Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 14, 2015.

Template:Slash[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 21#Template:Slash

Hugh Adam[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. Thanks to Si for starting an article. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Adam was apparently a director of Rangers who died in 2013, but he's not mentioned at their article. At a glance, he's probably notable, so delete per WP:REDLINK (cf. this article, which refers to him as Hugh Adams a few times). --BDD (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not mentioned at target page. Unsure about independent notability but that's neither here not there as far as this discussion is concerned. GiantSnowman 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a kinda silent director what is the word, shadow puppet is no good, but a director who holds stakes but does not actively participate. We probably have to be careful with WP:ENGVAR here cos "director" has a diferrent meaning in US and UK law. But I shall try to find RS on him and make a stub. I wonder if he was related to Charles Adam in any way. Right, I have an obit in The Scotsman which is RS and I can build from there. (Link here.) Notable certainly so I shall make a stub. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, please. It is now an article, and I shall fill in the blanks. It is not a redirect. I will mark Old Rfd on its talk page if I can be bothered. Seems quite a notable chap. If I wager, once I do the scaffolding, other people will fill in the content. Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IHmm I have a feeling I am turning this into a betting article, which we are sadly very weak on, so it is an article and so on but I better not suggest he was just a bookie (which he was). Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close - no longer a redirect. Not sure the article itself meets WP:GNG, but it is sourced with an obituary to a national newspaper so best to let the creator develop for now but needs more sources, though that is a discussion for another time and place. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will try to add more sources cos it is single source as it stands. The thing is, my experience is once one does the scaffolding other editors – often new editors, say Rangers fans who have never edited WP before – will bung in once the scaffolding is there. So if you have a prob with the scaffolding please bung in but I bet you all Lombard-street to a China orange this will get filled out with content now the scaffolding is in place. I will try to do better rather than just the single source from The Scotsman but the way to get started is to get started. WP:NOTPERFECT, WP:NOTFINISHED. Had a fag break and try to add some more references and fill in. Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got one more reference, I think notable. Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 15 October 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.
  • Q.E.D. It has already been filled out with categories. I need to add BDD's reference as third cos my two are different, but WP is very slow for me at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World team[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. Really nice work on that. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "World Team" does not appear on the page this redirect points to. LukeSurl t c 15:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Vague. World ≠ Dream.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: term not related to topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. My search found various teams with that name such as "World Team Papua" or "World Team USA". We can also do a Set Index since it seems that we have a lot of articles with "World Team" as part of their title--Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify there are many "world team"s out there in various events, that represent "the rest of the world" apart from the other teams present in the competition. This would complement existing Team Europe and Team North America articles -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have built a stub underneath the redirect for evaluation -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, 70.51, two of us in one day making articles out of R's. I'll go with 70.51's stub under the R, although I don't know how to !vote for that... Convert to list article or set index as 70.51 already has'. Si Trew (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trew it per 70.51 - crediting an earlier discussion in which I suggested this usage as a shorthand for "turn it into a set index", although not crediting Si in this particular instance since 70.51 actually came up with the idea. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trewify per Ivanvector's reasons :D -Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 16 October 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.

Neo-Mugwumps[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. Deryck C. 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel or very obscure synonym for "Republican in Name Only". In fact, as defined by one of the only decent sources I could find on the term, it means something completely different. BDD (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While this isn't a simple case of "somebody just made this term up one day", the situation is frustratingly close to that. I find the above comments pretty much on target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently created this redirect in 2006, and I have no idea why. The Moose is loose! 19:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to what it should go to, since it's reliably sourceable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? The source says Neo-Mugwumps are "those who are always trying to 'reform' politics to make it cleaner and more professional." What exactly would that correspond to? --BDD (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless SMcCandlish can clarify what he means. -- Tavix (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just responding to BDD's "as defined by one of the only decent sources I could find on the term, it means something completely different". If that something completely different is too vague to have a clear redirect target, then delete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:32, 26 October 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.

