Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2016.

Nineth Wonder of the World[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 9th Wonder of the World. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling of Ninth Wonder of the World, redirects to 9th Wonder of the World. That article has a notice about this redirect's target. Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2016 (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.

Momsanto[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 List of recurring Futurama characters#Mom after recent addition of content. Thank you User:BDD. Deryck C. 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Momsanto" is mentioned at The Series Has Landed, but it's a trivial reference. Would people be more likely be looking for Monsanto itself as a typo? Or perhaps it's better to delete per WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The rd's creator could stand with an evaluation of many other rd creations of questionable use. CrowCaw 22:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to The Series Has Landed. It is mentioned there, however briefly. I think this is a typo that ought not to be corrected: if a reader is searching for information on the agricultural conglomerate by typing this, they're making an error that should be corrected, otherwise we might be saying that "Momsanto" is a verifiable alternate name for the company, and it's not. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a very subtle parody is it, in The Series Has Landed#Cultural references. I don't think that helps many people to target it there; if they thought "I heard this on The Series Has Landed but didn't know what it meant" they would search for The Series Has Landed; if not, they are most likely looking for Monsanto which is after all one of those made-up marketing names like Diageo or Mondeo deliberately intended to be equally incomprehensible worldwide but kinda sounding like it should mean something in a Latinate language; "monsanto" presumably is supposed to echo sounds of "mum's health" or "my health" even though it doesn't mean that, or indeed anything other than the trade name. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Monsanto as {{R from typo}}. The letters N and M are next to each other on many keyboard layouts, also in many alphabets. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to "Leela and the Genestalk", the episode that features this company in the plot. "The Series Has Landed" used the actual company name Monsanto and is therefore not the correct target. Reach Out to the Truth 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article does not mention the term "Momsanto" at all, which at least The Series has Landed does with a reference saying "Also, The Goophy Gopher Revue is said to have been sponsored by "Momsanto", which is a parody of the agricultural-bioengineering conglomerate Monsanto, from the United States.". That's still pretty WP:WEASEL since Monsanto is not "from" the United States (it is an international conglomerate listed and headquartered in the US; employees <22,000, essentially a holding company (as at Ref. 88 ""Monsanto Forms Holding Company to Invest in International Fruit and Vegetable Seed Companies") and there is no need to apologise and say "it is said" if you provide a reference. Nevertheless, retargeting it to an article which makes no mention of it would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source says it's Monsanto in the second episode, and I remember it being Monsanto. I'll check the subtitles tonight, but for now I've reverted the Momsanto mention due to verification problems. (Confirmed: "The Series Has Landed" says "Monsanto" and not the later parody name. Reach Out to the Truth 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)) I agree the exclusion of Momsanto in the Genestalk episode should be remedied but I've not seen it yet. I'll see what I can do. Reach Out to the Truth 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are hoist with your own petard. There is no doubt, at least not here, that Monsanto goes to the company (although that article can't seem to make its mind up what it is called in the lede). What remains is two sketches alluding in a not-so-subtle way to the company. It's a fairly standard trick, but even if they did, the intent is to make people think of Monsanto. They are not trying to find information on Momsanto, if they got the joke, they knew that already and where it came from (unless they have very short memories). Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Momsanto is futurama's play on Monsanto. It subsequently is a company that mom created on the show and was featured in one whole episode. I think this should be kept for that reason. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what BDD says, he's usually right and he's right in this case. This should point readers to where the parody is discussed, with a link to the company. It should not bypass the parody in favour of the company. