Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 8, 2017.

IPod Touch OS[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) feminist 05:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this redirect Creeperparty568 - It and all! 22:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Creeperparty568. It seems like something that users might conceivably type in. Redirects are cheap. Why delete it? (ping me if you respond) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Plausible search term. — JFG talk 08:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the target is the location of the content pertaining to the subject of the redirect: The version of iOS used for the iPod Touch. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2017 (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.

Waifu[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 Glossary of anime and manga#Waifu. (non-admin closure) feminist 05:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-soft redirect to Wiktionary masquerading as article, many have edited page to make it an article,although it shouldn't. groig (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some RS news articles that legitimize the term. Another option is to add it in Glossary of anime and manga? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Glossary of anime and manga#Waifu as I've added the definition to the glossary and supported the mainstream definition with some RS'es. It is in the fandom section. Also okay with keeping it pointed to Kimura. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support retargeting to the glossary article. It has grown outside of just being an Azumanga Daioh quote, so this seems more appropriate.--IDVtalk 13:46, 11 August 2017 (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.

IPod touch hacks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 18#IPod touch hacks

Nattpu[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 Natpu. (non-admin closure) feminist 05:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the creation request, the language is Tamil. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a retarget to Natpu. Thanks for finding that, Angus! -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NattpuNatpu which has an article where it explains in the header that Natpu means friendship. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC) updated 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, what, Angus? It looks like you suggested retargeting the redirect to itself. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oops, I meant Natpu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept or retargeted, this should probably be marked as {{R unprintworthy}} as I'm not seeing any indication that it can be used as an alternative spelling. – Uanfala 22:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2017 (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.

Cognoscente[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 disambiguate Cognoscenti, retargeting the others there. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these were up for deletion on the Neelix list, but Cognescenti is not a Neelix redirect (created to disambiguate Cognoscenti (comics)). I'm unsure what to do with these, so I'll bring them up for further input. From reading wikt:cognoscente, it seems like Connoisseur would be a closer match? -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • From reading the OED entry the same impression is made that Connoisseur would be a closer match. Cognescenti is a misspelling, and should be marked up as such. – Uanfala 22:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just came across this while trying to find out what the singular form of "cognoscenti" was. It is helpful encyclopedia info. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Cognoscenti (comics) over redirect as an existing article using that spelling. Add Wiktionary for the definitions. If the comics character is not notable, make an AFD and revisit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC) updated 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comics character uses the same spelling as the generic meaning and fails being the primary topic by a wide margin. – Uanfala 07:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to figure out how it can survive WP:DABDIC if the comics character is not involved. Use a "redirects here" hatnote instead? If it's a dab, it can have the comics character, the PTM as a See also, and other close words like: Cognizant, Cognescent (Thomas Reardon), Cognizance AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: That's an argument for not deleting it, but that's not all this discussion is about. What would you think about retargeting to Connoisseur? -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Disambiguate, since Connoisseur says: A specialist in a given field whose opinion is highly valued, especially in one of the fine arts or in matters of taste, Expert: A person with extensive knowledge or ability in a given subject. Cognoscente: Someone possessing superior or specialized knowledge in a particular field; a connoisseur. In terms of scope: Expert > Cognoscente > Connoisseur. These are 3 different words with 3 different meanings and 3 different connotations. I prefer disambiguation. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2017 (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.