New Muslim[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. Deryck C. 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain how common a search term this would be, or what a reader would be searching for if using it. Way back in 2004, it was a "substub" describing converts to Islam. Presumably children born into an Islamic household are also "new Muslims", though. I could also see this referring to Islamic revival. Simply redirecting to Islam does not seem helpful. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target, and possibly per WP:REDLINK if this is notable enough for its own article. --Rubbish computer 21:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no primary target here. This could refer to conversion to Islam, to increasing birth rates among Muslims, to Islamic cultural revivals in certain areas, and multiple different things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bit vague. Can be considered as a new convert or Muslim culture in modern times --Lenticel (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No clear target; has too many meanings. Could be a DAB page, if someone wanted to source the meanings and add them to the relevant pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 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.

List of official names of the states of the USA[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. Things looked to be leaning towards deletion on the last one. It might make sense to discuss it separately, though probably best to wait a while first. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the current target doesn't give the "official" names of the states, just their common names. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does - see footnotes D through H. Neutralitytalk 02:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just lists the official name for a few states, and does it in a sneaky manner. It could cause confusion for those wanting a list of every state's official name. I'm also not too sure how plausible it would be to look this up in the first place, but I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ones in the footnotes are the Commonwealth of ___ etc. Everything else is simply State of ____. Neutralitytalk 02:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the article doesn't go into detail about that, so it's confusing. It also doesn't take into account "official" names in other languages, such as Hawaii's official name in Hawaiian, New Mexico's official name in Spanish, or Louisiana's official name in French. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those official names might be (perhaps should be) added to the target page at some point, though. (Back in '08, before List of official names of the U.S. states was a redirect, that page included the official names, including the Hawaiian/Spanish/French ones). Neutralitytalk 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable idea. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless, reasonably plausible search term (in terms of Google, etc). This page also has a significant page history. Neutralitytalk 02:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've actually used one or another of these in the past to look for exactly that information. The supposition that the list might not be complete is not a rationale for the target being wrong or the redir being inappropriate, but a rationale to examine the list and improve it if needed. There's nothing unclear at all about what "official" means when it comes to a jurisdiction and it's name; the official name is whatever the jurisdiction's lawmaking body says it is. Thus, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Republic of Ireland, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with SMcC. I am not sure that I have looked at this, but it is the kind of thing I would likely search for to find out that it is the Commonwealth of Virginia, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, etc. (Deliberately I have not looked but I guess it does.) It gives readers the information they are likely to search for. Yes, it is ex officio if you will to say "official", but Wikipedia is not a branch of the US government, and I can imagine people in offices searching this way. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "List of official names of the American states"; this is clearly inappropriate, as it is not the list of American states, such as found in the membership list of the Organization of American States; making this a highly misleading redirect. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 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.

Goux, Fernand[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 Fernand Goux. We don't need a full RFD to figure this one out. I will, however, add {{R from sort name}}. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant redirect. Not mentioned at List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. Based on this comment there was some use (possibly the name of someone who was alive at some point) but I can't figure it out based on that time period. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the way we do names. Fernand Goux is an article about this particular chap, and would seem the obvious Retarget. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Si Trew. Plenty old enough to pass R3; WP:RFD#K5 applies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 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.

American Sign Language language[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 per WP:SNOW.(non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete, redundant. -- Tavix (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not quite redundant. The name of the language is American Sign Language, and it is the normal form to have <language name> + "language". I was under the impression for some years that this was used to construct things in the {{lang}} template family, but I don't think it is actually... but could be cos it follows a pattern. It is harmless and shoud be kept for that pattern (the templates pipe the name so that we end up with saying "American Sign Language" or "German" instead of "American Sign Language language" or "German language": the convention is there to distinguish e.g. German language from German people though of course we do not have American Sign Language people). Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and plausible. sst✈ 09:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak keep keep. Stats are just ever so slightly above noise level, with a significant spike well before this nomination. I can't tell who is using it, but someone is. WP:RFD#K5. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Simon was on to something, but it's actually {{Babels}} that uses it, not lang (as far as I can tell). I think they just automatically do "name of language language", which in ASL's case, leaves this really weird string. That needs to be fixed, because there's no reason for this redirect to be used. I might look into it, but no guarantees. In the meantime, there's more utility to this being kept than deleted so I'm going to strike my earlier comment. I think that if that one template is fixed, we can bypass this weird redirect permenantly, but since I'm not positive, I'm not going to advocate a "fix then delete" stance at this time. (I'd withdraw, but there's another delete !vote. Close if you feel it's snowing.) -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can it be made to use xyz (language) ? Then the term would be a disambiguator instead of natural disambiguation -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the babel box technical reason, sad as this is. It would be better to make the template smarter. But we shouldn't break it in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is grammatically correct. The language is named "American Sign Language", like say Hindi, Esperanto, Klingon. But we also name these things "Hindi language", "Esperanto language", "Klingon language", so making this a viable redirect. Also American Sign Language (language) would be appropriate, to go with "Hindi (language)", "Esperanto (language)", "Klingon (language)" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 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.

