Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2017.

Hinnoey[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 to delete. bd2412 T 15:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(eubot, list 11) Hmmm. Norwegian community. I think this is too far out with the "oey" at the end. Weak Delete. Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is used e.g. [1]. It's actually most commonly used with reference to a ship of the Norwegian Navy, but (a) we don't have an article on that currently, and (b) if we did a hatnote would most likely be better. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation for the ship. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: @Thryduulf:, @Tavix: The ship is actually called "Hinnøy" but the Norwegian article has it under no:KNM «Hinnøy», with KNM corresponding to the English "HNoMS", as in (for example) HNoMS Norge. English wikipedia practice seems to suggest that the ship should be located at HNoMS Hinnøy. Hinnøy currently redirects to the island as an alternative name. Hinnoey should be trated the same as Hinnøy. In other words, if Hinnøy remains a redirect to the island, so should Hinnoey. It could also be turned into a disambiguation page (for 1. island, 2. ship, whenever that article gets created). In neither case do I see deletion as necessary. --Hegvald (talk) 20:11, 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.

Motorvaeg[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) 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot, list 11) Well they are not called "Motorvaeg" but "motorväg". WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I wouldn't mind it for the back-formation of Germanic umlaut, but this is just clutter. Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like various Germanic languages' words for motorway, sounds like none.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Harmless and possibly helpful. I don't understand the comment by Mr Guye above. It looks exactly like on of two possible renderings of the Swedish motorväg by someone with no access to a Swedish keyboard. The other one is motorvag, which redirects to the same place, as it should. The type of word a foreign tourist may see somewhere and want to search for. --Hegvald (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Motorväg and Motorvag. This is a standard transliteration of Swedish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a word, not a likely misspelling. ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 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) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not see how this is an issue. As long as we have motorväg, which is the correct Swedish spelling, forms without diacritics should redirect to the same target (i.e. List of motorways in Sweden), and motorväg has not been nominated for deletion. Unlike what Mr Guye claims (if I understand him correctly), this is not likely be confused with the word for motorway in any other related language, as they all appear to be sufficiently dissimilar. --Hegvald (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closest form appears to be Nynorsk (Norwegian) motorveg, which is quite similar to the redirect's title. – Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hegvald. If there is risk of confusion, hatnotes, not deletion could be used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:29, 4 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.

Main Page Test[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) 19:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target, Wikipedia:Main Page/test is no-longer used, and is marked as historical. There doesn't need to be a mainspace redirect to this. Olidog (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Useless WP:CNR.--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over 7,000 hits in the 30 days prior to this nomination shows that this is a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 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) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target page (formerly at Main Page/test) was marked historical in 2006, and the redirect was created in 2013. The page views started in 2012; is it likely that people started looking for a test page, using a title it never had and didn't exist at the time, six years after it was marked as historical? Peter James (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless it is something else they are looking for, then the evidence says that they did start then - however unlikely that may seem. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CNR. This isn't suitable for the encyclopedia space. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This doesn't seem appropriate to me either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:50, 20 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.

Senats[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) 16:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot list 11 about 1500) WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Not interested in hits, people might want to find Senates. Si Trew (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hits are about two a month. This has come by way of Senäts, which is tagged as {{R from alternative language}}. But that's not at the target either. Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking of Senate too, but thought that might be too broad, thus threw it out for discussion. Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only uses I'm finding are in German, so per WP:FORRED this should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 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) 19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete Senäts. Supposedly the upper house of the legislature of the micronation (per Patar knight) but the micronation is apparently dissolved, and we have no information on its government structure. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Can (possibly) refer to one of the (non-notable?) typefaces listed at Genzsch & Heyse, A.G., or be either the plural of Senat or a misspelling for Senates. – Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 9 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.

Guei Lun-mei[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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed redirect as it redirects to a page of the exact spelling -barrelroll.dev (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind, I See the diffrent spelling and I am sorry for any problems I may have caused.-barrelroll.dev (talk) 18:47, 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.

Buzios game[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 to delete. bd2412 T 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(eubot list 11 at 1362) we haven't Búzios game from which this was created, or rather we do but there is no mention of either at the target. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, I should say. Presumably it was there at some point in its history but it isn't now. Probably Delete both then. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:DIACRITICS while Búzios game exists. If you don't think that should, nominate both for deletion at the same time (I don't have a opinion whether it should or not at the moment). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator expressed a desire to delete both redirects, so I have added the other one to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Búzios game redirects to Ifá; my understanding is that búzio is the Spanish for a sort of seashell often used to operate the oracle. Unless this has some other use that would support a disambiguation page... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both due to a lack of information at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-ish keep. Búzios game is hardly found in any sources, but this appears to be the English translation of Portuguese jogo de búzios, which is found in a lot of scholarly sources [2]. Given the association of Portuguese with the topic and the frequency of the phrase, it seems like a plausible search term. And one that gets used by readers, although the pageview stats for the two redirects for last year are 26 and 7 respectively, which isn't a particularly persuasive quantity. – Uanfala (talk) 10:42, 26 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.

