Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2015.

Rio 2(2014 Sequal)[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) 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO: " if a single redirect contains multiple typos, it may be considered an unlikely search term and deleted." We have three typos here: 1) misspelling of "sequel," 2) miscapitalization of "sequel," and 3) a lack of space between the title and disambiguator. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 27 September 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.

Julia River[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) 16:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not linked by one single article. Further, the term Julia River is anyhow wrong, since in Romansh, German, French, Italian, ... 'River' is not part of the name. A redirect page Julia (river) already exists. ZH8000 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nom, Julia (river) exists as a redirect, so "Julia river" and "Julia River" and "River Julia" are reasonable redirects. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, it is not linked by one single article! Further, it is factually wrong, since 'River' is not part of a river's name in this area; neither in Romansh, German, French, nor in Italian. In order to prevent the usage of such a wrong term application, I propose to delete such a redirect. It is the Julia, or the Gelgia, but not the Julia River, nor the Gelgia River. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE the above !vote is by the nominator. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not being linked is not a reason for deletion. It is a viable search term, so a viable redirect. We have many redirects from wrong names, to make articles reachable by reasonable search terms. We even have categories for wrong names, {{R from incorrect name}} ; the addition of "river" + "Julia" makes it a reasonable search term to look for any river named Julia. That Julia (river) exists as a redirect to the target makes it even more obvious this is a good redirect, since many people wouldn't bother with parens -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom and 70.51.202.113. —Kusma (t·c) 20:59, 30 September 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.

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 4#Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire)

Julier river[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 4#Julier river

Julia (river)[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 withdrawn. (Nominator changed opinion to "keep" with no opposing opinions.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not exists and is misleading. It is wrongly derived from the German name (Julierpass) of the pass 'Pass dal Gülgia'. The river however is called - in Romansh - Gelgia. ZH8000 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's in Switzerland, so what are the French, German and Italian names for this ? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I take this back, Julia is the correct German version/name. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 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.

Julier Valley[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. We seem to have come to an agreement. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julier Valley does not exist and is even misleading. It is wrongly derived from the German name (Julierpass) of the pass 'Pass del Güglia' (Romansh). The respective valley however is called 'Sursés'. ZH8000 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, plausible redirect . I would suggest you to consider that I did not create the redirect just to increase my edit count. It does not matter how it is called in French, German and Italian . It is English wikipedia. And in English, whether correctly or by mistake, it was called just like this: "Julier Valley". The redirect is plausible, if only one bothers to recall that we have not only wikipedia but also google to learn about things you don't know. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No, there is no Julier Valley, nor a Julier River. Neither in German, Romansh, French, or Italian, nor in English! It is simply wrong to call it that way (by many obviously), in whatever language. The river is called Julia, or Gelgia, but not Julier. They Valley is either called Sursés, or Oberhalbstein, but not Julier Valley, even not in English. – Now, since the existance of such a redirect could lead to the idea that this is a correct wording (in English), I propose to delete it in order to prevent (further) misunderstandings/misapplications. Just because tourists and English authors make the same mistake does not make it less wrong. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE the above !vote was entered by the nominator. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a mistaken understanding how wikipedia works. It is irrelevant whether it is right or wrong; It was called so in many English texts, therefore the readers have right to know what the heck "Julier valley" is. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • re: in order to prevent (further) misunderstandings/misapplications. - you are mistaken again. The reader will follow the redirect and find the correct modern term.- üser:Altenmann >t 14:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or retarget to Julier Pass. A valley is more like a pass than a river, though rivers create valleys. In English, "Julier" seems to be the correct name for the pass and an incorrect (though plausible) name for the river. The target article's second sentence is very difficult to parse, but it refers to a "valley of the Gelgia". Tag with {{R from incorrect name}} either way. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you probably mean well, but those big bolded "Nope"s come across as very condescending. Gelgia Valley as a disambiguation page would be a bad idea unless there were multiple topics that could be referred to as "Gelgia Valley"—an article with that title would be just fine, and would be the most logical place for this redirect to point. Perhaps retargeting to the pass isn't such a good idea either. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 5 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.

Clock incident[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 move Clock incident (disambiguation) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, if you search for the clock incident, it takes you to the 1994 NBA playoffs, instead of, say, Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, a page that has had four times as many edits in a much shorter time and has the words in its title. If the redirect is deleted, the search engine should do the right thing I believe. Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. I did think initially that was a bit presumptious but you did leave the redirect as is while we discuss it, which persuaded me towards you. I think I could add others to it, some good some bad, for your consideration. Not satisfactory (that being the Latin for WP:FINISHED, I think), not WP:PERFECT, but better. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 27 September 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_September_27&oldid=1037880911"