Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2017.

Quasi-governmental[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. No one is supporting the status quo and a majority of participants objected to the only other option provided. That leaves deletion, which is what I'm going with. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended for deletion because "Quasi-governmental" is not the same as "State-owned enterprise". "Quasi-governmental" may refer to various different types of organizations such as those listed here, none of which could be described as a "State-owned enterprise". A "State-owned enterprise" is only one type of Quasi-governmental body. State-owned enterprise does not actually mention the term "quasi-governmental" and defines its subject as "a legal entity that undertakes commercial activities on behalf of the state" which is not a definition applicable to all quasi-governmental organizations. JimmiCheddar (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

quango is an equally incorrect destination, it refers to a "quasi-autonomous NON-governmental organisation", not a "Quasi-governmental" body. JimmiCheddar (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Ofwat or Federal Reserve System, two entities that the quango article discusses. Both of them are quasi-governmental, and they typify the concept. They're quasi-governmental, as are all other quangos, e.g. AASHTO. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Quasi-governmental" and "non-governmental" are clearly not the same thing (except for Alice in Wonderland). WP does not need to link or redirect if there is no appropriate destination. There is no WP article which describes "Quasi-governmental" organizations, so lets not pretend there is. (By the way, there is no mention of Ofwat at quango). None of your quango examples are remotely similar to the international organizations mentioned in the list I referenced. JimmiCheddar (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're quasi-nongovernmental because they're quasi-nongovernmental; that's what "quasi" means. If you don't bother to look at the article's examples and can't find Ofwat, an entity I'd never heard of before I read the second paragraph of the History section, don't lecture me on the meanings of article I've read; I'm close to requesting WP:SK #3. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"quasi-nongovernmental because they're quasi-nongovernmental", what does that mean?
As I said, there is no mention of Ofwat at quango, but I see that the paragraph you mentioned does talk about something called "Water Services Regulation Authority", which turns out to be also known as Ofwat, who knew? Very few Americans I suspect.
Merriam-Webster defines "Quango" as a British word: "a partly autonomous regulatory agency; especially : one in Britain organized outside the civil service but financed and appointed by the government". That is not an appropriate definition for the international organizations which are called "quasi-governmental organizations", as in the examples I have already referenced in the document above: IATA, IEC, ISO, IUCN, SITA and WADA. But it seems to me that they do all fit the Merriam-Webster definition of "quasi-governmental": "supported by the government but managed privately".
Quango and quasi-governmental refer to two significantly different types of organization, why do you find that a difficult concept? JimmiCheddar (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Might this be so vague that it merits outright deletion? From an American perspective, the first two things that it makes me think of are first the kind of improvement efforts that we discuss at 'public–private partnership' and the second the state-influenced businesses that we discuss at 'statutory corporation'. The specific term 'quango' is a U.K.-centric thing with a narrower approach. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, this is not about Quangos (that was a red herring introduced by Nyttend), this is about the erroneous rediriction of "Quasi-governmental" to "State-owned enterprise". As there is no appropriate redirect for "Quasi-governmental" it is my belief that the existing redirect should be deleted. JimmiCheddar (talk) 18:24, 15 December 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.

Curtis Newton[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) 22:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be any primary target; the redirect goes to a fictional character while the incoming links are all of a football player for the Toronto Argonauts. ansh666 03:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE item #2, "The redirect might cause confusion". When a fictional character shows up in a list of football players (and because of an alternate name, not his article's actual title), and it's not vandalism, there's no might about it causing confusion. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a regional bias here. American football is a very local thing in the US and Canada, while the appeal of Captain Future is worldwide. In addition the notoriety of this player will also be punctual in time. So I would tend to replace this by a redirect page to Curtis Newton (American football player) and Captain Future. Hektor (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to agree with Hektor. Decades later, this name for the character still gets mentioned in reliable printed sources [1]. That demonstrates some modicum of long-term significance, at least compared to a footballer who doesn't even have an article. The incoming mislinks all come from {{Toronto Argonauts roster}}, and can be disambiguated easily; none are "organic" links. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's primary until the football player meets notability. The player is on the practice squad for a CFL team so he hasn't met notability yet. Curtis Newton is the title character for Captain Future. That's like saying Clark Kent should not redirect to Superman because there is an athlete of the same name in a football squad. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only link was via {{Toronto Argonauts roster}}, which I have replaced with Curtis Newton (Canadian football) (without prejudice).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with AngusWOOF. Is primary target until football player is notable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 8 December 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.

