for the city be appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: "Before being officially named, the town had several interim names — including Batmania, Bearbrass, Bareport, Bareheep, Barehurp and Bareberp (in June 1835)." I think the issue with expanding upon any of the villages, is that there may not be much reliable info available, except from sources that consist of lore and speculation. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject though, perhaps I'm incorrect. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of Melbourne per Godsy. I'm surprised it's not mentioned at Foundation of Melbourne... Would an "interim" name like this be a {{R from former name}}? -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up historic or historical in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
I'd say it would, yes: or perhaps {{R from historic name}} (which should really be {{R from historical name}}, which redirects there: there is nothing particularly historic about the name). Whichever way, nothing says they have to be official names. Si Trew (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2015 (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.

Use of the word America[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC - TheChampionMan1234 05:50, 30 July 2015 (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.

«Aeroflot»[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) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The «/» symbols combined with English title is implausible. - TheChampionMan1234 04:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as is implausible. Rubbish computer 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as plausible - @TheChampionMan1234: @67.70.32.190: @Rubbish computer: In Russian it's common to put common names in quotes. I created this redirect since some Russians also do this in English. For example in this page by Rossiya Airlines it shows the names of the airlines and air programs in quotes.
    • In English this practice is plausible because Russians do the same thing once they start using English:
    • "About Us": "Today «Rossiya Airlines» is the largest state aviation enterprise and the leading airline in the North-West region of Russian Federation"
    • "History": "On 28 January 2011 "Rossiya airlines" open joint stock company was established in St.Petersburg. " (they use the English-style quotes here)
    • Example from S7 Airlines: "S7 Airlines: "From 2005 “Siberia” Airlines has been operating flights under the S7 Airlines brand." and "In February 2004 the airline was awarded in the «Market Leader» category by the American Air Transport World magazine, a prestigious magazine in the aviation sphere, and a year earlier the airline had been the first in the Russian civil aviation winner of the Flight International Aerospace Awards of the Flight International magazine (Great Britain) in the «Corporate Strategy» category."
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With two types of quotes that fail MoS, which requires straight quotation marks. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found examples from Aeroflot in this document: "JOINT STOCK COMPANY «AEROFLOT - RUSSIAN AIRLINES”" (page 1/54) and a bunch of different forms on p. 3/54 -- p. 4/54 says: "The Company in the capacity of the legal successor is the proprietor of «Aeroflot» trademark." WhisperToMe (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If it is plausibly used in such a way when writing in English. Rubbish computer 09:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS applies, since guillemets do not appear on any standard English-layout keyboard (and I have both US and UK ones, as well as Belgian and Hungarian ones). Whatever the kinds of quote, these should also be avoided: we don't have "Aeroflot" or 'Aeroflot' or “Aeroflot” õr „Aeroflot” so I don't see why we should have guillemets. WP:NOTENGLISH, even if it appears in text that is English, these symbols are not. In the refs you gave, the quotation marks should have also been translated into English punctuation (as I do for example when translating from French here at WP). MoS recommends straight quotes: MOS:QUOTEMARKS, and explicitly does not recommend curly quotes, guillemets and low-high quote marks. What applies to article text applies to titles, even moreso. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: It's meant to be aimed at Russians who are contributing to the English Wikipedia, not native English speakers using western keyboards. Russians be more likely to use the guillemets since they do have keyboards with those on there, and they may unconsciously use them when writing in English. You said that "In the refs you gave, the quotation marks should have also been translated into English punctuation" - The reality is that they didn't in those cases. I go by usage in published "official" sources, even if there are typos and mistakes. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we can't revise stuff outside Wikipedia of course, but we can revise stuff within it, and this is clearly against MoS. The grumble against the "official sources" is the usual one I have when translations are done by people who are competent but not native in the language they are translating into, but yes, is rather irrelevant to the argument.
Why don't we have "Aeroflot", then, aimed at English speakers who are contributing to the English Wikipedia? Mine is essentially a WP:FORRED argument. If Russians are doing it unconsciously, all the more reason to make it a WP:REDLINK, to prick their consciences. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FORRED is mainly used when the concept is not from a relevant culture ("The guideline for deleting redirects suggests that foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept."). The mistakes of Russian speakers are relevant to Russia-related articles but not to, say, France-related articles. We should not think of Russian speakers in most cases, except when we're talking about Russia-related articles.
"Why don't we have "Aeroflot", then, aimed at English speakers who are contributing to the English Wikipedia?" - We can, because Russian speakers sometimes do that usage too - As for native speakers: Native English speakers reading these Russian-made translations of documents into English may put in the quotes/braces since they may see it as the "official" or "proper" English form of these companies.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Simon. In the examples given, "«Aeroflot»" doesn't represent the name of the airline, they're just putting it in quotes because it's a proper title of the airline. The only way I'd see this being plausible is if this actually was/is the official name of the Airline, or was included in its logo or other colloquial use. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2015 (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.

