Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 7, 2015.

Miss India Worldwide[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 converted to article. Thanks to the IP for the work on that. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D10. This was formerly a full article that was speedy deleted as copyvio. An article is needed to support a substantial series of pages and it makes no sense to redirect to just one of the series. Better to red link to encourage recreation. Just Chilling (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - are "Miss India Worldwide" and "Miss India Worldwide India" different things? If they are not, then there is no need to encourage article creation: the article is already created, and the redirect is appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Indeed they are entirely different. The winner of "Miss India Worldwide India" enters "Miss India Worldwide". I appreciate that you cannot see the underlying deleted article but it makes it clear and winners of "Miss India Worldwide" have, as well as being "Miss India Worldwide India", been "Miss India Worldwide USA", "Miss India Worldwide Hong Kong, "Miss India Worldwide Canada", "Miss India Worldwide South Africa" etc It's just that these don't have articles. Just Chilling (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify Special:PrefixIndex/Miss_India_Worldwide -- A list could be built here that lists articles we have on each edition of the pageant. That would be a simple list. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per 70's suggestion, under the redirect at Miss India Worldwide I drafted a list of links to each of the Miss India Worldwide years and added some references. I make no guarantees it won't end up at AFD, though. Huh, turned out to be more notable than I thought. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify/dabify/listicate per 70.51 and 58.176. We can't control that organizations don't name their pageants with any sense of clarity, but this is the best solution on our end. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK or Stubdabicate per anons. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Rubbish computer 11:16, 10 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.

User:Freeman1856[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 blanked per user's request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect from userspace to mainspace. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blank - the user Freeman1856 seems to have a habit of drafting pages at their own user page (instead of, say, in their sandbox or a subpage of their user space, or in Draft: space) and then moving the pages to main space. November 1913 is another of these. The current redirect is left over from moving the page to mainspace; it's harmless but it is also not necessary for attribution. There's no pressing need to delete it but the user page could be blanked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank per Freeman1856- I'm aware of it. I seem to forget the proper process to creating a new page for an article. Usually, when I redirect I'm really going back and getting the page properly classified so it can be linked. A refresher on this process would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman1856 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 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.

Other Government Agency[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7#Other Government Agency

Other Characters in Back to the Future[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 to delete, after an extended discussion period. bd2412 T 20:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The redirect is an unclear circular reference to its target article since it is not clear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other editors. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's a relic of an old page move, as the history shows. The focus of the separate list that exists now at List of Back to the Future characters was originally only minor characters, with "Other Characters in Back to the Future" as its original title; it was expanded to list all characters a few years later. I'd question this redirect's value as a search term (really the only criteria by which we should be judging it; redirects are just a phrase and have no substance from which anything can be "excluded"), though someone obviously created it in the first place. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of what the reader means to exclude, they're find the result where there directed. There's something inconsistent in an argument that assumes readers are mind-bogglingly dumb, and uses that to justify trying to make it harder to find content. WilyD 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD and Postdlf. "Other characters" can be reasonably interpreted to mean minor characters, and minor characters in Back to the Future can be found at this target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf: redirects from page moves are generally useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to List of Back to the Future characters#Other characters. If we're going to keep it, it needs to point somewhere where "other" is clearly defined. Otherwise it's (potentially) confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: The fact that this is a leftover redirect from a move doesn't by default make it a useful search term as a redirect. The best alternative to deletion presented thus far to resolve the concern I stated on the nomination is "refine to List of Back to the Future characters#Other characters" (though I still believe that deletion is more helpful than that option.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:26, 7 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.

逻辑[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logic is not especially Chinese. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Logic in China, the topic with an affinity for Chinese -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Logic in China per anon. Unfortunately I'm not sure if the symbols do say "Logic". --Lenticel (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment zh:逻辑 leads to the logic article on Chinese Wikipedia (it backlinks to en:Logic ) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Logic in China unless this does not say logic. Rubbish computer 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Do not retarget to Logic in China, a suggestion which is, frankly, racist bullshit. WilyD 07:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD: ? --Rubbish computer 00:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no suggested target contains any information to tell the reader why they are being redirected there. (OTOH it might be possible to expand logic in China to discuss, encyclopedically, the various historical terminology for logic in China.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIC, and not a translation dictionary, though I wish it said so at those guidenotes so we need not endlessly repeat ourselves here. This is the English Wikipedia. Now I speak four or five languages not very well but I don't speak or read Chinese. Look it up in Chinese Wikipedia, there is one. WP:ENGLISH. WP:TITLE. WP:COMMONNAME. Do I have to spell it out? Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 逻辑 is "logic" in Chinese, but 逻辑 (luójí) is a modern loanword and phonetic transcription of the English word "logic". Thus this redirect should be deleted per WP:FORRED. Logic in China is not an appropriate target, as that article describes elements of logic in various schools of classical Chinese philosophy, all of which preceded the invention of the modern Chinese term 逻辑. Deryck C. 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:21, 7 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.

