Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2016.

STAINLESS Steel[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely capitalization. (@Steel1943:, you didn't spot this one, did you?) - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Foiled again! Sneaky redirect tricked me with "steel" at the end rather than the beginning! (By the way, I'm neutral on this one.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant capitalisation variant and a remnant of a vandalously created page. I would just like to take the opportunity to reiterate my general annoyance at redirects for unnecessary capitalisation variants and my wish that these could be explicitly allowed to be dealt with in a speedy way. Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent. I often find myself wishing R3 wasn't restricted to "recently created" redirects (kind of like the "Neelix concession," which I've wanted under the R3 umbrella instead of G6). However, I'm afraid of abuse if that were to be opened up. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think that prodding might be the most sensible way of doing it. I'm wondering if it can be extended to redirects. Uanfala (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely capitalization --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unncessary stylization that might be tied to a specific brand, but the all caps is not notable in news and book articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lets just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible capitalisation. If there's someone who uses it for branding, I think this needs to be mentioned somewhere (probably where we're linking to) before there's justification). Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 28 June 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.

Lynix[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a girl's name, albeit an uncommon one. I don't see how this would be a typo for Linux. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XY typo or misspelling of multiple things (e.g. Lynx), correct name of nothing which is covered in Wikipedia. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no one notable has the name, so there's not a smooth way of dealing with it as an {{R from given name}} or set index. -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete News searches for this come up with a typo for Lynx, while the general search engine thinks it's a typo for Linux. As a given name there is no notable people with that singular name. Searches for this spelling are at most 2 a day with most hovered around 0, compared to the 4000-6000 on the correctly spelled term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible typo that could possibly be ambiguous in what subject it refers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the already listed explanations. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:41, 24 June 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.

Shaliyuan[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) 10:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:R#D2 confusing and WP:RFOREIGN. Chinese name of a North Korean city. The target is not known by this name in English, while some Chinese localities are known by this name (see e.g. zh:Template:PRC admin/data/44/02/04/101/201 for one in Shaoguan; Google says there's another one in Huizhou; etc.). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:25, 22 June 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.

Edric Egberuare[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person, will mislead the reader. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:14, 22 June 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.

Chåmpionship[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid name in any language. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to me nominating something like Steel worker. Oh right ... I did do that. Steel1943 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • @Steel1943:Ha ha, I couldn't think of anything better to find redirects to, so I thought, "why not?". - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 12:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an invalid diacritic spelling variation. Steel1943 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not likely typo either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like an open-and-shut case of a redirect that should be gotten rid of. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:13, 22 June 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.

Google Spain[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK I doubt readers will get what they want, they would just get a domain name. It makes sense for we have Microsoft Japan and Google China, for example. All of them basically have links from other articles. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete . Not a directory #7: "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." So Google China has notable stuff as a single entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Some of these may be notable in their own right, and even the non-notable ones aren't well served by the current target or any other existing target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Some of these are likely notable and could have articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:01, 29 June 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.

MacOS[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 as is for now. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to Mac OS instead, as it is now renamed macOS (note the lowercase m). Please see Talk:OS X for more information. (I am neutral about this redirect, but just thought I'd bring it up here)- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, this discussion is about whether macOS should be its own article or should remain as a redirect? 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make way for moving OS X to it. We probably need appropriate hatnotes to accommodate "Mac OS" too. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears it has already gone through an RM and failed to achieve the consensus to move. More interesting is the fact that the result of the RM is being repeated here... For now, I believe it is appropriate to convert to a dab page until "macOS" becomes the common name. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as the RM did not go through to rename to make MacOS the article title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, in a case like that, this discussion probably should have gone to WP:MRV or a new move request started at Talk:OS X. The "delete to move OS X here" seem to be the equivalent to "support" votes in the referenced closed move discussion. (In fact, I think I may ask the closer to relist that discussion...) Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Per Codename Lisa. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the redirect is useful (even as seemingly the current "delete" votes have stated, in one way or another.) If the target article needs to be moved over the nominated redirect, that can be done through WP:RM to allow the proper audience to assist with establishing consensus for the move. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the the related RM has been closed as no consensus, this should be keep for now pending a potential future RM possibly after the September. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Codename Lisa. Dane2007 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to macOS Sierra. Keep until actual release of macOS Sierra. NasssaNser 13:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Change of name mentioned in several reliable sources and many people may search for this on Wikipedia thinking that their article is named that.--Proud User (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, until pages actually get moved (or not) later in the year. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mac OS. I wouldn't expect anyone besides very close followers of Apple or the tech industry to appreciate the difference between "MacOS" and "Mac OS". This seems so obvious to me. Call it a {{R from modification}} and let the hatnotes do their job unless and until an RM changes either of the relevant article titles. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the public release of macOS Sierra later this year, as Apple publicly announced that macOS will be the new name for OS X, and beta versions of the operating system baring the name macOS are already in use. TimD [talk] 21:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Eventually the OS X page will need to be moved to macOS because this will be how Apple markets their product in the future, and this is what people will call the new OS. TIMOTHEVS 22:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus1 (talk • contribs)
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.

Calculatable[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 computability. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to calculate, the implied meaning of these redirects, is distinct from calculation. I assume calculatability is an important topic in computer science, but I don't know what article to point to. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to computability? That's the most general article on the topic, and sources I can see seem to be using the terms more or less synonymously. (Effectively calculable points to and is discussed at effective method; but in general the authors who mean "effectively calculable" say "effectively calculable"). Though I do see one from Stewart Shapiro where he's using them to mean different things [1]. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary this They are prominent terms used in news and books, but no article that treats this specifically. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to computability per 210.6.254.106. Consider adding wiktionary boxes to article. Note that the See also section of calculation has a link "Calculability" that actually links to Complexity class, so that might be a possibility as well. PaleAqua (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: May be speedied because Neelix. NasssaNser 12:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Neelix G6" is restricted to cases where "the reviewing admin reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion", which really does not apply to an already-open discussion with three non-delete opinions. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to computability or wiktionary per the hits received. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:46, 29 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_22&oldid=1088109428"