Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2017.

Entertainment Services and Technology Association[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 8#Entertainment Services and Technology Association

Idol Minds Digital Entertainment[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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not official. Our reliable sources search engine only finds results in user-contributed game overview pages on IGN, but zero in actual news articles. Lordtobi (✉) 11:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I saw it mentioned here for some event. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That event, however, seems neither reliable nor notable, and a single unknown mention does not justify a redirect. Lordtobi (✉) 19:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If used at all (even in sources of questionable reliability) then it is a term that readers are likely to search for on wikipedia after encountering it in the wild. Concerns about its status could always be reflected in tagging the redirect as an {{R from incorrect name}}. – Uanfala 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 24 July 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.

Bone flowers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 11#Bone flowers

Borana languages[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 no consensus. I certainly don't see consensus to delete. I was tempted to call this a full "keep", but I got a level of uncertainty from the discussion that made me question whether there really is consensus here. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not alternative name of subject article and confusing with Borana language; only Borana Oromo language comes up in Google search results SpikeballUnion (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borana was what was used in either Campbell or Kaufman, which is primarily what i was using for South American langs at the time. (Probably Kaufman just by looking at the name, he created many names by Españolifying.) As i recall, i redirected since Kaufman treated Boran(a/o) as a separate unrelated family (or language) and there was no page for the Boran(a/o) family (just as there is no page now) and i was only concerned with creating pages for the highest level uncontroversial genealogical node at the time.
Why are you consulting google? What can it possibly know about these languages? It's just a search engine. Did google even scan the sources used for the article? I think consulting the sources mentioned in the article makes more sense. (Also, we already know that google frequency counts dont correlate to experimental lexical frequency measures in native English speakers as well as other corpora. So, it's not even clear to me why wikipedia should even allow this type of 'original research.' However, i'm not going to be the one to fight that fight on the talk pages.)
It's possible i made a mistake at the time. Go ahead and check it out. It's good to have copyeditors. peace. – ishwar  (speak) 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to catch a glimpse of only one of the two Kaufman texts cited in the article, and it does say (on p. 43) that the Spanish name for the Boran languages is familia Borana. The redirect then (solely on the basis of that) seems like it's mixing English and Spanish, but in a way that seems plausible for a reader encountering the term in a Spanish text. – Uanfala 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 24 July 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.

Mulan (character)[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) – Uanfala 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this redirect, but now I'm unsure of its target. Should this redirect be retargeting to Mulan (Disney character)? I'm not too familiar with the subject of Hua Mulan, so I am uncertain if the subject of that article is a fictional or nonfictional person. On Wikipedia, the "(character)" disambiguator is usually reserved for fictional characters. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the page covers all versions, including the Disney character and the other live-action adaptations, some of which are not Disney in origin. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the current target covers all fictional adaptations of Mulan and not just the Disney versions --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Disney's Mulan is not the only adaptation of the character. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:26, 27 July 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.

ΚΜ[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 also note that Kappa Mu is currently red. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page was turned into a redirect by a merge and pointed to the Kappa Mu chapter of Sigma Chi and then was re-redirected to UT-Tyler as the Kappa Mu chapter of Alpha Chi Omega. Dozens of other Greek Letter Organizations have a Kappa Mu chapter. The redirect should be deleted. Naraht (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting the obvious: the redirect's title consists of the two Greek letters, and is distinct from the Latin KM, which is a disambiguation page that doesn't list any kappa mus. – Uanfala 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fraternity or sorority's chapter names don't need to be recorded. This would be like figuring out which store number some of those franchises are, which is WP:NOTDIRECTORY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:51, 24 July 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 8#List of Google Street View locations

Ancestral home (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) 00:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the target page is not a disambiguation page. The redirect serves no real purpose, and is an exception to redirects are cheap because it is misleading. In the (unlikely) event that a reader is specifically looking for a disambiguation page, they should not be redirected to an article. Note that this redirect previously was speedy-deleted by User:BD2412 in 2013, but restored earlier this year by User:Patar knight. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article talkpage has a suggestion by Widefox of a Wikipedia:DABCONCEPT. Perhaps that should be implemented? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (2nd time) invalid target, no alternative possible, similar (but not the same as) the dab redirect discussion in WP:redirects are costly. User:Emir of Wikipedia - it's a dabconcept already, it's been just an article for a while now. The deletion of these obsolete redirects was uncontroversial until recently. I'd be interested in User:Patar knight's reasoning for restoring this dab redirect, and please can you tell me how many others of my deletions have been restored, as I was unaware. (the background being some editors have started to contest their deletion - there's discussion at the dab project). Widefox; talk 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree the target is not too much like a disambiguation page but it is like an article. Therefore it makes sense to me to convert this redirect into a disambiguation page disambiguating Ancestral home, Ancestral Home, Ancestral home (China) and maybe things like Ancestral home (Philippines), Stately home and Ancestral Homeland, etc. I think this is a justification for keep per WP:RFD#K7 but I'll hold back on putting that in bold because the situation about K7 isn't clear to me. If an objection to that is that Ancestral home is already disambiguating then the present redirect is entirely appropriate.Thincat (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thincat this seems to be WP:RELATED ..does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes... Wikipedia:DABCONCEPT only says Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page. so it's a definite yes for unrelated items, for which there aren't any is only one (in the hatnote). If there's only topics which are included in the primary topic which we do assume readers go to first, creating a dab to cover those items which the reader has seen is, I guess "not discouraged". Widefox; talk 14:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on Cats in Australia, Cats in New Zealand and Cats in the United States; but no one would suggest that Cat should therefore be a disambiguation page, or that any of those subtopic articles need to be listed on Cat (disambiguation). An ancestral home is an ancestral home, no matter what country it is located in. There is one unrelated topic that needs to be disambiguated here, which is Ancestral Home, a political party; but since it is the only one, it can be done via a hatnote without requiring a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those replies which rather persuade me that deletion is appropriate. However, I'll end up simple not !voting. Thincat (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a hatnote is right per WP:TWODABS with one other item (unless one counts the primary topics sub-items). In fairness, our example Particle does have Particle (disambiguation) with repeated links from the dabconcept, but there's many unrelated items there, unlike here. Widefox; talk 14:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Improvements to Ancestral home would, of course, also be welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment User:BD2412 I hadn't noticed that User:Patar knight has gone through my history and restored my CSDs. I didn't have a CSD log enabled back then, but looks like there's at least two batches on 27 March 2017 and 28 March. I'll list them at the dab project. Widefox; talk 16:32, 25 July 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.