America-Freedom to Fascism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#America-Freedom to Fascism

B+ decay[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 as the discussion seems to be moving in that direction. It's also the natural solution for this situation since there's two possible targets and neither have gained consensus. This is pretty far out of my area of expertise, so please look over the resulting dab and make sure it's okay. -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot list 11). This is just on the cusp. The article does have it in section 2.3, but it uses the greek letter beta throughout (including in section titles). Since this is obviously a very technical article we mighy be misleading people, but other than that it is probably fine. It is only the fact that the article itself never calls it "B+ decay" with Latin B that I hesitate on this one. Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The document you link to is about decays of B mesons not beta decays. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. B+ more closely resembles the symbol for a positively charged B meson. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to B meson#Rare decays with a hatnote since the rendering of this title apparently makes it incorrect, per Dukwon. Or retarget to the top of that article since the section is very short. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:44, 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) 17:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to B meson#Rare decays with a hatnote pointing to Beta_decay#.CE.B2.2B_decay_2 (the article's β+ decay section) per Ivanvector. I think this will solve the "misleading" issue. --Lenticel (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate. I feel that beta+ decay is more prominent but B+ meson decay is a closer title match. So I think either is fine but the reader is probably looking for the positron decay. Disambiguation might also work. Deryck C. 08:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to B meson#Rare decays for closer title match. Porphyro (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Positron emission, which is that Beta + decay is, and hatnote to B meson (the "Rare decays" is well, only for rare B meson decays). Positron emission is orders of magnitude more of a thing than B meson decay, and the inability of people to type the Greek beta compounds this issue. Would not be opposed to a DAB per Deryck Chan, but retargeting to positron emission is my first preference. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the two possible targets are Positron emission (which is more appropriate than Beta decay) and B meson (the top rather than the specific section on decay as that section covers all B mesons and readers shouldn't be landed there without the explanation (found at the start of the article) about what a B+ meson is). The choice between the uncommon name for a common phenomenon and the common name for an uncommon one, is difficult. Normally, the common name would take precedence (B+ properly refers to a kind of meson, not to a type of decay), per the reasoning in WP:SMALLDIFFS. But then B meson is neither specifically about B+ mesons, nor about their decay, and that tips the scales in the other direction. In this case, the two options are retargeting to Positron emission or disambiguating, and I think disambiguation is the more elegant solution as it spares us the awkward hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 16:38, 20 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.

IPG DET Technique[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 as R2. -- Tavix (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the article into draft space. ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this redirect can be speedily deleted under {{Db-r2}}. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:00, 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.

RISC-based computer design approach[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#RISC-based computer design approach

The truth of the ice[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be a legitimate title for the novel in English. The only hit I got was from a literal back-translation from the Italian "La verità del ghiaccio". I did get a few hits related to the Ice Bucket Challenge, which I found humorous. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I remember doing work regarding the foreign language editions of the novel, it was seven years ago, so I don't recall this redirect, nor my exact rationale; In any event, I was not familiar with all the policies/guidelines pertinent to redirects that might've called this one into question, so if the consensus is to remove it, I have no basis for an objection. Nightscream (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a very implausible search term, and not even a FORRED. Sideways713 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not used as a book title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would consider the literal translation as possibly a useful search term if Italian was the original language of the work or it had a very strong association with Italy, but this appears not to be the case. Indeed, I can't find any particular association between this book, originally written in English by an American author, and Italy or Italian. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not apparently of use (no hits). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:02, 5 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.

A Conspiração[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and obvious consensus after more than two weeks. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. This is an American novel that takes place in the United States and the Canadian Arctic, so the only relevant languages are English and maybe Inuit. -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I remember doing work regarding the foreign language editions of the novel, it was seven years ago, so I don't recall this redirect, nor my exact rationale; In any event, I was not familiar with all the policies/guidelines pertinent to redirects that might've called this one into question, such as WP:RFOREIGN, so if the consensus is to remove it, I have no objection. Nightscream (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per current consensus on this kind of thing + author doesn't object. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh... Author requesting deletion and author not objecting to a consensus of delete are not the same thing. (Similarly, I wouldn't object if this is G7'd, but I won't request or action it myself.) -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the batch per WP:RFOREIGN. We definitely do not want tens of millions redirects, for every possible foreign translation of every article title. Foreign language redirects should only exist where truly needed for some specific and significant purpose. Alsee (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In addition to the original language of the work and strong connection to the subject matter, I would consider appropriate a redirect from a language if there was significant controversy or other notable activity regarding the edition in that language or country (e.g. if the Spanish translation had caused mass protests in Uruguay then a redirect from the title of that edition would be appropriate) but there has been nothing of the sort (at least not mentioned in the article) so it is not relevant on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 4 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.

Avatar II: Returns of Pandora[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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this is to be the name of the sequel. -- Tavix (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources for such a working title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now due to lack of cites supporting its use--Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 9 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.

Dances with Aliens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 15#Dances with Aliens

Avatar 2 (2014 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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more faulty crystal ball redirects. According to the article, the Avatar sequel has been delayed to 2020, so these redirects will be at least three years off by the time it's released (barring no further set backs). -- Tavix (talk) 00:52, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_3&oldid=1138581929"