Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1
May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2017.

Waking the Tiger[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 procedural close. This is no longer a redirect so is outside the scope of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned in linked article. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to provide decent sources and restore the book article.--Jondel (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jondel: if you have the sources available now, then think speedily restoring the article to allow that would be fine. If you don't then moving the content to your userspace until you do (if the outcome of this discussion is that the redirect should be deleted) is probably the best bet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 source found and will speedily restore. Other sources to follow. My apologies in advance for possible repercussions and issues that may occur.--Jondel (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • update:still creating the fixes with sources on my PC.--Jondel (talk) 15:21, 3 May 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.

Marjorie Garman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Marjorie Garman

Pro-marriage movement[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 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closer didn't explicitly bar a redirect, but the rd creator was the only one at the AFD for this article advocating for one, and a number of !voters explicitly opposed it. Besides being non-neutral, it's also unclear; is the pro-marriage movement the one trying to legalize marriage, or the one trying to ban it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the reliable sources linked at the previous AfD (New York Times, Salon, Business Insider): "the young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage... identify themselves as part of the pro-marriage movement" or "gay marriage opponents ... members of the pro-marriage movement". There is no doubt that these sources identify the term with opposition to same-sex marriage. Therefore, the term qualifies for a redirect under WP:RNEUTRAL as a navigational help allowing readers to find neutral content about it.
Regarding the result of the AfD, it's worth noting that the comments that opposed creating the redirect (one of them, the editor who started this nomination) both stated their opinion before I made a policy-based argument, and didn't comment further after that. The arguments for this deletion seem weak under the light of the RNEUTRAL guideline, which recommends having this kind of redirects. Diego (talk) 21:51, 2 May 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.

Super joy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Super joy

Cavaliers-Warriors rivalry[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) 15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to delete, as it fails WP:RPURPOSE, since there are no specifics that define this rivalry in the redirect target section. Rivalry is an overused term in sports, and this is WP:OR to imply that one exists merely because of recentism that they have faced each other. Multiple reliable sources currently do not support a notable rivalry existing, other than mostly trivial usage of the term rivalry. If a rivalry truly existed, it's not neutral to redirect to one of the participants over the other. A standalone article would presumably be created. Alternatively, WP:RFD#DELETE would apply; namely No. 1: "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine", preventing the reader the choice of going to History of the Golden State Warriors or History of the Cleveland Cavaliers (or other articles). —Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at WT:MILHIST, referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm the fool, or maybe not. I had assumed this was a mistake for the Cavaliers and Roundheads, but that's my British bias, a schoolboy error like 1066 And All That. Apparently WP:BASKETBALL would be the better forum to ask. Still, maybe not very WP:WORLDWIDE then, the "rivalry". Let me close some tabs and I will check and do some WP:BEFORE. Si Trew (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#RfD_notice_for_rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD#D2 confusing, "rival" nor "rivalry" is at target. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, neither rival nor rivalry is mentioned at the target section. Frankly, use of either would be a combo of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE too.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer It seem to have been overlooked during the relisting that WP:RFD#D2 refers to "Reason for deleting" item No. 2: "The redirect might cause confusion." This is a !vote for "delete".—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if there needs to be an article about the rivalry, it can be generated. There was one but it got redirected. It shouldn't direct to one side or the other. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. This was tagged as unreferenced and with notability concerns, but unilaterally redirected less than 2 days later. Redirecting to one or the other side, particularly when there isn't any particularly content about it on either article, is wrong and there is other obvious target. RfD must not be used to delete an article without proper discussion as this is not a suitable venue to determine questions of notability, original research or other article content. The nominator here is acting in good faith, but this is not always the case so we need to be strict about the proper venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: The redirect has remained for over 2 months; it was a standalone article for a mere 2 days. This is not the case of a long-standing article that was recently changed to a redirect that is now being nominated for an RfD.—Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, which is why I mentioned the good faith, but it doesn't alter my opinion - this should either be an article or nothing. We effectiely have a draft article so we should revert to that, without prejudice to anyone taking it to AfD if they want. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK so title will show red at List of National Basketball Association rivalries#Interconference rivalries. Perhaps then, a better article than before may be written.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:16, 2 May 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.

Ready Player One (2016 film)[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) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not released in 2016. Scheduled for release in 2018. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:15, 2 May 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.

Staten Island route[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Staten Island route

Menv[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 23#Menv

5399E694-6CE5-4D6C-8FCE-1D8870FDCBA0[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 13#5399E694-6CE5-4D6C-8FCE-1D8870FDCBA0

Majesco Entertainment games[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 Marker Man Adventures to Majesco Entertainment#Gameography; Delete the other two. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:NOTCATALOG. Lordtobi (✉) 07:10, 2 May 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.

