Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2015.

Other ships of BC Ferries (not classed)[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) 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the issue of this redirect not being clear what it is meant to exclude since it is a circular reference to itself, this redirect is misleading and not helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 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 secondary schools in Sandwell[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) 17:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are not clear in what "secondary schools in Sandwell" they are meant to exclude, and are misleading circular references to their current target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These redirects exist as they used to list other state-secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell that did not have their own Wikipedia article. However now all state secondary schools in Sanswell have their own article. These are obsolete. Bleaney (talk) 21:41, 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.

Untitled 2D Super Mario game (3DS)[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) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an outdated redirect as it points to a game that has a title. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obsolete. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:36, 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 ships (The Matrix)[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) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unclear since it does not specify what spacecraft in the Matrix series it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 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.

Federal Building (Anchorage, Alaska)[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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFD issued in conjunction with requested move of current target. These terms can also be confused with the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse and Federal Building located several blocks away, which has served as Anchorage's federal building since 1977. As no article exists on that particular building, the listed target will have to be considered suitable until such time as the article is created, as the list mentions both buildings (AFAIK, the only place on Wikipedia which acknowledges the newer building). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at target or retarget if target is moved as both buildings this could refer to are mentioned there. Rubbish computer 13:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn – At the moment, nomination is incomplete and ill-formatted. I don't do too many RFDs and didn't read the instructions carefully enough. The target listed above is the intended target rather than the current target like it's supposed to be. Also, the current article title is as ambiguous as the redirects are, and should also be given consideration depending on the RM results. I probably jumped the gun as far as that goes. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:23, 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.

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Bearded oyster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Bearded oyster

Order of succession to the British throne, assuming 1701 Act of Settlement is repealed[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) 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the redirect is so WP:PRECISE that it is misleading, and is also a WP:CRYSTAL violation since it seems that the action as referenced in the redirect never happened. That, and the word "assuming" in the redirect causes problems inherently. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - speculative. Would perhaps make for interesting fiction, but this is not the site to do it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as implausible and per above points. Rubbish computer 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is discussion in reliable sources of the effect a repeal of the Act of Settlement would have on the order of succession then I would expect to find encyclopaedic coverage of this at either Succession to the British throne or Act of Settlement, 1701 with a link to the other. I would not expect there to be a duplicate to the entire succession article, and especially not at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 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.

Line of succession to the Canadian throne[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 Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could be seen as WP:ASTONISH-ing. Though Canada's monarch is the United Kingdom's, the redirect has the potential to make the reader believe that the position is located in Canada, which it is not. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 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.

LOSTTBT[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) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and unlikely acronym which probably refers to "Line of Succession to the British Throne" that I cannot find any sources of the acronym's use. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - implausible acronym. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. I've read that as "Lost tbt". --Lenticel (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points and the page view stats, which suggest, apart from the attention following it being at RfD, little or no page views above bot levels. Rubbish computer 13:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google finds things explicitly called nonsense, and some hashtags which seem to be related having lost TBT (whatever that may be?), and nothing else independent of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 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.

People excluded from the British Throne[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. This is going in the same direction as another redirect I nominated with a similar rationale: World's most expensive hot dog (RFD), so I'm just going to give up while the getting's good. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This topic of the redirect is too broad for its current target, and for that matter, any target. I mean, I'm pretty sure I, myself, fall into the subject covered by these redirects, and I doubt I'm encyclopedic. The same statement probably also applies to almost everyone reading this sentence. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually but you are probably about a millionth and one in line to the throne. I wouldn't bet on it, cos I am the nine hundred and ninety ninth thousand. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it is quite vague, but the target does state explicitly what qualifies someone to be in line for the throne, so by definition it also defines people who are excluded, and presents the reader with the information they're seeking. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of a redirect is to help readers find content they are looking for. This does that. I find the nomination statement wholly unconvincing and frankly a bit silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 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 police of The Wire[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) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are not clear on what "Police of The Wire" they are meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 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 secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley[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) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects are unclear on what "secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley" (a different redirect that also targets List of schools in Dudley) they are meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 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 perspectives on Jesus[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. - Nabla (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unclear since it does not specify what "perspectives" it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Other perspectives could include scientific or historical perspectives, which are not discussed at the target article, and seem to be excluded from its scope due to the article's title. I'm also skeptical of Perspectives on Jesus, which redirects to the same place. I hesitate to add it to the nomination, since the two redirects don't have the same issue, but if there's talk of deleting that one too, count me in. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: If you want to do so, go for it. I only created Perspectives on Jesus (via moving it from the nominated redirect) since it omits the word "other" and since it has edit history that may need to be preserved per WP:CWW. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I didn't even notice that that was new. Do you mind if I move it to something else without leaving a redirect? --BDD (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: No objections here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague to have a suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:40, 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.