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am kinda agreeing with doing what BDD says, but that just shoves the problem somewhere else doesn't it? I set my stall: I have no idea about in-jokes in Futurama but would guess, without even watching it, that Momsanto was a parody of Monsanto. So I am coming as an intelligent but ignorant reader. What would I expect to find? Something about the parody, not something about the company, nor something about Futurama in general. I think we can find a better target, not a perfect one, but a better one, I suggested a few above. It would make no sense, pace BDD, to add content at the list. That is what articles are for', we can't start writing encycloaepidic content at lists. Either the encyclopaeidic content exists in an article, or it does not.I have no trouble to create it as an ignorant but intelligent editor, but the list is not the place to put it. MomCorp already redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what we should do----Say something like, Momsanto (with added information regarding Futurama and then state that the name is a parody of Monsanto kinda like what BDD said. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Deployed HSUPA networks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not necessary (and also unommon WP:UCN) as a list of networks (almost automatically) indicates to a reader that these are deployed, unless the title is clarified with additions like "planned" or "former". This is also the impression I have from a look around similar technology related list-articles. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the name of the link-destination suggests to me that it is found more easily than this redirect. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's redundant but harmless, until the target lists undeployed (withdrawn) networks; as it stands it lists only deployed networks. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please also keep in mind that List of HSUPA networks exists and will likely soon be a redirect itself. There is an ongoing proposal to concentrate all deployment steps in List of UMTS networks. To many redirects which are almost equal surely do not help at this point. A clear structure is needed. A clear naming structure including redirects makes sense and aids confusion. See also User:Nightwalker/Wireless_Data_Standards. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? When List of HSUPA Networks changes to be a redirect, and so forth, that can then be discussed, but we are not discussing the article but the redirect. I have no (or every) idea what you mean by "A clear structure is needed"; redirects are there to help people to find things in the absence of that structure. We have categories, search tools, WikiProjects, portals, all with the intent of trying to get people to find information. We have people to help us out such as User:Plantdrew to sort the wheat from the chaff with Linnean binomoal names and wonder whether an anterhynum is a red hot poker or not. We have pedants like me who can tell you the difference between being disinterested and being uninterested. (Which quite rightly are red, because that would be WP:DICDEF). Si Trew (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "too many redirects does not help at this point", I refer you to the discussion seven years ago for Albert the First (or Third) Furst), at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Alfred Candidus Ferdinand Windischgratz, where I argued the same point. But I brought all the redirects to that discussion, not just mentioned there might be others. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
    • Thx for the example. I see it's a good point to find all respective redirects and have a discussion including all to decide which of them to keep, instead of single ones. Will do so next time. Will extend User:Nightwalker/Wireless_Data_Standards to create an overview. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The words "sledgehammer", "nut" and "crack" spring to mind. Si Trew (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. There is no such thing as "too many" non-harmful redirects. See WP:CHEAP. Rossami (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikt:non-harmful Ahem WP:RFD#D1 "hinders search". I refer all to the discussion I mentioned above, which does have some valid logic to it. Nobody but Rossami in this pone has said "non-harmful, and the WP:RFD#KEEP redirects make no mention of "non-harmful redirects". I suppose this is why Wktionary nor Wikipedia know about non-harmful, I suppose I better cut the pedantry and chase my non unblack dog across a non ungreen field with a non unwood stick. Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Variant redirects do not "hinder search" but to the extent that you think they do, that can easily be fixed by applying one of the several templates that tell the search engine to ignore a particular redirect. {{Unprintworthy}} used to be the most common but there are probably others now. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They can be applied by deleting them. I probably more than any contributor here to RfD tends to tag redirects as various Category:Redirect templates and say so. A deletion makes it much much easier, a tag does not get seen by the person launching through the redirect and wondering why they got there, it has a tiny thing at the top of the article to say it was redirected. We come from a totally different perspective, Rossami, an WP:INCLUSIONIST versus WP:DELETIONIST perspective, when it comes to redirects. I don't vote to delete them to make the encylopaedia worse but because I think it might make it better. That is a gamble because the stats will not show how much more the articles get hit and the readers pleased if the redirects are deleted, that is why it is such a tricky and intelligent job here. Sorry for the late reply but I was kinda copy editing Climate of Hungary at another user's request. Not far off the first copy edit, not well referenced yet. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2016 (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.