Nature park interpretive center[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title does not refer specifically to redirect target. a CLoG? | unCLoG 19:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at it, I agree with this one. User:Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 19:36, 7 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.

Sprint (race)[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 Sprint race. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Sprint_.28race.29: The article currently at Sprint (running) was formerly, until 2010, at Sprint (race). The latter remains a redirect to the running article, although the idea of a "sprint race" is no more aligned with the running article than it is with either Sprint (cycling) or Sprint car racing (the original purpose for the move).

All incoming links (over 1000) refer to the running concept. I believe "sprint (race)" should be orphaned as an ambiguous term and all links changed to the disambiguation page at Sprint, which lists the three different sprint racing concepts. SFB 19:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sprint (disambiguation): other types of sprint races include sprint (cycling), and these seem to be similarly plausible search terms. --Rubbish computer 00:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sprint. I think that Sprint (race) could reasonably be an article, since the idea of going as fast as you can for a short amount of time is not unique to any of these sports, they are just different means of propelling oneself as fast as possible. But we already have the dab, so it's good enough. Someone can write sprint (race) over the redirect if they want to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sprint for now. I am fixing the incoming links now. Some of them do refer to other kinds of sprint races. bd2412 T 03:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - after working through all of the incoming links, about 10% related to horse racing, and a handful of others related to swimming, skiing, and other sports having this theme. bd2412 T 20:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @BD2412: Thanks for the info and all the effort. FYI I've just noticed a more specific disambiguation page at Sprint race. The redirect should probably be changed to there. I agree with Ivanvector above that a broad concept article would work, but the main Racing article is in such an undeveloped state that I think that is not warranted at the moment and a section in that article would be better. SFB 21:18, 13 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.

Not wrong[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of litotes before. "Not wrong" certainly seems to be an example of it, but as a phrase on its own, I would've expected it to refer to Not even wrong. I suggest either retargeting there, in which case we could add Litotes to Not even wrong (disambiguation), or adding a hatnote to the target article to Not even wrong. There doesn't seem to be any need to delete. BDD (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and Morally wrong also redirects to Morality. But you have rather a problem, yes, with "Right" having about seventeen different meanings, as most English nouns do. Legal rights, for example. This is WP:WEASEL, just say, "right", not "not wrong" (if you'll excuse the double negative, double negatives are not wrong, perfectly good English until the Victorians got hold of 'em). Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ffWP:RFD#D2]] confusing, as above. We don't have Not right, Not left, Not correct for example. Si Trew (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned in the target, but mostly to explain Chinese 不錯. I do not think any of the suggested other targets are better than the current one. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like the best option is to just leave the text red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:21, 11 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.

Birmingham screwdriver[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up Birmingham screwdriver in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Delete, not at target, thus WP:RFD#D2 confusing. This is, in British English, a fairly well known mild insult to the people of Birmingham, England suggesting that they will grab a hammer to use as any tool, but it is not mentioned at the target as such. Percussive maintenance is analagous, I suppose, that went to AfD but haven't quite worked out what happened to it, as it appeared blue to me but the blue link says there is no such page, attempting to create it does not give me a '"previously deleted" warning. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a {{wiktionary redirect}}. I dislike those. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed this was a variant of the screwdriver (cocktail) at first glance, I was off the mark. Ironically, the image used to illustrate said article, was taken in Birmingham, albeit a different city with the same name.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 10:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: you don't mark it, you just hit it. No wonder you were off. Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it then, if it sends people (or at least Godsy) to where they might want to go. Si Trew (talk) 16:03, 7 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.

@SimonTrew: "Birmingham Screwdriver" is mentioned at screwdriver. Perhaps the info there could be copied to hammer (it appears reasonably sourced), or this should be retargeted there. That aside; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percussive maintenance, it appears there was a deletion discussion about percussive maintenance, though it was quite a long time ago.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned there cos I created the subsection. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ببر[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General topic with no specific affinity for the Persian language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tigers don't live in Persia. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 16:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an extinct tiger subspecies, the Caspian tiger, also known as the Persian tiger, which lived in Persia until very recently, scientifically speaking. Presumably Farsi speakers could have referred to that type of tiger with this term. But given that the Farsi Wikipedia article on the subspecies is named ببر مازندران, and fa:ببر corresponds to our Tiger, it doesn't seem like a good retargeting option. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BDD's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 00:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because WilyD's argument and historical presence of Tigers in Persia (physically) and in Persian culture.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XY, plenty of different meanings in the many different languages which use the Perso-Arabic script [1][2][3]. In particular see ur:ببر. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 58, whose findings show that this could refer to lions and tigers, oh my! -- Tavix (talk) 16:15, 8 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.