/Night in the Woods[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 delete. Agree with nomination rationale. Apologies if I've coded this incorrectly, not my area of specialization. Pete "actually has no area of specialization at all" AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that anyone would search for this with the extra slash. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It was created at this title but immediately corrected. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I tagged the page with {{Db-r3}} to be deleted as a typo. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:58, 2 May 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.
  • @Dream out loud: this redirect was not eligible for R3 speedy deletion as it was not recently created (it was the result of a page move in 2015). Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dream out loud: with not typos this time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it was Shirt58 that deleted it, so it'd be best to take it up with them. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Talk to me about this if you think I've done something wrong. While Wikipedia:Process is important and / is close to ↵ Enter, I don't think we would keep typos like "/Sydney Opera House", "/Super Bowl" or "/Carl Linnaeus". /Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Shirt58 and Dream out loud: (nomination and deletion are both relevant) you are correct that we don't normally keep typos like this, but criterion R3 explicitly only applies to redirects that have been recently created and the letter of speedy deletion criteria is important. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shirt58 and Thryduulf: I concur that WP:R3 doesn't apply, but I wonder if WP:G6 (obviously created in error) applies here? The page history clearly shows that Fiddlecub wrote an article at the wrong title and then moved it to the current title within the same day. Deryck C. 22:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is correct then G6 almost certainly applies, unless there is some other indication it was not an error (or if there was some other reason to keep, e.g. large page views). I haven't checked whether any of this does apply in this case though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with whatever outcome happens about this. Pete "Tasmania not a fictional place" {{citation needed}} AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Games created by Ketchapp[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. There is consensus that some should be kept and some should be deleted, but no real consensus about which ones in either case. So for the sake of simplicity I'm going to close this as no consensus to delete any of them, which leaves the way open for individual or smaller nominations if anyone wants. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target holds zero or little information on the subject. Wikipedia is not a catalogue. Lordtobi (✉) 10:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are too sweet. It holds very little information on the subject. It holds some. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Delete all. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: ZigZag (2015 Video Game) can also go, along with 2 Cars (game). Unnecessary disambiguation. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talking unnecessary disambiguations, all ZigZag-related redirects should be deleted and traded in for ZigZag (video game), which doesn't even exist [yet]. Also, none of the redirects for Don't Touch the Spikes would--if it was an article--comply with Wikipedia's capitalization guidelines, which would be Don't Touch the Spikes, but that also does not exist [yet]. Regardless, the target article includes no information at all on 2 Cars, Amazing Brick or Amazing Ninja, just a mention on Don't Touch the Spikes, and a few mentions on ZigZag, which is likely their most notable (if you can call that notable) game. None of the games are actually notable. Lordtobi (✉) 10:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with ZigZag (mobile game) being renamed to ZigZag (video game), but deletion is unnecessary. Redirects are made when they're plausible search terms but non-notable. Here are some sources for 2 Cars, obviously not enough to make an article, but as indication that people might want to search for it: [1] [2]. Press release for Amazing Brick. Here are two for Amazing Ninja [3] [4]. Even if they're not capitalised correctly, they can still exist with the {{r from other caps}} tag. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the above sources, only Kotaku is reliable + notable. Through the WP:VG-custom search engine, we find only one hit (the Kotaku one) for 2 Cars, 0 hits for Amazing Ninja, and one hit for Amazing Brick (in great detail, though!). Redirects might be cheap, but they should not be misleading. The guideline is meant to make keeping redirects to the same topic to avoid possible duplicate pages (e.g. "ZigZag (mobile game)" pointing to "ZigZag (video game)", to not have them co-exist as two articles with same-y content. The guideline, however, does not express keeping misleading redirects. Users searching for e.g. "2 Cars" would want to find out about gameplay, development, [plot ,] and reception of said game, and not be redirected to a page where they would not find out anything about the game, but rather about its publisher. And out of the 109 apps (I checked it) published by Ketchapp for iOS, why would have especially those four handeled in multiple redirects? We have no reason in keeping them. Lordtobi (✉) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's the thing. We make redirects when it is a plausible search term, and as it is a product made by Ketchapp, redirecting it to Ketchapp would be a smart idea. They are redirects because they're not notable, if they were notable, they'd have an article. Many articles of small indie games and so on start out as redirects and are fleshed out as time goes on. Also, at AfD, when something is non-notable, one of the alternatives to deletion is to redirect it, for example, here are two AfDs that have recently been closed as "merge and redirect" and "redirect". Here's a couple more: 1, 2. I understand that those final examples may tread into the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm using them as examples to show that non-notable products are typically redirected to a related article, such as the developer, and your argument of " And out of the 109 apps (I checked it) published by Ketchapp for iOS, why would have especially those four handeled in multiple redirects?" goes into the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. I'm going to stick by my !vote for these reasons. We'll have to wait and see what others think. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was extremely well reasoned and I see your point. Mine are these:
  • Software companies come and go every day. Believe me, I work for them
  • If they are not notable in themselves the redirects are also not notable
  • I think that things must stand on their WP:OWNFEET, but that is just my personal opinion
  • At the best, we have to get people to where the might want to go. Having seventeen hundred redirects to the same article does not help but hinder that search.
knock in as Si Trew (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per Anarchyte. Unless there is risk of confusion with other games, these take readers to a relevant page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Taken the tarket to WP:PROD. I wish them luck but this is a non notable small company. We don't do that. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I've de-prodded the article as I believe they're notable, but feel free to take it to AfD if you believe it'd be deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep selectively only the ones discussed in the article.
    • Delete ZigZag (2015 Video Game) as that capitalization is never a good dab.
    • Keep Don't Touch The Spikes as the capital stylization for the game and its variants. Dont would be an {{R from typo}}.
    • Delete 2 Cars, Amazing Brick, Amazing Ninja as those games are neither discussed nor notable. 2 Cars (game) sounds more like Chicken (game)
    • Delete Games created by Ketchapp per WP:NOTCATALOG
    • When some of their other games get writeups and attract notability they could be reconsidered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @AngusWOOF: Uhm, what about "ZigZag (2015 video game)", a double-dab for another redirect that could--but does not--exist (ZigZag (video game)). I'd suggest the former one to be deleted for the latter one to be created, as it would fit your reasoning, but what do you think?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: crossing my fingers we can prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Zig Zag (video game) from 1984, so perhaps a hatnote could be devised to point to the 2015 version? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 6 May 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.

