Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 30[edit]

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

APPLE[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 apple (disambiguation) (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Apple (disambiguation). The current target is one of some huge number of comsats launched in 1981, nothing really special about it except maybe to students of Indian aerospace history, and it only lived two years. Seems to get on the order of 30 hits/day or a little more (and there's no way to tell how many of those views were looking for apple). Should not take primary-topic status over just-plain-apple with the caps lock on. Trovatore (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - {{R from page move}} from where this article originally lived way back in 2005 (moved in 2007); it has live links from articles (which can be fixed, of course) and is highly likely to have live external links pointing in (which can't be fixed, but should be considered). As I said on my talk page, I prefer to consider the case where a user typed in all-caps intentionally looking for that result specifically, rather than assuming that they made a mistake and intended the lowercase result. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the stats tool seems to be returning results for apple, at least for me. I've posted at WP:VPT about it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so that it doesn't prejudice this discussion, I have bypassed the extant links to the redirect so that they point to the satellite article directly. Apparently the redirect is transcluded on a page, but I can't figure that out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just disagree with you about the all-caps thing. I think a great many users do not expect our article titles to be case-sensitive, and in many ways, it would be better if they were not case-sensitive. We should try hard to avoid titles that differ only in case, though pointing alternative-case redirects to a disambig page is a reasonable compromise.
In this case, the satellite is notable in the sense that there is literature about it, but probably hardly anyone cares much about it, even the people who worked on it, who have moved on to bigger and better things. It is not of remotely comparable notability to the fruit. People who search for the fruit in all-caps are not really making a "mistake" except in the sense that they don't understand the nuances of Wikipedia's UI, so I don't think we should discount their searches on that basis. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's considered a transclusion? I was looking for {{APPLE}}. I guess that will resolve itself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Something like this should be a clear case for disambiguation, as a variant of the base name "apple". —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 21:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 23:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Apple (disambiguation) since there are at least two "APPLE"'s there --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 00:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Comment the other APPLE on Apple (disambiguation) ("APPLE (Accumulation Program for Part-time and Limited-service Employees), a deferred compensation program in California") appears not notable enough to have its own page unless that expansion of the acronym is wrong, and is not mentioned at deferred compensation or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Per WP:DABMENTION it either shouldn't be on that page or we should find somewhere on Wikipedia where it would be appropriate to add sourced content about it (and deferred compensation seems like a very bad place for a list of every non-notable deferred compensation programme in the world). I don't rule out that there may be other APPLEs worth mentioning at the dab page too. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable point and possibly a good cleanup item. I mean, I'm not sure the California APPLE shouldn't have its own WP page; I never heard of it before, but then I never heard of the Indian satellite before either. But either way, I don't think it has much bearing on this RfD, because the proposal is to retarget to a case-agnostic page. --Trovatore (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that too. It's a little strange, I wouldn't mind removing it. Unless deferred compensation talks about California's program in detail, it's not a useful link. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've retracted my !keep vote above per WP:SNOW since my rationale is not gaining any traction here, and I'm not a fan of drawing out discussions for no reason. One thought: if the argument is that APPLE is a common all-caps error, shouldn't it go to apple rather than the disambiguation page? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way is OK with me. As I've said, I think pointing to the disambig page is a reasonable compromise to accommodate people who are genuinely searching for the acronym. --Trovatore (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to apple (to make my position clear). I don't see any reason to target the all-caps search to a disambiguation page if the only initialism we have for it is not the primary topic (since the deferred compensation program in California does not have an article). A hatnote at apple referring to Ariane Passenger Payload Experiment would better serve readers (there are some) who type APPLE expecting to find the spacecraft. Below the existing hatnote: "APPLE" redirects here. For the Indian space experiment, see Ariane Passenger Payload Experiment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the disambiguation page. There's also Apple Pugetsound Program Library Exchange, abbreviated as "A.P.P.L.E.", which is similar enough. Peter James (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright then, retarget to apple (disambiguation) per Peter James' findings, and everyone else. Since there haven't been any other arguments other than mine which I've retracted, I'm going to go ahead and do this per WP:SNOW, but someone else should close this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 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.