Ğööğle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo (looks Turkish to me, but nothing about this on tr.wp) - TheChampionMan1234 02:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the redirect's creator indicates Yiddish and Hebrew native tongues, could this be one of those? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither language typically uses a "ğ" in Latin alphabet transliteration. This is also not remotely what a Turkish speaker would come up with if he heard the word "Google" but didn't know how to spell it. It's just nonsense, kinda like metal umlauts. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Not really any languate, but it looks more like a slavic language to me (but isn't). Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:Doesn't look Slavic to me, I know of none Slavic language using the letter ğ. - TheChampionMan1234 05:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: True, champ, true. I kinda say so cos use a Hungarian keyboard which has a lot of slavic symobols on it, such as đĐŁ and so on plus the ability to do a compose via an AltGr key such as ˘G which don't work, but I have for example "óűóüöóüö" just as primary keys as they are distinct letters, not diacritic modifiers, in Hungarian. You're no doubt right that it isn't slavic (and Hungarian isn't slavic, not suggesting it was). I don't think it is Turkish, though, cos the modern Turkish (Latin) alphabet, the 1922 Attaturk one when they changed from Arabic, I don't think uses this particularly either. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, look up yourself. - TheChampionMan1234 05:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you but I tried and failed. We probably get different results, then. Can you suggest which article or whatnot I should look up? Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lede at Ğ starts ˘G hmmm I can kinda do it but not quite, says that it is used in Turkish, Azerbaijini and Laz. All are Turkik languages. So I think you are right with that if it goes anywhere, it should go sorta there. Google Turkey is a redirect to List of Google domains, so I don't know if that is a help or a hindrance. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither a plausible phonetic misspelling by a Turkish/etc. ESL speaker, nor a plausible typo by a person using any of the usual keyboard layouts which include this key (Turkish F, Turkish-Q, or Azeri [4]). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not valid diacritics, not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 8 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.

Google pakistan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasons per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Qantas.jp (Thank God that nobody has created loads of similar redirects, like the above example.) - TheChampionMan1234 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. But they have created loads of similar redirects in rather a mismatched way. Indeed, Google England, Google Cymru, Google France, Google Deutchland über alles, Google Germany and so on are red, as they should be. I thought I bunged into Qantas.jp but didn't, but yes, just enumerating a whole list of registered domain names or websites does not help anyone. WP:CONCISE, WP:SURPRISE, one would expect this to go to some mention of Google's activities in Pakistan, not just to the general article about Google: which does not have a single mention of Pakistan, so that is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, Google France also redirects to List of Google domains, with no rcatting, as do Google Australia Google India but not Google New Zealand or Google Uzbekistan. Google Russia blue to same, Google Finland red, Google Uzbekistan red, Google Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant red, Google Syria red,
red, Google Libya red. Have tin-opener, will worms. Si Trew (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google Malta, Google Luxembourg, Google Netherlands, Google Italy, Google Nepal, Google Greece, Googlw South Africa, Google Namibia, Google Kenya, Google Central African Republic, Google Nigeria, Google Tibet, Google Thibet. It is really quite a hodge-podge. All or nothing, I'd say, but WP:NOT an atlas. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just bash em in and see what comes up, since Wikipedia's search engine was famously rubbish, but it has got a bit better over the years. I tend to go via Special:Search and do it so you get the full title and not just articles that start with those, but for the ones above, I just bashed em in and see what I got. But on the other hand I kinda do it out of woodware so to know that Queensland and Northern Territories Air Service is a redirect to Qantas, for example. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is somewhat wrong, as according to the article, it stands for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services, there are again, lots of ones, but I'd say keep without a doubt. (BTW, did you know what it stood for before you checked that?). - TheChampionMan1234 07:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, "only to show", we can't be doing with split infinitives. :) What should we do with these then? Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I am wondering, but, like I said, I would like to consider some options, unlike the Qantas.xx redirects, they have a target that seems somewhat appropriate. - TheChampionMan1234 06:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but surely on any search engine "Google" will come up before "Google Pakistan" or "Google Azerbaijan" or "Google Nasr" or "Google Libya" or "Google The Seychelles". In that way, this redirect hinders rather than helps a search, I think, which is why I said "delete" above. I reiterate without actually cheating, WP:NOTGUIDE. I am wondering whether if you whack in "Google" into the specific search here you get the article for Google. That may seem an odd thing to wonder, but it would not surprise me were it not. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 16:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. It seems that there are no relevant Google Inc. activity, such as a company branch or notable project, at Pakistan. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Google domains - one has to go back through a few discussions to find what the nominator's rationale actually is. It seems to be: "Not getting a lot of hits, also target is little related to the countries which these ccTLDs belong to." I think I get what the point is but it would have been better stated explicitly, since "google pakistan" is not a domain name, technically, and I don't think the same rationale applies. A user typing this query is likely looking for information on Google's operations in Pakistan, and would be disappointed with an article on Google generally, but there's some information to be conveyed in what Google's Pakistan domain extension is, or that it exists at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it is a slightly different rationale, but I have given what I suggest. - TheChampionMan1234 02:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Google domains. It's a valid search term and Google is indeed quite active in Pakistan. Pakistan has the 26th largest number of internet users, and 'Google Pakistan' is one of the top visited sites. So I would be of the opinion that is more notable than many of the other domains mentioned above. Mar4d (talk) 15:41, 13 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_7&oldid=1138580771"