Edmeades, Douglas C.[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. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect with no reason for creation. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No reason for deletion, either. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have boldly fixed the double redirect, and combined these nominations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - these were created two days ago and don't follow our standard naming format, although I'm not sure if that's a reason why we delete redirects. WP:NOTDIRECTORY may apply here; these may be WP:R3 eligible. No stats history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominated by a new editor who hasn't quite understood what the purpose is of a redirect. The target is a scientist, so those are plausible and maybe even common search terms. Schwede66 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid {{R from sort name}}. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per all of the above. This nomination does not compute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these redirects were the way the subject was referred to in a source I was citing. I'm have no opinion on whether they should be kept or not. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I think they're plausible synonyms especially when the researcher is cited using various academic style guides such as the style used in the MLA Style Manual --Lenticel (talk) 01:47, 19 October 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.

Riverside, Mississippi[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 Riverside#United States. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This place, "Riverside", in Washington County, Mississippi, does not exist. It's not in GNIS, and a Google search brings back nothing. It's not listed in Dunbar Rowland's "Mississippi: Comprising Sketches of Counties, Towns, Events, Institutions, and Persons, Arranged in Cyclopedic Form", the source on all old Mississippi settlements. Deleting it will save another editor from wasting time trying to find it. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - User:Ivanvector is correct. There are actually two "populated places" named Riverside listed in GNIS. One is in Lafayette County, Mississippi[1] and the other in Forrest County, Mississippi[2]. Neither of those two places have articles, and there are no redlinks to them on the county articles, or redirects for them. Both appear to be ghost towns. I will create articles for both those Riverside's shortly. A fresh start would be best, so again, I'd suggest this Riverside be deleted. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - yes, there are no articles yet but if they did exist, we would disambiguate. Magnolia677 is going to create them, so I say there's no need to preemptively delete this. The dab can be written over the redirect, and the original contributor will be attributed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural disambiguation is still disambiguation, and incomplete disambiguation pages are discouraged, so I'd suggest the base title redirect to Riverside#United States once we have coverage of multiple Mississippi topics. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Ivanvector, the articles I will create will be titled "Riverside, Forrest County, Mississippi" and "Riverside, Lafayette County, Mississippi". This means the original "Riverside, Mississippi" article will need to be renamed. I have no self-interest in building my own article count; I just want to keep it clean, which is why I still suggest deleting the original Riverside. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I would support that, except the stats show there's something using this, so we should point it somewhere. On that note I'll go with BDD and say retarget to Riverside#United States, and that section can list your new pages when they're live. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 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.

Revolution Wii[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. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Wii's former name is the Revolution -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I imagine that 70.51's comments about its former or working name are correct, but that is not at the article. Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appears to be a valid redirect from a former name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a plausible variation of the working name. 70.51 is right that the Wii was formerly the "Revolution" but at no point were the two names combined. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Ivanvector.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Entirely plausible, since it was a published code name for the project.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True the system was code named Revolution and changed to Wik but Nintendo never use Revolution Wii as the codename.--64.229.166.187 (talk) 01:58, 17 October 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.

