Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 29, 2017.

Villagate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 7#Villagate

Vehicle registration plates of the British Indian Ocean Territory[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. 13:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information about this in the target page, or in Vehicle registration plates of British overseas territories, and it looks like there was nothing there when this redirect was created. Peter James (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no information to provide. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no civilan government and no way to drive to the BIOT I'd be surprised if they have plates. Maybe... but if they have them a redlink is better. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 30 June 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.

Babilu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 8#Babilu

Why Mars is red[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 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a useful redirect? I can't see anyone using this as a search term here. Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was just created today, so there's no search history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this - not much of a reason to keep or to delete. I think that anyone who wants to know is more likely to look at the Mars article and find information and a link to the target page there. Peter James (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect is more intuitive than the target title. Legacypac (talk)|
Nickps, do you want this to stay around or not? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 30 June 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.

Zach Gage[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) 11:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Gage was a/the programmer for Ridiculous Fishing, but ultimately, they are not related. He also worked on other games, such as SpellTower, Tharsis (WP:XY). Furthermore, the Ridiculous Fishing article holds no significant information on the redirected subject. — Delete. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to SpellTower, the game for which he's best known. (I wrote that one years after RF.) "Ridiculous Fishing article holds no information on the redirected subject." Then you didn't search, as his name appears five times. I have plenty of sources for an article on the developer at User:Czar/drafts/Zach Gage (they're also in the page history) had you asked. Going overboard with these repeated noms. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 15:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Search results are better in this situation as they're able to give articles on several games he's worked on, rather than funneling our readers into just one game. As Czar has shown that he's likely notable, this would also have the added benefit of WP:REDLINK deletion to encourage article creation. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Just one game" for which he's best known... I don't see how removing the redirect does the encyclopedia any good, or how creating a redlink in place of a redirect somehow stimulates article growth. czar 18:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say someone searches "Zach Gage". Right now, there's a redirect in place and they are redirected to Ridiculous Fishing. There's nothing inherently wrong about that set-up, our readers will be able to find out three basic "facts" about him: 1) Gage was the programmer (from the infobox), 2) Artist Greg Wohlwend moved in with iOS developer Zach Gage to work 14-hour days on the game. 3) Gage was part of a four member team at one point in development. That's great, but now let's say this redirect is deleted. If someone searches "Zach Gage", instead of being greeted by Ridiculous Fishing, they'll instead get search results. Search results work really well here because all the top results are the games he's been a part of. Among the top results are Really Bad Chess, TypeShift, SpellTower, and Ridiculous Fishing. A reader would then be able to make their own decision about what game or games they'd like to read about instead of being funneled into a single article. As for your other inquiry, having WP:REDLINKs indicate where an article should be created. A redlink tells someone "this article should be created!" and perhaps they'll take the suggestion and do just that (there's more detail on this phenomenon at WP:REDLINK and it's a reason for deleting redirects). I hope that helps! -- Tavix (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, he has worked on more games than just that so it'd be incorrect to redirect to an arbitrary game. Should be deleted unless notable enough for an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation (oxymoronic no?), by way of intentionally redlinking the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:09, 6 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.

Obama bin laden[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 keep. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 4#Obama Bin Laden was less than a month ago, and that discussion was well participated. There's little point in rehashing that discussion so soon, and it seems others agree with me. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nof a redirect from a misspelling, it is an insinuation that President Obama is a terrorist. I see no value to the reader or the project here. Obviously Osama bin Ladan never used this as an alternative name. It could also be read as an XY situation where it could refer to either person equally. Delete it. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it has been both kept and, I understand, deleted before. I don't think these are helpful, a view shared by a number of other editors at the linked RfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with other redirects "Obama Bin Laden" and "Obama bin Laden", please feel free to add them to this discussion. Instructions on doing the multi-nom thing are at WP:RFD#HOWTO. --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Legacypac, just in case. BTW, I share your concerns as well, but we must be consistent, i.e. either "keep all" or "delete all". Also, nominating one of the serial redirects after nine days of closure seems too soon. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although the nomination is not without merit, I really don't see the point of rehashing a discussion a week after it was closed. – Uanfala 20:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree the 3 redirects should be nominated together. I'm not near a computer and very hard for me to add the other two on my phone. I would not have closed that last discussion as keep but rather no consensus. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. "Keep" result at RfD less than 6 months ago. Deletion review is thataway if someone disagrees with the closure. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 30 June 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.