New-York (disambiguation)[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) 02:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The correctly-spelled dab page New York (disambiguation) was moved to New York; we are cleaning up useless links. The misspelling of this title is addressed at New-York — JFG talk 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The reason why these three redirects with "(disambiguation)" appendage were created was that all incoming redirects to a disambiguation page should have a "shadow" redirect including the "(disambiguation)" qualifier as well - at least this is how I understood the system so far. The rationale for this is that some hatnote templates automatically append "(disambiguation)" to parameters when creating links to disambiguation pages.
To put it in other words, if we have a redirect like "New-York" to a disambiguation page like "New York", we also need a redirect named "New-York (disambiguation)". In a perfect world, the latter would point to "New-York" in order to make things easier would "New-York" be changed to point elsewhere or changed into an article later on, but since double redirects are avoided for technical reasons, we have no other option than to point it to the target of the "New-York" redirect instead, that is "New York". Basically, the redirect "New-York" can be thought of as being a disambiguation page in disguise.
If this rational still holds true, the nominated redirect should be kept, otherwise it can be deleted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Good point. This would be justified if we had incoming links to the misspelled dab title New-York (disambiguation), but we don't (and rightly so): the only pages that link there are this RfD and lists of RfDs[1]. Safely delete, and keep just the misspelled New-York. — JFG talk 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Example. Things are easier to explain using examples: We have an article about the HP Saturn microprocessor family. One of the processors has a codename "New-Yorke" (no typo), because it is the successor of another processor codenamed "Yorke" (names derived from York (slave)). So, we could argue that the "New-Yorke" redirect should point to this page. If so, we'd probably add a hatnote using the {{redir}} template. Using the syntax {{redir|New-Yorke}} this hatnote would display:
"New-Yorke" redirects here. For other uses, see New-Yorke (disambiguation).
That is, it would automatically point to "New-Yorke (disambiguation)", not "New York (disambiguation)" or "New York".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now I see why we have "New-Yorke" and not "New-Yorki" or "New-Yorku": it's not a misspelling, it's the HP processor! Let's redirect there, case closed. No other use, no hatnote. — JFG talk 23:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, and pushed New Yorke for deletion as unlikely misspelling. — JFG talk 01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was just an example because it nicely illustrated the rationale behind the generic principle for using those "(disambiguation)" appendages. Of course, I thought of your suggested solution as well when I created those redirects originally. However, there were two reasons why I decided against it eventually:
1) Given that "New Yorke" could well be a spelling variant of / typo for "New York", the hatnote on the "HP Saturn" page would still be needed, in particular because "New York" in general is much more important than this processor.
2) Since people may not know the proper spelling of the processor's codename, many would arrive at the "New York" disambiguation page (where we should have an entry for "HP New-Yorke". If so, "New-Yorke" would have to redirect to the disambiguation page "New York" as we typically do for such minor spelling variants.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of the HP New-Yorke redirect, I believe that's the best title for this, and we should remove the bare "New Yorke" and "New-Yorke". In my opinion the processor wouldn't fit in the New York dab page because it's a WP:PTM and because it was never even produced or marketed under that name. — JFG talk 15:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two reasons why X (disambiguation) might be useful:
  • X has a primary topic, described in article X, and several other topics, listed in X (disambiguation)
  • X has no primary topic, so X is a disambiguation page; we mark deliberate links to X by using redirect X (disambiguation)
Neither case applies here. Certes (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2017 (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.

Entertainment Services and Technology Association[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the two organisations have split (per Ticket:2017062910022621). They have requested this redirect no longer exists Mdann52 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Subject request. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much as the subject would like not to mention ESTA, it is part of their merger/acquisition history as much as it had started with BADEM. The question is whether any notable acquisitions and merged companies that don't have an article should be redirected to this article. Is it a 50-50 merge or a 90-10 kind of acquisition where the 10% isn't really that notable? I removed the "See also" entry for ESTA. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with AngusWOOF that this is really a notability question. If ESTA is independently notable, there's an article in the history of the redirect we can restore. If not, I'd say to keep it as-is. The two organizations have a lot of overlapping history, and there's a lot of information on ESTA at the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 21:07, 8 August 2017 (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.

List of Google Street View locations[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 Coverage of Google Street View. (non-admin closure) feminist 07:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete This was apparently the subject of a lame edit war years ago, but seeing as how the number of such locations is probably closing in on Avogadro's number by now, nobody will ever find any such list in the main article. Isn't time for this to go away? Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outdated redirect. Such a list would be ludicrous, as not only are there so many locations, it is a highly dynamic number.

Avogadro approaching ℵ0

 — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Coverage of Google Street View as the user is probably wanting to know what areas have been mapped out with Google Street View in general, not an actual list of individual streets and places. Article also has lists of countries. But if it was created with the frivolous edit in mind, then I wouldn't mind a delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Coverage of Google Street View where such a list exists. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 20:47, 8 August 2017 (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.

Walter J. Haas[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. I figure I might as well close this since I no longer hold an opinion on the matter and there's consensus for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion, as it redirects Walter J. Haas to his father Walter A. Haas Jr., and not to an entry about himself. This for example creates (a confusing) circular references in Walter A. Haas Jr. אבגמד (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlink and keep. It is reasonable to call "Walter J. Haas Jr." as "Walter J. Haas", as some references on that article do. We should be removing internal links that refer to the non-notable child of his, not delete the redirect. Deryck C. 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking as I missed the same thing as Deryck. Thanks for the ping! -- Tavix (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 20:42, 8 August 2017 (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.

Crassipes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 20#Crassipes

Duraid Qureshi[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) Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this redirect for @Saqib:. It was initially listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duraid Qureshi with the reason: "redirect of a non-notable person." I personally have No opinion on this redirect. menaechmi (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a reason for deletion, even if valid. The fact that someone isn't notable only means that we can't have an article on them, it doesn't mean we can't have a redirect to some other article that mentions them. Hut 8.5 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep how is being the current CEO not-notable? Reconsider if he leaves and is removed from the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 9 August 2017 (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/2017_August_8&oldid=1138581469"