November Yankee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#November Yankee

Chigaygo[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable business, as well as implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:50, 30 July 2015 (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.

Cicagho[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable misspelling. - TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is implausible typo. Rubbish computer 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although this strikes me as someone trying to pronounce the city with a Chicago accent. The "ho" at the end is throwing me off though and without any sources actually using this pronunciation, it's not helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - entirely implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's entirely implausible as a transliteration, since Chicago#Beginnings say it was derived from Miami-Illinois language via French, and I can see that this might have been possible before it settled down at its current spelling (and thinking of words like cicada makes it easy to show the two c's need not be consistent in sound): but it doesn't seem ever to have been. Gsearch gives several plausible results with the misspelling, but I have a feeling that is because the sites themselves dynamically are correcting the (anagrammatic) misspelling, e.g. here at top-marathon.com. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2015 (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.

Los Angeles, California maps[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 all. Just Chilling (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I believe this to be misleading. There used to be an article at this title, but it looks like it got redirected to Los Angeles. Someone searching using this term is probably looking for a gallery of maps, like what can be found at commons:Category:Maps of Los Angeles. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a gallery, so any such search will leave the reader disappointed. If someone wanted a general article on Los Angeles, they'd search for that instead of "Los Angeles maps" or variant. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tavix: Could you believe this? I was actually searching for Rs to Los Angeles and noticed this, but decided not to nominate them, as I nominated a whole bunch of Rs to Main Page the other day and there are way more ones that need to be nominated, I didn't feel like doing this again. - TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheChampionMan1234: You did the same thing to me! I was planning on nominating the main page redirects sometime this week, but you nominated them before I could get around to them. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2015 (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.

نيويورك[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 both. Just Chilling (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Arabic-related topic, weak retarget to Little Syria, Manhattan, although deletion would be better. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN. Oppose retargeting as misleading; the redirects simply means "New York". In general it's not a good idea to grasp at straws trying to find a random target which has some vaguely-plausible connection to both the meaning and the language of the redirect. Also, plenty of people besides Syrians speak Arabic and probably have their own (notable or non-notable) neighbourhoods in New York too, so that would fall under WP:XY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 09:02, 30 July 2015 (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.

大埠[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 Dabu. --BDD (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to several place names in China, but not to San Francisco, nevertheless irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dabu, the (tonemark-less) transcription of these characters and the only place in English Wikipedia which offers any help to someone looking for 大埠 right now. Oppose retargeting to Chinatown, San Francisco since "大埠" refers to the whole city, not just to Chinatown. If some enwiki article like History of the Chinese Americans in San Francisco later mentions the 大埠 name for San Francisco, it might be a candidate for adding to the dab page per WP:DABMENTION. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what dialect uses this to mean SF? Isn't the city something with a "3" in it, in Chinese? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the usual name in modern media across all dialects is 三藩市 ("Three Fences City"). Lots of old folks still call it by the former Chinese government translation 舊金山 (Old Gold Mountain, which on Wikipedia redirects to San Francisco). A book from 1962 says overseas Chinese in the U.S. came up with 大埠, so it's probably a Taishanese or Cantonese thing, but I'm not certain. FWIW, the closely-related name 二埠 (also mentioned in that book) redirects to Sacramento, California. (Just to make things confusing, there's a U.S. documentary whose Chinese name is 大埠 [2] and whose English name is "Chinatown" [3].) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dabu which lists two choices for this value. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dabu. Rubbish computer 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dabu as the most plausible target for this redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2015 (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.

Anus Williams[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 deleted G10 by Chillum (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D3 (offensive or abusive) and WP:RFD#D8 (novel synonym). Cannot find any proof of creator's contention that this is a "common misspelling". Six views in last three months. Fewer than 500 hits on Google, and most are mis-hits (e.g. court cases or medical journals where "... anus. Williams ..." appears), with a few clearly insulting (i.e. not accidentally misspelled) webforum threads. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2015 (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.

Driver (Working Title)[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 all. Just Chilling (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. "Driver" isn't a working title, it's the official name for the video game series. Even if this is a working title, this would still be a strange disambiguator... -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2015 (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.

Untitled projects[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 all. Just Chilling (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles (or never happened). They should be deleted as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2015 (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/2015_July_30&oldid=1037879729"