Noorwegen[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 Norwegia → Norway, retarget Norwegen & Noorwegen → Norwegian, delete the other three.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:FORRED as there is no strong affinity I have found between Norway and respectively Dutch, Spanish, French (accented and R without diacritics), German and Polish/Indonesian. Germany did occupy Norway during WWII but I don't think that makes it sufficiently likely that people will be using the German name to look up information about Norway in English. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would at least retarget Noorwegen, Norwegen to Norwegian as plausible phonetic spellings and keep Norwegia pointing to Norway as an {{R from error}} since it's pretty common to just drop "n"s from get a country/region (e.g. Asian => Asia, Korean => Korea, Russian => Russia, etc.). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that Norwegen->Norwegian and Norwegia->Norway should be kept as plausible mistakes, and I would delete the rest. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that 'Norwegen' and 'Noorwegen' going to 'Norwegian' are plausible phonetic mistakes and we should keep those, while I've no opinion on the others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:57, 19 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.

Norðmanna[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. There is little desire to keep the redirects as they are and a set of retargets cannot be agreed upon. Deryck C. 13:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least these two redirects should point to the same place (they were created as-is about a minute apart by user:OnWikiNo in December), but I'm not convinced that either of the current targets are correct. From what I can work out, "Norðmanna" is Old English for "Norsemen" or loosely "Norwegian people", and modern Icelandic for "Norwegian" in much the same range of meanings and contexts as the English word is (Norwegian is a dab page). "Northmanna" seems to only be used as a transliteration of "Norðmanna" when ð is not available, Nordmanna (another plausible transliteration) has never existed. There are obviously a lot of ties between Iceland and Norway so I'm not certain that WP:FORRED applies. If kept (and I'm presently neutral about whether they are useful), I think that the disambiguation page at Norwegian is possibly the best target. I'll alert the Norwegian and Icelandic wikiprojects to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, because they are not in English. The first cannot be typed in English. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:33, 29 June 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.

Ancient human[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. There is agreement that no one article is the most suitable target (although there are stronger arguments against Ancient history), and creating a disambiguation page is the lowest common denominator of the opinions expressed. The particular form of the disambiguation page is not tied to the result of the discussion, I've tentatively created one at Ancient humans. I haven't included all of Thryduulf's suggestions, but editors are welcome to do so. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 09:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects from Ancient to archaic seem problematic. Ancient doesn't usually refer to the early species and subspecies of what would later be modern humans, but the early recorded history of modern humans. I think a retarget would be appropriate here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete X1 as Neelix redirects that are improbable. If someone finds them useful they can recreate them as needed. Ancient is a term very dependent on context and prospective. I seem Ancient to my kids some days. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as the current target is equally plausible to the nominator's suggestions, Early modern humans, List of human evolution fossils (where prehistoric hominin redirects), Prehistory (where Prehistoric people redirects) and probably others - Ancient people (which should also point to this dab) currently gives some useful search results for listing too. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest possible retarget to Ancient history as I agree the pre-prehistoric target makes less sense. Seyasirt (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig or retarget to Human evolution. Ancient is an ambiguous term, but in context ancient humans is a common way to refer to our fossil ancestors and is a reasonable search term [1][2][3][4]. I doubt people are going to be looking for ancient humans as presumably most are aware that classical era people were physically no different to you and I. However, archaic humans is an inappropriate target because it has a specific meaning in palaeoanthropology (later species of the genus Homo). We should retarget to a more general article (I'd suggest human evolution) or, if one can't be agreed upon, disambig. – Joe (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as noted by Joe above this is a common way to refer to human ancestors, and a search for "ancient human" in Google returns almost exclusively results about human ancestors or prehistoric humans, rather than humans who lived in the period covered by the Ancient world article. I do also think it's a plausible search term. There are several possible targets for this usage so a disambig page makes the most sense. Hut 8.5 21:21, 11 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.

Charles Edward Wilson (businesssman)[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) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term "businesssman" is misspelled with extra "s". The correct spelling currently exists as target article. Mitchumch (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlikely misspelling. PCN02WPS 20:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely typo. Someone typing in that entire name will get the right dab before finishing the word business AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 29 June 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.

Richard (football)[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) 14:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything out there or in recent versions of Street football about this supposed variation. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • For most of its history the target contained a lengthy section with descriptions of various street football games, Richard being one of them [5]. It was removed in 2013 by Longwayround [6], who doesn't appear to be active anymore. – Uanfala 11:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are several notable variants supported by RS, the point of street football is that people make up their own rules. [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this is verifiable. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks Clarityfiend for inviting me. I wrote the original description of richard. It's a street game in Uruguay, so it's nearly impossible to find proper sources in internet. The closest is this twit by a football news website, asking people how they pronounce the word. Since all descriptions of variants have been deleted a long time ago, there's not much left to do. Perhaps some day I'll do a video interview to some kids. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:37, 1 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.

Lambda coefficient[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 Lambda (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda (coefficient) means so much more to statistics than this. If anything this phrase should go directly to Lambda. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 04:16, 29 June 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.

Enterprise Village[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 11#Enterprise Village

Finance Park[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 11#Finance Park

Belief-oriented[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Belief-oriented

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_29&oldid=1136082927"