Peck Building[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. Having been relisted once with no additional input, I'm closing this as keep with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target only includes one sentence on the building, making the redirect unnotable. Lordtobi (✉) 09:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well grab these all together in a lump. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone searching for the building will find information on it at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 2 May 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.

Ubisoft Italy[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) 02:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, "Ubisoft Italy" is the marketing office located in Buccinasco, not the development studio in Milan. Lordtobi (✉) 09:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 2 May 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.

Ubiquitous 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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect title term does not exist. The page itself was created as an unreferenced hoax article by an IP user, mocking ubiquitous computing (which it now redirects to), and was linked to by the same user on Bill Grisworld, which was reverted shortly after. Lordtobi (✉) 08:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Righty ho I will follow this up, @Lordtobi:. The thing really is to take the article first, to WP:PROD, then the redirects will fall out afterwards. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 2 May 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.

Onyx Engine[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 Obsidian Entertainment. Because the nomination is due to a lack of information on the subject, retargeting somewhere that does have information should resolve this concern. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target holds no information on the given subject. Lordtobi (✉) 08:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is downright misleading. Strong delete. Just because they presumably use the "Onyx" engine, does not mean they own it. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that "Ubiquitous Software" is blue, and redirects to Ubiquitous computing. I have little else to say about how "Unisoft" got its name... Thanks for finding them. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the noticing, I listed Ubiquitous Software at RfD (above) and hung UniSoft into CSD. Lordtobi (✉) 08:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Obsidian Entertainment, the developers of Onyx Engine. PriceDL (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 2 May 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.

1 E 4 m2[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. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) yeah, anyone is gone search or type in this form. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know others have other opinons, that is how we get consensus. My opinion is by deleting some redirects we can actually improve the quality. I know I am in a minority on this. To have the User:Neelix ones, they were kinda taken and tossed aside 'without RS under a WP:X1 concession. We agreed by consensus that we did not need that concession for these, which are ten times more than Neelix'. I imagine I will be painted black again. If I toss them RfD's way, have you not thought that I have gone through thousands ands said that is all right, keep, that is OK, that is a bit iffy. I am just kinda dealing from the pack and you have to lay your odds. I keep most of them. Si Trew (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to hectare - follows logically enough from 1 E4 although it has an extra, odd space. 104 m2 is a hectare, so let's take the few users who use this (see stats) to the topic they're looking for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment problem is that 1e4 m2 and some of the other notations also redirect to Orders of Magnitude I'd tend towards delete though because of all the spaces between 1 e and 4, but some may find 1 e 4 useful to search rather than 1e4?? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per AngusWOOF since there are over 200 similar redirects to Orders of magnitude (area), and a wider discussion is necessary to see what we need to do with them. Retargeting just this redirect doesn't make any sense to me. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good point. I change my recommendation to Keep pending a broader discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 22 May 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.