47th state of the union[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. (I read the result of the previous RfD as "don't take action as a group, please nominate individually" so I consider this discussion a fresh RfD without a binding precedent.) Deryck C. 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

By my count, Andrew Jackson's Seventh State of the Union Address was the 47th State of the Union. New Mexico was the 47th state in the union, or to be admitted to the union. Given that the speech (actually, a written message) is just covered on Wikisource, I think this redirect is more trouble than it's worth. BDD (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think First State of the Union could certainly refer to the 1790 State of the Union Address. I'll see how this goes before I really consider creating it, though. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the original 13 are enumerated in the order that they signed the American Declaration of Independence, others are enumerated in the order they joined the Union. I was being deliberately obtuse. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the love of god, can we please at least drop this for 24 hours? "In" and "of" are synonyms in this context, and I really don't want to have a lengthy discussion about the grammar here. The alternative is arguing over 1) DABifying it, 2) soft redirecting to Wikisource with a hatnote, and whatever else people can think of. --NYKevin 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale at the previous nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 2 November 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.

Picki u dusa[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 Deleted speedily, because given the pattern, there's no doubt in my mind that it was intended as an insult. (Novel way of abuse, that.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per criteria 3 (offensive), 5 (makes no sense), 8 (obscure, from a language unrelated to the target page, unlikely to be useful). Reasoning: the same user had the idea to redirect Klosari to Greeks (meaning tramps according to wikt:klošar) and Picki u dusa to Greece (wikt:pička, pl. pički, is also a vulgar term). Speedy deletion was denied because administrators were not sure if this is an attack or not. I say that either it is an attack, and should be deleted, or it doesn't make any sense, and should be deleted anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects Serbia, Croatia and Czech Republic notified, in order to have some linguistic background. Place Clichy (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: if you get no joy there, I can ask my Serbian, Croatian and Czech friends (not online friends, real life friends, I do have a few) to see what they think. I don't speak any of these languages myself. Si Trew (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: If you can confirm through your friends that this is indeed, or not, some sort of slur, that would definitely help and speed things up. Place Clichy (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, over the weekend. They are not linguists as such, but all degree educated and can even understand my gorblimey English. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. (I'm outdenting mine, this was a reply to Clichy but can stand on its own feet.) This title nor anything close to it exists on the Croation, Czech, Slovenian or Slovakian Wikipaediae. It isn't on the Serbian one either, but since that's in the Cyrillic alphabet it's hard completely to rule it out (but I know where my bet would be staked).
Actually it looks more like Romanian to me, of which I speak little but can understand a little, but Romanian Wikipedia is blind to it too. Si Trew (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the admin who declined the speedy deletion proposal. It was tagged as an attack page, but no meaning for the phrase was supplied, or apparently known to the tagger at that time. All I said was that without a clear meaning, this did not have the clearcut nature required for speedy deletion. If it is known that this is indeed an offensive term in some language, and not a relevant term for Greece in any other language, it should be deleted. DES (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: Thank for that, I hadn't had a chance to look at the reasons for decline, but just assumed you had good reason. Anything at all contentious should be declined, so you did the right thing. (Just don't go doing it to my G6s!) Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I sniff a lead. Yahoo gives me back video clips and stills for Picki U Duši Is Tina, I am guessing (try it) that "Picki" here means "Picture" (not a Slav word, but just an import from English slang) and U Duši Is Tina is the name of the song, which in Bosnian means "The Soul Truth" which perhaps it is not Bosnian but makes more sense than anything else... so I guess it is the name of a song on some kind of talent competition? Not necessarily in Bosnia, but in some Slavic-speaking country... judging from the results, Croatia seems more likely: Certainly a yahoo search for "picki u duši croatia" works better than "picki u duši bosnia", deliberately spelling the countries' names in English. ("U Duši" means "the soul" in both Croatian and Bosnian.) @Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only way this could be Croatian or Serbian is if it's a bad machine translation. Pička is an insult, of which pički would be the dative case, as in "give a gift to X" or "addressed at X", which is a nonsensical choice of a case in this sentence. Duša is "soul", and u duši means "in the soul", but u duša again has the wrong case attached to the preposition, and these are mistakes no native Croatian speaker would ever make, even if they were 2 years old. Properly worded, pičke u duši would mean in Croatian something like "cowards at heart". Since author's apparent surname (Malikovski) is Macedonian, I'm guessing this is Macedonian too, and is quite possibly a valid sentence, as Macedonian doesn't use grammatical cases. Therefore, I would delete this as an attack page. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:G10 per Wolf. Whether the translation is poor or not, it's clearly intended as an insult, and I have re-tagged it. There is a convention against re-tagging pages which have been declined but G10 should be exempt from that treatment, as far as I'm concerned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 30 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.