RevolutionWii[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) 15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Wii's former name is the Revolution -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I imagine that 70.51's comments about its former name are correct, but that is not at the article. Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appears to be a valid redirect from a former name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible, per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not really plausible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the Wii was originally known as the Nintendo Revolution I have never heard the two names combined like that.--64.229.166.187 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 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.

Wii Revolution[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) 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Wii's former name is the Revolution -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article mentions the "new form of interaction" which would be a revolution in game input, as the Wii proved popular, and it lead to the similar input forms of MS Kinect, and Sony Move -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appears to be a valid redirect from a former name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - "Revolution" is the former working title but the two names were never used together. This particular ordering may lead users to believe that "Revolution" is a successor system to the Wii. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Revolution Wii. Simply a changing of the order, I actually think this one is a bit more plausible than the latter.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: just checking, my !vote on this one was delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks, got mixed up because of Revolution Wii, as I wrote them at the same time. I've updated my !vote accordingly. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Entirely plausible, since it was a published code name for the project.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revolution was but Wii Revolution was not.--64.229.166.187 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 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.

WiiRevolution[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) 15:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer alt 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I imagine that 70.51's comments about its former name are correct, but that is not at the article. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, let me get this straight, we are not exactly bulk listing but there are a lot of redirects about Wii here, some go one way, some another (which is good, it is what we are here for). WP:RFD#D2 by consensus (see RfD's talk page) includes redirects that are not mentioned at the target. I think it was User:Thryduulf who said in a public discussion with me that there was no need to amplify that (my words) and I disagreed, but if it is not at target, it only confuses and WP:SURPRISEs. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus on another day that the Wii redirects should be separated. Which is frustrating but probably ultimately for the best. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 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.

Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev[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, and I don't think a relisting would be very helpful. Certainly the redirect is outdated, but it's still proving useful. While the "proposed" could confuse a reader using this term, it's also fairly clear from the target page's content—let alone its name—what happened. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an outdated redirect. This isn't a proposed merger, it actually happened. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in case of incoming links, though the chance of my getting a decent beer seem somewhat diminished. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - very old {{R from page move}} despite additional history. Stats show usage above bot noise level; incoming links are likely. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There aren't any article incoming links, and a couple talk page links can be fixed. This redirect is harmful because it's clearly NOT a proposed merger, and it might give people the wrong idea. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it was proposed at one time, and the merger is discussed at the target, although not in any great detail. Why break links for no reason? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already gave my reasons and I stand behind them because I feel that's a strong enough case why this should be deleted. Like I said, the links can be fixed if it's a big enough deal. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. The type of link I referred to is one from outside the encyclopedia, which we can't fix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered about external links being broken when deleting redirects. It's something I see mentioned often enough on here, but I've never seen any evidence of it. It's something you could apply to any redirect with some age to it and if you apply it everywhere, we wouldn't be able to delete anything past a certain age (and I'm not sure anyone is advocating that). I guess I just feel like it's kind of out of our scope to make sure all external sites are up to date because if those sites aren't managed properly, there'll be link rot anyway. I guess I'm in the minority on this issue, but I remain unconvinced. I appreciate the respect though. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope Tavix, I've never believed in the "external link rot" theory either ... at least since the moment I found Hujk and nominated it for RFD. This redirect currently appropriately targets a sports team's article, but for some unknown reason, it previously targeted Nintendo. In fact, if one goes to some third-party dictionary sites even today and look up the term "Hujk", the site will tell the reader that it means "Nintendo". In my opinion, Wikipedia cannot be the foundation for third-party sites' "correctness", especially those sites who seem to do nothing but mirror whatever Wikipedia has at some specific time, but then never update themselves. And in your nominated redirect's case ... this is ridiculous. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with both of you on this, but we must balance against the principle of doing the least harm. We can tell if a redirect is getting hits externally by the stats tool. If an old R from page move is not getting hits then we delete it, but this one has activity. I agree that the incoming link is ridiculous but we can't control it, and it's doing fairly little harm. I think in this case that deleting it is more harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 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_October_14&oldid=1142587094"