Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2016.

Chinese Army[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Chinese Army

LoL[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 League of Legends. WJBscribe (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be redirected back to League of Legends, as ThurnerRupert is the only one that is opposed to this. At Lol (disambiguation) there is no other use of the stylization "LoL" other than this topic. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bwrs: per WP:NOTAVOTE, you need to explain your opinion. Otherwise it may very well be ignored by the closer. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 10 September 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.

Physical-disability access[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. I'll also create the hyphenless variant so Simon is happy. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per "What links here" the only incoming link to this redirect is an archived user talk page, thus this redirect is redundant. It is also a rather contrived phrase, thus imho an unlikely search term. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's getting uses and it's not incorrect, particularly as "accessibility" is about more than just physical disabilities so the term is a hyponym. This means the redirect is as a {{R from subtopic}} or maybe {{R with possibilities}}. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if is is kept the hyphen should be removed as it is simply incorrect. Thryduulf what do you mean by "It's getting uses"? The only incoming link to it is a single archived mention on a user talk page? The article Accessibility is only about disability, so it's not a subtopic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dodger67, click on the "stats" link; that shows the number of hits the article has received from users, both from web searches outside Wikipedia and searches within Wikipedia. Article links to the redirect usually are a small fraction of the actual usage. — Gorthian (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cross-namespace and misspelled (no hyphen needed). MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • MSJapan, I'm not sure I see what you mean by "cross-namespace", both the redirect and the target are in the article namespace. I also don't understand why the hyphen shouldn't be there. The meaning of the phrase isn't "physical access for the disabled" but "access for the physically disabled". Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uanfala, in this case the hyphen is not needed because "physical" is an adjective modifier of "disability". But the point doesn't matter to this discussion, since misspelled titles are commonly used for redirects.— Gorthian (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see, English spelling is definitely a murky area for me. But still, I'm reading the relevant article and I can't see why this should be treated any differently from the example given there: "small-appliance industry". The hyphen seems to be warranted if there is ambiguity, and "physical disability access" isn't completely unambiguous, is it? Uanfala (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. MSJapan, misspellings are one of the purposes for redirects, so that searchers can find what they need even if they don't spell it correctly.— Gorthian (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • -
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While this is clumsy, it's also something that one can realistically see readers typing in. The redirect is indeed helpful, and that's the most important thing, since it goes to the proper page discussing all of the related issues about disability access. I'd rather we keep things as is. I'm not that sure, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf (and o a lesser extent the fact that this is isn't a misspelling). Uanfala (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unfala is right that it is not a misspelling, really it is {{R from other punctuation}}, but we don't have Physical disability access without the hyphen. Someone searching for thiswould surely find it without the hyphen? (and it is a hyphen, not an en dash or whatnot). Weak but we should have both or neither. (That is almost a !vote to crate the one without the hyphen, I guess). Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, if this is kept I intend to create the version without the hyphen as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 18 September 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.

Gordon Kaye v. Andrew Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd[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. WJBscribe (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case is referred to as Kaye v. Robertson. This is an unnecessarily clunky title, and thus an unlikely search term. MSJapan (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect does get use, the case is cited in this manner in reliable sources (e.g. [1] (pdf page 7)) and so it is actually both a useful and likely search term. Even if it weren't it would still be harmless - it's not in the way of anything else and there is nothing else someone using this redirect could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment English case titles don't put the dot after the "v", so this should be tagged as {{R from typo}} or something. The correct long form Gordon Kaye v Andrew Robertson and Sports Newspapers Ltd does not exist. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:36, 10 September 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.

Zephyr (software)[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 Zephyr#Computing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "software" is not a good description for a protocol, no matter whether Zephyr] for JIRA deserves an article. I think deletion is appropriate. KnightMove (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:34, 10 September 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.

Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch[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, G7, author requests deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. No one uses it; no one would search for it to begin with; the content it redirected to has since been removed; and that content is no longer even true. 2601:240:C400:D60:2D79:52FD:9844:581F (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable meme not mentioned anywhere. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (disclaimer: I created this years ago, back when it actually still worked, and when I was significantly less mature). Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 10 September 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_September_10&oldid=1138581314"