United Kingdom general elections[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 13:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom did not exist prior to 1801. --Nevé–selbert 21:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as valid {{R from error}}. The etymology surrounding England/GBR/UK is often confusing to people, and these redirects gets readers to where they want to be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as {{R from incorrect name}} per Patar knight. The United Kingdom may indeed not have existed prior to 1801, but Britain was already in the process of unification since the Tudor dynasty in 1485. ToThAc (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Agree it is R from incorrect name. Does indeed help searches and help get people where needed - not everyone knows what date united kingdom formed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 8 December 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.

Word War 1[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'll take care of the other redirects I mentioned as there seems to be appetite for doing so. -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirect. Searches for Word War 1 point to some non-notable educational typing software, books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've checked for similar "Word War" redirects, and found Word War I, Word war II and Word War Two Trenches. Also note that Word Wars is a documentary. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sounds more like a little joke than anything that might be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yup, obscures searches for those other stuff too. May want to bundle the others in Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me a while for me to figure out why people were opposing this redirect. I thought it made perfect sense. I created the Word War 1 redirect. But I did not realize that I had made a typo. I meant to write "World War 1" but apparently I missed an L. I was surprised as to why there was not already a redirect for "World War 1". Apparently there was. I have no opinion weather or not to delete it. Torr3 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As confusing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:24, 12 December 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.

Gradwell, Taupo[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 as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There does not appear to be a suburb of this name in Taupo, although there is a minor street called Gradwell Place. See also the recent history at Taupo. gadfium 19:00, 7 December 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.

Characters in devil may cry[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 13:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibly capitalized redirect. Barely gets any page views whatsoever. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless {{R from other capitalization}}. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Note that it's not just "other capitalization" but the "of" has been replaced with "in". Anyone searching for the same name of the article won't come across the redirect. They would need to type "in" and not capitalize the name either... which is extremely implausible.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Characters in Devil May Cry is a current redirect as it's a reasonable way to do it. Characters in devil may cry is also reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Tavix. Not completely random or obscure capitalization either - pretty reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:05, 8 December 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.

Women in Devil May Cry[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) 22:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular purpose for this redirect to exist, as there is nothing special about women in the series, with regards to their characters, that would merit more attention than the men. Implausible; gets almost no page views. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:37, 7 December 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.

Keith Young[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) 22:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#D2 confusing. Not the target's name, but the name of other potentially notable people. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also kind of WP:XY because of multiple non-notable people with this name. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, due to not being the target's name. Also likely a significant number of Keith Youngs who don't (yet?) have articles. Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:12, 12 December 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.

Hsu Hsiung[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) 22:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY wrong name of multiple people (e.g. Hsu Feng-hsiung or Hsu Wen-hsiung); you can't drop parts of Chinese names like this. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just convert it into a disambig page if there are multiple possible targets. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't create dab pages for non-stand-alone parts of names. – Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 7 December 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.

Oradour-sur-Glane[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 reverse the redirect by moving Oradour-sur-Glane (commune) to Oradour-sur-Glane. (I dislike that "reverse" has fallen out of style at RfD. Here's to bringing it back!) -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this title redirect to Oradour-sur-Glane (commune) or Oradour-sur-Glane massacre? Redirecting to the massacre was the result of the last discussion on this at Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre#Requested move but an editor keeps redirecting it to the town. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer the town. The commune is the only thing called "Oradour-sur-Glane". While the massacre is the most notable thing about the place, the massacre is not called "Oradour-sur-Glane". —Kusma (t·c) 09:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the massacre isn't WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for Oradour-sur-Glane, then we should move the commune there rather than retargetting. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commune should be moved over the redirect and a hat note should be there linking to the massacre. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move commune / town over redirect. Keep a hatnote to the massacre. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move commune / town over redirect. Other communes of France don't have (commune) in their title. Givibidou (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:WhatLinksHere/Oradour-sur-Glane. Almost all links point to the village. Givibidou (talk) 15:19, 8 December 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_December_7&oldid=1088107670"