Qantas.jp[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. The consensus is that, as the article these redirects point to don't actually cover what the redirects imply, they are not beneficial to the encyclopedia, and potentially misleading. No prejudice against recreation should article be created that cover these redirects, or if the Qantas article is expanded to cover them. Also if anyone feels Qantas.jp would be useful as a redirect to Jetstar Japan, feel free to recreate that one. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same rationale per previous discussion - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. This is not the official website of Qantas: the official website is "qantas.com.au" and that's the website that appears in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. These are extremely implausible search terms. Who would search this website in Wikipedia? Since the website already says "Qantas", they would already know that it's Qantas, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful. It would make sense if we had Qantas in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. The actual website(s) redirect to quantas.com.au, so it's no more confusing than real life (and really, one would be hard pressed to suggest a reason it's confusing at all). WilyD 08:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD - these are all entirely harmless and unambiguously direct people to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know that's the content they're looking for? The target doesn't mention any of these websites or any of these countries referred to by the TLDs, so someone looking for specific content on these websites or countries are going to be disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: Why do you think that? It seems entirely implausible to me. Even if, in the off chance someone were to type "qantas.jp," they would already knows about Qantas but would probably be looking for specific information about Qantas in Japan or that website itself, which we don't have. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: It was viewed 4 times in about 5 weeks before it was first discussed, so I feel it is of use to some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 August 2015
  • Really? Those stats are bot levels. These don't actually have use. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I support my decision. Rubbish computer 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish computer, I'd like to ask you once more to reconsider. The views you cited may show that someone is searching for that term, but they do not tell us if we satisfied their needs—since we don't discuss Qantas operations in those countries, there's every reason to believe we did not. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Fair enough. Rubbish computer 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a random collection of web addresses that redirect to the owners, as these sites are not notable they are not mentioned in the target they dont add anything to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, is Qantas.de really harmless to the reader searching for information about Qantas in Germany? Sure, it's not going to cause them physical harm or anything, but that's not a topic we have information on. If you think about it, a reader could get the impression that Wikipedia teases readers and suggests we have coverage where we don't, thus hurting the project's credibility. That's pretty harmful. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably if we had blue-links, say from List of Qantas websites to Qantas.de then that would hold water.
However people seem to forget that redirects have multiple functions:
  1. As place-holders for potential articles
  2. As an adjunct to categorization
  3. Preventing the creation of forks (and, to some extent, other undesired content)
  4. To route an internal link from an alternative name to an article
  5. To route an internal link from a primary name to a section of an article
  6. To route an internal link from an alternative name to a section of an article 0
7-9 The same for links from outside en:Wikipeida, in websites, databases, documents, emails and books
10-12. The same for items typed into the search bar with the "go" functionality
13-15. The same for items typed into the search bar with the "search" functionality
16-18. The same for items generated by agents.
In the above "alternative name" is a loose description which includes subsidiary topics, intimately related topics notable for their relation with the primary topic and so forth.
Now it is certainly true that if one wants to answer the question "What is 'Qantas.de' " today's edition of Wikipedia does not explicitly answer that question, but I it certainly provides enough information to enable most people to realise "Oh! It's a website of this airline Qantas, in whatever country 'de' stands for." So that is useful. It also provides all the other functionality0
The argument that we don't directly mention the website "http://qantas.de", although we cover the overarching topic of Qantas, might seem attractive. But I haven't seen anyone offering to monitor the Qantas or successor pages and re-introduce the redirect when the subject is mentioned there, and remove it when the mention is removed, for eternity. Indeed one of the things that makes little sense about a lot of RfDs is that the claimed problem is often easier to fix than nominating the redirect.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think we need a dedicated "monitor" for those purposes. As I've mentioned before, maintaining redirects does take work, but it's worth it if we're going to have redirects that are functional and helpful to readers. Much better to have content about Qantas in Germany and no "qantas.de" redirect than vice versa, precisely because it's easier to create the latter than the former. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix, unless we specifically discuss these websites or Qantas operation in any of those countries. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion and its precedent seem to be heading in different directions, so I'm cautious...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent listed above, which I agree with. The subject of the redirects are not specifically identified at the target by their corresponding geographic regions, so call this a WP:REDLINK deletion, if you will. (However, I have an idea in the making that may change my mind ... call it something to resolve the "REDLINK" concern. If I don't add more to this discussion, assume it didn't happen and my rationale stands.) (I explored this option, and I changed my mind. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 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.