Iexplorer.exe[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate program, this is never used for Internet Explorer. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I ain't so sure. That reference, it is only in a user-added comment at the foot of the page. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as {{R from incorrect name}} (which it already is). WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there are plenty-o-sites to tell you "what is this file?", but I can't see they do any harm, in the absence of anything else going by that name. iexplore.exe is mentioned at the target, but not iexplorer.exe. I think it's just a misnomer. I'd be more worried if it were malware and we had inspired a false sense of security, but I don't think it is. Iexplore and Iexplore.exe already target there. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per SimonTrew.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before the relisting I said two things already targeted it, which were the exact two we are discussing. Obviously I had searched for viable alternatives, but it is patent nonsense for me to suggest "already redirect there" when those are the redirects we are discussing. My bad; I was probably thinking of Iexplore.exe to same target but not listed at this discussion, too late to add? Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable mistake made from an incorrect yet plausible name. We can add a hatnote or other change things in the future should the iExplorer product appear to become notable enough for its own page or a full section in some other page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a plausible misspelling given that the application is known as "Explorer"--Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2016 (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.

Library of Congress Authorities[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 to encourage article creation. This redirect may be re-created when relevant information is written in an article. Deryck C. 09:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are important parts of the Library of Congress's work, but they're not discussed at the target article. The Prints and Photographs Division probably warrants a section. Authorities could probably be a standalone article. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If a standalone article is made, then that's fine, but until that happens, shouldn't both of these direct to the overall organization? SilverserenC 20:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's no information about them there. That's just going to mislead readers into thinking we have content that we don't. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the simpler option would just be to add a sentence or two of content into the Library of Congress article about both of them. SilverserenC 21:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: can we separate these two into separate discussions because the first and the second I have different bargaining points on? Library of Congres patently is an authority (WP:RS says so, I think) but may not be a likely or useful search term. The second is more dubious; several reference libraries have print and photographs divisions or collections.
I think we can hash it out here. You're misunderstanding the first one, though. It's not about LOC being authoritative. LOC Authorities is its authority control system. It incorporates the Library of Congress Subject Headings as well as names of people, corporate bodies, and places. It's a major VIAF contributor. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Not everything is the United States. The Library of Congress, a relatively recent creation of 1800, is hardly newer than some early photographic collections and certainly a lot newer than many British collections of prints, since that chap, er, William Caxton imported it from the Dutch with the banner headline "CAXTON INVENTS PRINTING PRESS". I should prefer if we split the two out. The Times es colletion (excuse grammar because of Wikimarkup) goes back before the Library of Congress existed. I'll argue more fully if we separate them. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the Library of Congress may be the only thing with a "Prints and Photographs Division". I tried searching the phrase on Google with -"library of congress" but couldn't get that operator to work. But browsing through those results, I don't see anything else. cf. WP:NCGAL, "if the agency or office name is unique or is by far the most common meaning". --BDD (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For some homework, we do not have print and photograph division, prints and photographs division nor prints and photograph division, print, photograph division or anything similar I could find. Kinda listing those to say we haven't. (Deliberatly in lowercase, I tested all variants I could think of in caps through the search engine, and I hope need not multiply examples. Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After looking into things, it seems that the authority control system used by the organization arguably merits either its own page or its own detailed special subsection somewhere. Neither of those exist and red text encourages article creation. As far as the other redirect, it appears that other, similar institutions such as the British Library usually phrase things differently, with that specific organization having print and photograph related "catalogues" and "collections". I feel, though, like the concept is too broad to just associate with the Library of Congress alone. I would delete that redirect as well, though in that case I'm wary of future article creation (though not necessarily opposed, especially if it's a disambiguation page). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2016 (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.