207 in 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 deleted by Sadads. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I understand that film didn't exist in 207, but I'm worried about someone being puzzled if this appears in their searches for the year 207 (and who knows? someone might actually think film existed then...) I think the potential harm outweighs its utility as a typo: it's in the realm of implausibility, pretty much getting noise hits. -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and also as vague redirect. If we see at as "20?7 in film" then could also pertain to 2017 in film. --Lenticel (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. WP:XY for multiple typos (2017 in film already exists) and correct for nothing. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, unless the 207 bus appeared in a film, and even then only if it got a credit. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a pretty big problem with our "in film", "in fiction", etc. titles. It's been occasionally discussed, but I think it would just take so much to fix that no one is interested in doing so. "2007 in film" can refer to happenings in the film industry in 2007 or depictions of the year 2007 in film. And in that sense, we could conceivably discuss "207 in film", though I'd be surprised if any films took place in such a specific and, in the long run, insignificant year (if you believe our article, nothing happened outside of Asia). --BDD (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's rather ambiguous on whether it means year in film or film in year. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 1 November 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.

Bilbo: en hobbits äventyr[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 items 2 and 6, retarget the rest to Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I'm cleaning up some Swedish redirects created by EliasAlucard that don't have any connection with Swedish. -- Tavix (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete English-language work written by an Englishman in England that mythologizes England to create a fictional legendary history for the English. The only languages other than English that this title has affinity for are the fictional languages invented by Tolkien for this work, such as Quenya -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have the following bluelinks: Translations of The Hobbit (just a list) and Translations of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish (an actual article, which also touches on the Swedish translations of The Hobbit). Nothing equivalent for Back to the Future. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the relevant ones to Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish. (The link provided by the IP, with "Translations", is itself a redirect.) —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 07:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as {{R from other language|sv}} for those at which this is the title in the Swedish (assuming there are not variations), per User:KarasuGamma (烏⁠Γ). Delete the others: but which are "the relevant ones", can you be more explicit? Si Trew (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I aimed that toward the one for The Hobbit and the three LotR books. No opinion on Book of Lost Tales, and I'd suggest delete for Back to the Future. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 21:40, 30 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.

Nintendo Revolution 2[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) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Nintendo Revolution" is the Wii, then wouldn't the "Nintendo Revolution 2" logically be it's successor, the Wii U? Wait, the "Wii U" has never actually been called that? Oh, just delete it then. -- Tavix (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete essentially as WP:CRYSTAL. It could be a prequel. (Only half joking, marketers' numbering sequences have little relation to day-to-day arithmetic; in fact, we could probably make an article about these kind of things, but I guess that would be WP:SYNTHESIS) Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the successor to the Nintendo Revolution obviously would be the Super Nintendo Revolution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 30 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.

NRev[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) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "NRev" didn't turn up any results related to the Wii, leading me to believe this could be confusing. I understand that it's technically an abbreviation for "Nintendo Revolution," but since that was a code name, it's utility in this case is questionable. It was also never known by this abbreviation, from what I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sticking it into gsearch, I get a lot of stuff about revolutions per minute, which is no surprise to me, although it is sorta inaccurate, most of the results are from EN:WP as "number of revolutions", which is what I would expect this abbreviation to stand for (not revs over time, which is Hertz or rpm → Revolutions per minute or cycles per second → Cycle per second etc.) The question is how does gsearch jump from NRev to those articles when they are not mentioned there, I haven't figured that out yet, but when short of space on a screen or dial, NRev or N Rev or N.Rev or N. Rev I think is a fairly standard abbreviation for "number of cycles/revolutions", e.g. an electricity meter counts thus, not over time but just how many cycles the little disc has rotated.
In short, I am a bit WP:SURPRISEd that it don't go to Revolutions per minute, when the gsearch brings this up topmost, with variants ensuing, without it being at any of the targets. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 30 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.

Columbine conspiracies[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) 18:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine conspiracy theories and the fact that the target doesn't list any conspiracies. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague since there's a lot of Columbine's that this can pertain to. --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, as above. Let the DAB take it. Actually my first thought, genuinely, was a song by Flanders and Swann, about a suicidal love pact between a honeysuckle (right-hand thread) and a bindweed, columbine (left-hand thread), all very Romeo and Juliet, but then I am just weird. Si Trew (talk) 11:34, 30 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_30&oldid=1037881433"