NHL's first multiple-player trade[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 1921–22 NHL season#League business. The consensus is that someone searching for this would more likely be looking for league business than an individual player in the trade, thus alleviating the WP:XY problem. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. Also per WP:XY, as there were four players and three season articles this could redirect to equally. Though it could also be declared a Wikipedia Historic Site, since this redirect is 11 years old! Resolute 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised we haven't the more WP:CONCISE Fables for Our Time, but I don't want to create it right now as that would confuse the matter. Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Definitely XY here. We could keep, but this is really information that belongs on the article of all players involved. This makes sense today, but it shouldn't in the future. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to that retarget, though I do think it is still an XY problem. FWIW, there are no incoming links to this redirect, so the worry about breaking decade old links is not a factor in this instance. Resolute 13:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 1921–22 NHL season#League business per 58.176, and so as not to break very old links from external sites, also per 58.176. Even though it's a very brief mention, it provides the information which the reader is seeking while also solving the XY problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 7#Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages

Singaporean general election, 2017[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) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no previous announcement of the election date before the 2015 election is announced. Any other date was just speculation and invalid. Graphium 09:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a redirect created by a page move. The Singaporean parliament's maximum term is five years, so this would've - in theory - been their next election, which was recently rescheduled for 11 September 2015. There's no telling when the next election will be; and the format we use for upcoming elections before the date's officially set is "Next <country> <type> election". Alakzi (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing because there could be a 2017 Singaporean general election. Until then, this redirect needs to be red, especially since "2017" isn't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alakzi. Notwithstanding being a redirect from a page move, it is inaccurate so should not be kept. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Politics of Singapore Elections in Singapore. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you wanna land in Politics of Singapore when looking for a 2017 election? Alakzi (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Partly for consistency's sake across similar national articles. For example, United States presidential election, 2020 redirects to United States presidential election, which is a general article describing the process and frequency of such elections. Ideally, I would like to have a similar redirect from this to Singaporean general election, but since that article doesn't exist, the best thing I could come up with was a general article on the Politics of Singapore, which does include a section on elections. However, a closer look turns up Elections in Singapore, which is probably a better target. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but a US presidential election in 2020 would be on schedule; it's anybody's guess whether elections will be held in Singapore in 2017. I can maybe see keeping it as is, plus maybe anchored to #Background, for people who might be looking for information on the circumstances under which elections were held early; but I fail to see how a redirect to the elections in Singapore overview would serve anybody. Alakzi (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The background section of the 2015 article doesn't appear to provide information as to why elections are being held early, which it probably should if that is the case for this election. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Alternatively a redirect to Parliamentary elections in Singapore. To ONUnicorn, the General election is actually synonymous to the Parliament Elections, whereas a generic "Elections in Singapore" would include the unrelated Presidential election as well. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 as confusing. Rubbish computer 11:38, 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.