International Telecommunication Union region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Telecommunication Union region → ITU Region  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as it is a false spelling of the target article of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the misspelling has been taken note of straight away resulting in a content move to the new destination. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Further the article name does not comply with WP:UCN and it seems very unlikely that it will ever come into use, as reader will more likely search for ITU Region or ITU. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page International Telecommunication Union region has many incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. The nominator should note that WP:UCN applies to article titles, not redirects; even if this redirect doesn't comply with UCN, that's no reason to delete it. (If it does comply with UCN, that's a reason to move the article.) Sideways713 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Considering that we have, for example, International Postal Union -> Universal Postal Union and ITV region, it is unclear to me what someone putting the effort in to type this with "region" but getting it wrong would be looking for (it is both formally and actually telecommunications not telecommunication). It's an unlikely search term, but no harm in that; to my mind the main purpose of redirects is to serve in reader space to get people where they want to go; their secondary nature as editors' shortcuts is not at issue here, and their third purpose of saying "we don't know anything about this" is served by WP:REDLINK. The way to sort out the links in the articles is to fix the articles, not keep a wrong redirect. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This certainly helps rather than hinders searching, and I have no idea what makes you think "telecommunications" would be the right spelling; our ITU article uses "telecommunication", the target article uses "telecommunication" and ITU itself uses "telecommunication"... Not to mention this was the actual article title for almost 9 years. Sideways713 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete @Si Trew: Yes, you're right, WP:RFD#D2 and WP:RFD#D1 are the right points here. WP:RFD#K4 can also easily be avoided. @Sideways713 An uncommon or misspelt title is still uncommon and misspelt 9 years later. This is not an argument from my perspective. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This "delete" opinion is the nominator. While it is acceptable and even encouraged for a nominator to continue to participate in an XfD debate, your opinion is obvious from your initial nomination. Please avoid using the bolded "keep/delete" format in subsequent comments because it creates potential for confusion and double-counting by the closing admin. As you can see by the backlog, their job is hard enough already. We should not make it harder. Thanks. Rossami (talk)
Of course it is the opinion of the nominator. That is why the nominator's username is on the nomination and on the nominator's vote. It is not my fault if other readers cannot read up. If the nominator bothered to worry about it and list it, in the nomination without giving a !vote at all, that nominator may not have been sure about what to do with it. Please read up, there was no delete or anything else at the start, so the nominator has only !voted once. After a little discussion the nominator gave out some points and came to a conclusion. Even though the nominator has said "Yes si" I don't actually think that is the right logical conclusion, but might be the best for Wikipedia, that is why we discuss things. But I don't understand your reasoning: nominators list because they're not sure, and we now only !count !votes that are keep? Plenty go for retarget or for DAB or for making into stub articles, not that I've seen you do any. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not a "false spelling" and is a distinct aid to navigation and linking. At best, you could call this a pluralization variant but that also is explicitly allowed for redirects. "Not necessary" is explicitly not a valid reason for to delete a redirect (since that is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki). Rossami (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are not primarily an aid to editors inking', they are an aid to readers searching. If it is right that this goes there, so be it, that is why I only weakly voted for delete.
I am all for getting readers to where they want to go; if I feel it hinders search or could do (which necessarily is guesswork and homework) I say so.
I suggested badly that in common English usage it is telecomunications (or telecoms) not telecommunication. I never ever suggested it was not the formal title (although for British Telecommunications plc it was and Post Office Telecommunications it was). I would suggest Rossami might read up and check the links provided by myself and other good-faith editors here. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (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.

ITU region[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as it is a false spelling of the target article of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the misspelling has been taken note of straight away resulting in a content move to the new destination. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a straightforward redirect from alternative capitalization. The article’s title had lowercase “region” for twelve years and the article’s text still does, so the lowercase variant is clearly plausible. It is certainly not a “false spelling”. Gorobay (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a {{R from alternative capitalization}} and {{R from move}}. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Tavix said. Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorobay and Tavix. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2016 (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.

