Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 13, 2016.

Slovenia (general), Slovenia[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 Deleted by User:Tone. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-Muslim[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#Non-Muslim

California air pollution control/emission regulation redirects[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 there's clear consensus to delete these, as even those who want them retained in some way were split as to what to do with them. I'll grant one concession, retargeting California emission standards to United States emission standards#California as that particular redirect matches the target exactly. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects could be seen as misleading since the subject of the target article is a government agency, instead of a subject regarding air pollution controls, regulations or standards in California as a whole. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I don't see either of the aforementioned targets better than another for they provide little information to the reader. This is another set of pseudo-Neelix redirects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree with @Champion:, this is just a Windischgratz, as I believe it is known in the trade (not a "pseudo-Neelix redirect", I think, although perhaps, i.e. that it looks like a set of Neelix redirects but it isn't. Pseudo? Quasi? Faux? Hey-ho). Si Trew (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alternative Fuels Plan[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term seems, even with this kind of capitalization, too vague. There's all kinds of plans being enacted by various governmental and non-governmental agencies about changing energy sources being implemented all over the world. I'd rather just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bhután[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 Bhután; delete Kingdom of Bhután. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed language redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've combined these two nominations, both of which had the above vote from AngusWOOF. Nom indicated that "Bhután" was Hungarian, and presumably the same applies to the long form. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bhután, delete Kingdom of Bhután. Seems to be a valid alternate spelling or maybe an old form? It's linked from a handful of articles. Of course it could be corrected but the likelihood of erroneous mirroring is high. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bhután per Ivanvector. Noting (somewhat irrelevantly) that the links seem to be all coming from lists of habitats in botanical articles, and the information there seems to have come directly from whatever 19th-century text they were first described in. So, probably an old form. Diacritics were much more popular back in the day. – Uanfala (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just removed the links so there are no links to Bhután in mainspace left, still, I would !vote delete considering it is unlikely anyway. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete both. "Bhután" is correct in modern Hungarian ("Kingdom of Bhutan" being "Bhutáni Királyság", roughly "Bhutan-of King-place" if you want to split the agglutinatives), but that's irrelevant if we have use of these terms in reliable English sources. (HU:WP does not have that as its equivalent of {{R from full name}}, anyway.) I am not sure we should really preserve every old spelling, especially in the case of diacritical marks that are for the large part ignored by the search engine anyway. These are just clutter. Si Trew (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bhutan would have no affinity with Hungarian language as far as I know. The article's etymology section describes in fair detail the various names and spellings that the land has been called by Europeans, and none of those described use diacritics. Natively, Bhutan has its own name and writing script, so no help there. See Uanfala's comment above: it could be erroneous in whatever century-old texts were used as sources in those articles. Regarding repair of the links, there will still be inbound links from Wikipedia mirrors in that case, making this similar to an {{R from move}} situation. My !vote remains the same, not on its utility or appropriateness as a redirect but entirely on the likelihood of link rot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and not even in particularly old ones. Just the other month I had to sing that something was blesséd, where the diacritical marks in things such as Hymns Ancient and Modern are used as stress marks, which I imagine is what would have happened here... as well as all kinds of errors such as optical character recognition not being perfect and whatnot. Unless there is any firm evidence that this form is useful to an English-speaking audience I do not see that it is helpful to know that it is how it is written in Hungarian: that's easy to find out by clicking on the Interwiki link for Bhutan, which indeed was exactly what I did (Hungarian doesn't have a Bh- on native words any more than English does, but often preserves spellings of foreign words, as it seems mostly to have done in this instance but added the written distinction there is in Hungarian sounds between "a" and "á". I imagine this actually comes via English into Hungarian, otherwise it would be simply "hu:Butan". Unfortunately even the best Hungarian dictionaries – and I have them – haven't etymologies, so that's just an educated guess: since sounds or digraphs like sh and th and wh and ch aren't formed that way in the Hungarian alphabet, it's pretty obviously a loanword in Hungarian.) Usually this goes as "no affinity to Hungarian" (or whatever), and I can confirm first-hand that it hasn't. Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Multi-Tool Notepad[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym, unsure as to what this refers to, a quick google reveals many obscure topics unrelated to one another. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A quick "what links here" search would point you to the mention in Timeline of DOS operating systems. See also Multi-Tool Word. It's unclear to me whether this May 1983 InfoWorld article announced the actual product release or was another of Microsoft's many infamous vaporware announcements, but clearly this product predates the 1985 introduction of Windows 1.0. The initial release was a DOS product. Per this source (in the "Word Processors" section, page 25 of the pdf), apparently Microsoft marketing dropped "Multi-Tool" from the name in summer 1983, and some sources imply that the product wasn't actually released until October 25, 1983. Further research is needed to flesh out the details. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can that information be added to the article? That would ensure a keep. Even if Multi-Tool was never realized, if there's evidence that suggests it was a predecessor to the 1985 one, it could be used as background information. But if they're unrelated products, then nevermind. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the May 1983 item in Timeline of DOS operating systems, and agree that this product introduction should be mentioned in the Microsoft Notepad article. I'm taking a break, and may get to that in a couple days or so... wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Check out the paragraph I added to the lead of Microsoft Notepad. wbm1058 (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an appropriate redirect now that the article has been changed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Abraham (MP)[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 Sarahj2107. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. The move message (“His actual name. D'OH.”) implies that “John” is a mistake, not an alternative name. Gorobay (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close...as I did, G6/G7. Deleted. Muffled Pocketed 09:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The importance of arabic language in the study of islam[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. Deryck C. 11:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another essay article that was redirected instead of deleted. While I'm sure the Arabic Language is important when studying Islam, this doesn't seem like a plausible or helpful search term. -- Tavix (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mini-job[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all four to Mini job, for now. This may not be as obvious as it seems, because (as IP editor) I've tagged Mini job today as a {{merge to}} the current target, marginal employment, but until we have (probably silent) consensus to do that merge, these should be retargeted as {{R from other punctuation}}. I've tagged all for now as {{R from other name}} (not yet any as {{R from plural}}). Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Boldly retarget and wait for merge request results. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WOOOOOOOOOO[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 Deleted by User:RHaworth after listing as WP:G6 and WP:SNOW by (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination on behalf of Carrot official, who added the discussion banner to the redirect but was confused as to how to add the listing here, and has not as yet given a reason for discussion. Also pinging Tompw who was involved in a brief discussion on Carrot official's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, they did give a reason: "This seems like an implausible redirect to me. Carrot official (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)" Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete serves no useful purpose Tompw (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible and per WP:XY. The target article explains that Flair is known for his trademark "Woo!" shouts and that he also has a podcast with a similar name. However, there are number of other topics that may be associated with the letter "W" followed by several "O"'s. See, for example, the lyrics to Calling the Hogs, Woo!, or Woooo! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete four o's is the official spelling as used in his autobiography. [1] Would also accept Woo! as used by some WWE publications. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The excessive "O's" make it an unlikely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Nature Boy's podcast is titled "WOOOOO! Nation" (five O's) which makes this not a title match. Multiple other titles that might be a partial match for this title are numerous (per Notecardforfree) and the existence of this redirect will make it harder for searches for those titles to find the right article. I can see the utility of a set index describing the epithet and linking these articles as notable usages, but it wouldn't live at this title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Time craft[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding evidence that this term is synonymous with its target, or a term at all for that matter. Most results I get when searching the redirect in external search engines are for names of unnotable businesses. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's not synonymous with time travel generally, but I would say it's synonymous with Time machine, which points there. I'd tag with {{R avoided double redirect}}; I think we could definitely have a standalone time machine article at some point. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a business that makes items from watch parts that goes by this name. It brings clockmaking and watchmaking to mind for me.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that this primarily is a synonym for Time Machine as well, and things are appropriate as they stand. Still, I'm surprised that we don't have a specific article for the fictional machine concept. We probably will at some point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_13&oldid=1088108901"