Agueero[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. This redirects to a Surname page for spanish surnames. Patently "Agueero" is not a Spanish surname. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gets use as a surname in results on the second half of the first page of Google Books results. [5] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is Spanish, where the u → ue rule does not apply. Less than one hit per month over the past year, so this isn't being used. -- Tavix (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. The 9 hits last year is 2-3 times the noise level seen on the really unsused eubot redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We ought not to compound other publishers' mistakes. Deryck C. 13:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:37, 2 May 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.

Ernoe von Dohnanyi[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 I see consensus to delete. I'm sympathetic to Patar knight's argument though, so I'm creating Ernoe Dohnanyi which should be a bit more plausible than this one. -- Tavix (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) do you want me to add a redirect for Ernie the Smoker or shall we cut this one. WP:RFD#D5 delete, nonsense. Hungarian by way of German. Nonsense. (Dohany in bodern Hungarian means to smoke, A Dóhanybolt is a tobacconist). Ridiculous bot translation. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add explanation. The "i" at the end of it means roughly "of". In old Hungarian names you can keep the "y" and "i" just means "of", a dative tense, roughly. So far so good. "von" is also very occasionally used in surnames, but not in this, that is simply a mistake, because "von" also means the same as the "i" at the end". Trebled together with the misspelling of Ernoe, I think this is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has this been created by a bot programmed to look for anything that looks vaguely like an umlaut and make a redirect as if it's a German name, however implausible? The "von" makes more sense, by the way. Even if it is tautological with the final "i", "Ernst von Dohnányi" is the form of name the composer himself used. Many sources list him under this form, though the Wikipedia language police have an irritating habit of "correcting" forms of names they don't approve of. --Deskford (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence that this spelling is used in English language sources (I did find one use in Italian, but that's not relevant to en.wp for an article about someone born in Austria-Hungary who is described as Hungarian but most commonly used a Germanic form of his name). Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a combination of a transliteration of his Hungarian name which does get use ([9], [10], [11]), and a diacritic-less German surname. The only source I could find that uses the full name is the Getty Images link, which lists him as Dohnanyi, Ernst (Ernoe) von, but many sources do use "Ernoe Dohnanyi". Since he did use the "von" in his name, adding it should be okay. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:37, 2 May 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 election, 2020[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. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This election has now been moved forward to 2017. Philip Stevens (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stay for now. I give reasons
    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was introduced by the government of te day to have, er, fixed term parliaments, so people could not call a Snap Election
    The date of the UK General Election has been given, but we have little information about the 2017 election except the date, and waffle from politicians. No RS, in other words
    This is premature to delete these Rs for the reasons stated. I am sure people WILL update the information at the target on why there was or was not an election in 2020. WP:NOTNEWS, perhaps
    For now, Stay. Wait a day or two. Si Trew (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not sure I fully understand your point. The House of Commons has passed the early election motion and Parliament will be dissolved on 3 May. The page for the election (and target for these redirects) has now been moved from "Next United Kingdom general election" to "United Kingdom general election, 2017". To keep links saying "2020" when the election will take place in 2017 might cause confusion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and nom's comment above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget first three to Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#2017_general_election Until a 2020 election is called, the only relevance of that hypothetical election is to the first time since the passing of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, that an election mandated by it did not occur. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those that mention 2020, because (unless an early election is again called under Section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011) there won't be a 2020 general election, since Section 1 of the same Act provides that the parliament that is to be elected on 8 June 2017 will serve until "the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell", which is to say, 5 May 2022. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with redirect to Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. That there probably will not be an election in 2020 does not extinguish the fact that for six years the 2020 election was something real and solid created by the act. A precedent for Wikipedia would be things like the 1940 Olympics, events that were scheduled to happen but didn't. A sentence can be written at Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 that according to the act, an election should have been held in 2020.--KTo288 (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reedited to include reasoning--KTo288 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least the first three. Since the introduction of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act there has been expected to be a General Election in 2020. As such there are countless references to such in reliable sources, and the lead of the target article explains this. People will continue to search for this, and there is presently no better target to take them to (General Elections in the United Kingdom stops at 2010 for reason). Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RDEL#D10. I'm an American, so I am not sure, but won't you still have the regularly scheduled 2020 general election as usual?--— Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 21:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Guye: No, because the upcoming election in June 2017 resets the clock, so that if there are no further early elections, the sequence will be: May 2022; May 2027; May 2032; May 2037; etc. See also my comment of 19:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I change my !vote to Neutral. I'm getting mixed messages, and I am still concerned about the WP:R#ASTONISH factor.— Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 23:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target explains why the 2020 election is now in 2017, so this is helpful for someone who is confused or perhaps came across a source from before the election date was changed. I can see the reason for deletion if there is to be an election in 2020, but that's not the case (unless another snap election is called in 2020, but that's probably not something to assume). -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 13 May 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_May_2&oldid=1143743538"