Hurricane Wendy[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 Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else noted in the talk page, there is no such thing. There is a Tropical Storm Wendy (1999), a 1957 typhoon, a 1965 tropical storm and a 1972 cyclone (see Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms), but no hurricane, Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic. If the 21st tropical cyclone of the 2019 North Atlantic season reaches hurricane strength, it will be Hurricane Wendy. If it only reaches tropical storm strength then we'll have to disambiguate. (I'm assuming that named tropical storms are inherently notable, but I don't know) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straight Delete: While the 21st named storm of the 2019 Atlantic Hurricane Season could be a hurricane, named Wendy and be notable as a land impacting Hurricane. There are too many ifs and buts for it to be a valid redirect to tropicalstormnaming.Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's never been a Hurricane Wendy, likely there won't be one anytime soon. Only one season out of 165 has had more than 20 named storms, so in the 0.006% chance we get to the 21st named storm, and it's in the one-in-six chance of using the name Wendy (it's a rotating list of names for each year), that's a 0.001% chance of this name getting used. I don't think that justifies keeping the redirect here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tropical Storm Wendy (1999) as the mis-identification of a tropical storm as a hurricane is common, and the layperson shouldn't be expected to know offhand the difference, and said massive storm was a notable event due to the loss of life and other factors. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the case, then shouldn't this go to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms since there are multiple storms this could be ambiguous with? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms as even if the 1999 storm is the primary topic there's varying options there as well (and the 1999 storm is, of course, right in the middle of the page) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a fair comment. Struck. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms, roughly per CWM and myself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget' to the section of the DAB page, as above. Meteorological nomenclature is not my forte, but in common parlance a tropical storm could easily be thought of as a hurricane. See the lede at Michael Fish, poor old sod; he did wear suits that made your telly go funny (due to syncronisation pulses on the low-bandwith colour single resonating with the camera signal from his tweedy jackets) but is most notably remembered for predicting that the UK would not have a hurricane, they day before it did. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2016 (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.

Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model[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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WillemienH (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @WillemienH: Not sure if you made a mistake with a template but you haven't provided a rationale or a proposed action for this redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anyway. This is a page move redirect from a page which was created at the wrong title and then corrected on the same day, more than 12 years ago. There is no risk of accidental external linking. Redirect has almost no hits at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R8 recently created, unlikely. Taking WP:CSD WP:G6 houskeeping, I don't think there was any need to list here. While doing so I shall try to find any others without the French acute accent on Poincaré. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Çomment. We also have Poincaré disk model but not Half-plane model at all, so this is WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. There are several likely targets that mention this model and this chap, but none is this target. Simply a good-faith editor's mistake and I think can be easily deleted. Tehchnically the colon in the title puts it into its own namespace, which I doubt was the intention, and technically makes it an intelligent but stupid WP:XNR from "Hyperbolic Geometry" namespace to mainspace, but I don't think anyone is arguing about that. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. It is tagged for speedy delete and I agree with that, and I am sure Wilhelm, in his absence, would do too, I just put the various reasons above in case there is any doubt. (I didn't tag it.) Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (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.

Redirects to Nepali-language terms[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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#G6 uncontroversial housekeeping. JohnCD (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to category space not for readership - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree and will take WP:G6 housekeeping as WP:XNR, I doubt anyone would suggest there is a sensible place to redirect this to in reader space. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete wP:XNR to pipeworking, per nom; distinction is not for the readership -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2016 (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.
  • Footnote. Actually I don't think Champ's proposed reason nor my agreement for not being in reader space stands up, categories are there to help readers find things; categories are very much in reader space. I just though this particular one would hinder rather than help that, and have kinda got away with it this time. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To a reader, it doesn't matter if something is a redirect or is the actual article, since both result in the same reading material, so the distinction of categorizing redirects is not readership material. Not all categories are readership material, many of them are editorship material, the target of this redirect is a category for the editorship. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Redirects are annoyingly wrong where they send readers to where they are not very likely to want to go. I just procedurally fucked up on this one and said so, quite happy for it to go, but the reasons stated don't tally with the result. Consensus is to delete, and I don't mind, but realised afterwards I had said the right thing for the wrong reasons. (There are three times as many redirects as articles, so I don't imagine our work here will be finished any time soon.) Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21&oldid=1142587062"