Go Goodwins[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, R3, by Nyttend. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was only a few minutes ago created as a redirect however the redirect isn't mentioned in the article making this pointless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As this is the creators first ever edit I believe this is someone related to the company trying to make their company known if that makes sense...., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: yep, makes perfect sense considering it's the only contribution. DrStrauss talk 19:50, 24 July 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.

Azijnzuur[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) 00:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion; there is no plausible reason to redirect by language. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, this is the English Wikipedia. DrStrauss talk 19:56, 24 July 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.

Draft:Samsung Galaxy Note 8[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 Nomination withdrawn, seems to be a clear keep, so closing this down. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I am the nominator and withdraw my request. At the time of the nomination I was unaware of WP:RDRAFT and had mistakenly managed to get some Rdrafts deleted under G6 in the past. I am now aware that this is against the consensus, and won't request a G6 in the future for an Rdraft. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect from draftspace to mainspace as a result of a page move. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{db-g6|rationale=Redirect from draftspace to mainspace as a result of a page move.}} to the page, and it was reverted by GB fan who said "Decline speedy delete, not a valid speedy deletion criterion". That is why I put it up for discussion here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the items listed at WP:G6 talk about redirects as the result of a page move. ~ GB fan 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It says This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including:, but doesn't say that it is limited to the items listed. I thought it would be uncontroversial as it was only created as a result of another user moving a page who wasn't able to suppress a redirect. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox does have the ability to suppress a redirect. Looking at the comments so far it is controversial. ~ GB fan 13:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I confused them with the user who moved the page from Draft:Galaxy Note 8 to Draft:Samsung Galaxy Note 8. That initial page was deleted by Biblioworm when I gave the rationale G6: it is a redirect from the draft namespace to the mainspace. I was unaware of WP:RDRAFT at the time, and I am fairly certain that I have requested deletion for other RDRAFT's under speedy and they were deleted without questioning. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emir of Wikipedia: User talk:GB fan is spot on. My understanding of G6 is that it is too widely used as a catchall. As this is contested per WP:RDRAFT, G6 doubly doesn't apply (although that's an info page, not policy or guideline). The fact that I chose not to suppress may already indicate I may contest deletion (as I'm just following WP:RDRAFT). Widefox; talk 15:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tavix did you see? WP:RDRAFT Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. Widefox; talk 09:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree with that, hence my !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RDRAFT links to a clear consensus at RfC, so that consensus would need overturning (per below). Widefox; talk 15:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start here and go from there? Are you just going to keep blindly citing "RDRAFT" or do you actually think this should be kept, RfC notwithstanding? (Btw: there's an RfC that looks set to pass at WT:CSD to apply G13 to all drafts. Once that passes, I'd like to start a follow-up to include everything in draft space, meaning these worthless redirects could be deleted after 6 months. ) -- Tavix (talk) 12:33, 26 July 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.

Bride of Kildare[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) 00:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this seems to be a legit alternate spelling of Brigid, the use of the word Bride is pretty confusing. But I'm not confident as to whether this should be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - I'm seeing material explicitly describing her as "Saint Bride" (see here for just one example), and since the redirects are legitimately helpful I'd rather we just leave them be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The use of the word "bride" is indeed confusing at first, but both phrases appear to be in common use [2] [3]. – Uanfala 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both as Neelix redirects. Implausible. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per CSD X1. DrStrauss talk 19:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your thoughtful comments were much appreciated, Jd22292 and DrStrauss :). – Uanfala 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CWM and Uanfala's links. Saint Bride currently redirects to Brigid of Kildare; unless you can make a case for getting rid of that redirect, I don't see how you can make a case for getting rid of this one. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both I've always heard of her as Saint Bride ... and I see it confirmed that this is the normal Scottish use.[4] Thincat (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Both names are used for Saint Brigid, as Uanfala et al. have shown above. I don't think that "it's confusing" is an especially good argument to delete: it isn't confusing to anyone who knows that it's an alternative name for Brigid, and even for those who don't I can't think of any other article that they might reasonable expect it to go to. What confusion in practice is keeping this redirect going to cause? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:18, 26 July 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.

Cahrles V, Holy Roman Emperor[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: WP:R3 doesn't apply to this redirect, it was created in 2007. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 24 July 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.

Bp-II (Amoco)[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. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#Bp2. The current target is incorrect as the Standard Oil article is about the pre-1911 company. From the history of the redirect, it's referring to the BP-Amoco merger, which occurred much later. I wasn't able to find evidence of the company being known as "Bp-II". Even if it has, the disambiguator would make this an implausible search term, thus I'm recommending delete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tavix is correct that this is implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:22, 24 July 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.

Cultural decay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 11#Cultural decay

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_24&oldid=1138581681"