Backtrace[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 Trace. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A backtrace is not specifically a stack trace, but any kind of working back to find out what happened after the event, kinda more a detective, or SOCO ( a DAB at which (Scenes of Crime Officer is listed, and also an equivalent in the Phillipines, if User:Lenticel is watching), or something like that. I think we probably have a better target but not sure where. It gets about three hits a day, on average, though, well above noise level, but would it be a WP:SURPRISE that that is where it gets to? Not sure. I would have thought investigative journalism or detective or something like that would be a better target, I don't think it is so specific that it should go to Stack trace. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's a broaded meaning to "backtrace", I've never heard of it. Are you sure you're not thinking of "backtrack"? Alakzi (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does appear to be used in a more general context to mean to trace the path or to locate the origin of something, but I'm not sure if that usage is significant. Alakzi (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trace as "tracing back" / a "backtrace" is a general concept, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also suggest both manhunt (law enforcement) and manhunt (military) as possible targets, but then going to 'Trace' shows both options. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd have to assume "manhunt" is the primary topic for this term, which would be a bit of a stretch. Alakzi (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd rather this just go to Trace, which is a helpful disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trace. Yes, it is a general term, and it is not as if one could foretrace (as antonym), well that would be astrology or fortune telling or the action of a tipster I guess, so I think this is the best target. Admittedly the "back" is a bit redundant, but that's English language for you. I was thinking we also have retrace one's steps... but fortunately for us that is red. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to trace per SimonTrew. Rubbish computer 11:24, 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.

ベトナム[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Names of Vietnam#Names in other languages. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a historical connection between Japanese and Vietnam, but it isn't mentioned at either the target or Names of Vietnam. Cant think of other plausible targets. - TheChampionMan1234 03:05, 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.

Fbcdn.net[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) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website is not mentioned at target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:40, 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.

Facebook.com/pages/Facebook.com/pages/Meridian-Magazine-Expand/836728753016501?sk[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) 17:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, especially with out the http(s):// at the beginning. - TheChampionMan1234 02:37, 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.

CNNtürk.com[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 the items with diacritics due to the potential for harm. Retarget CNNexpansion.com, CNNExpansion.com, and Cnnexpansion.com to CNN Expansión. That leaves CNN.co.jp. Since this differs from the official CNNj website (jctv.co.jp/cnnj/), the redirect won't be retargeted there. Anyone who wants to look into this may feel free to recreate that redirect pointing to CNNj if the link can be established. The bottom line is that there's strong consensus against simply redirecting these to CNN. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website isn't mentioned at target, thus particularly unhelpful to the reader - TheChampionMan1234 02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:PROMO, even if not by the cable news network itself. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to not being mentioned in the article. This isn't helpful to someone searching for any of these websites unless the CNN article specifically discusses any of these websites or the operations thereof. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do have an article about CNN Türk, but its domain name is cnnturk.com (no diacritic). All the internationalized domain names with diacritics (the türk and expansión ones) aren't owned by CNN at all but go to some shady domain parking sites instead. Finally, I'm not sure if CNNj is the same thing referred to by CNN.co.jp. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirects with diacritics, Retarget CNNtürk.com to CNN Türk, CNN.co.jp to CNNj, and the others to CNN Expansión, which are the articles about the networks which live at these URLs. The URLs that are off by a diacritic are a plausible misspelling for someone with an international keyboard, adding 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC): but the websites that live at those actual URLs appear to be at best useless, and at worst malicious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that the three entities are either CNN foreign-language affiliates or at least owned by Time Warner, but you're right, the websites with diacritics are parked domains. The website is clearly harmful, but I don't think the redirect is necessarily if it's a plausible misspelling, which I think these are. As I recall, Berlin-ru.net was a redirect to something official but the official thing's official website was not anything close to the same thing, so that one was harmful in a promotional sense. I don't think that applies here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making with Berlin-ru.net was emphasizing that harmful websites shouldn't be redirects. BSPN.com is a better example because that's a plausible misspelling, but since it referred to something completely different, the harmful/confusion factor trumps the reason to keep. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I remember: Berlin-ru.net is a Russian travel blog about Berlin, and the redirect pointed at Berlin making it look like an official Russian-language website for the German city, which of course it isn't. I don't think that these websites are harmful in the same way. Berlin-ru.net is harmful to navigation because the existence of the redirect makes it look like it's an official page for the city, roughly. These are not harmful to navigation, being plausible misspellings of actual official websites, but are harmful because the website itself looks likely to deliver malware. I don't think that's an issue we really need to be worried about, but I also don't feel strongly about their usefulness. I have updated my rationale accordingly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not mentioned at target, and there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_8&oldid=1050182378"