Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 24[edit]

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

Tschad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 3#Tschad

Marilou Danley[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 pending the result of the RfC. Ms. Danley is not currently mentioned in the article, and my preliminary assessment of the RfC does not seem like there will be consensus to mention her. However, if consensus does emerge to mention her, this redirect may be recreated at that time. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E - only notable for association with Vegas shooter, and doesn't appear to have been involved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep known as the girlfriend of the shooter and there's a Personal life section that devotes more than just a sentence on her situation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angus' reasons above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Danley is not mentioned by name in the Stephen Paddock landing page. It makes no sense to redirect her name to somewhere it does not appear. WWGB (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there's an editors' effort to keep her name out of the article, despite that the news article references name her explicitly in their headlines and have the name and picture of her plastered on the article; this being Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, and The Guardian. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC) updated 00:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as for reasons made clear by WWGB. Danley has not been charged with being involved with the murders committed by Paddock. Is it acceptable forever onwards for Wikipedia to link her to him? What about our obligations to her under WP:BLP? The page on Paddock is intentionally NOT naming her for those very same reasons (see its Talk page), so we should delete this Redirect. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is, in fact, mentioned by name in target and describe in detail, I don't see what is problematic with this redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a thread on the talk page for Paddock where they are debating why her name should be omitted or added to the article. I tried to place her name on it, but it might be removed for that argument. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thread has now turned into an RFC. Please visit the article and discuss, with the results may help decide whether the redirect should stay or go. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link: Talk:Stephen Paddock#RfC: should girlfriends name be stated. --Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pending the outcome of the RfC. As long as her name is not in the article, it is not needed as a redirect. There's nothing to stop it being recreated later. Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Entirely uninvolved in the incident as far as we know so far, and her name is only mentioned because of what Paddock committed. BLP still exists and must be taken seriously.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but depend on the outcome of the RfC. The argument in the nomination is completely invalid, since no one is arguing that Danley herself is notable (i.e., should have her own article). Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending RfC outcome per BDD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:07, 27 October 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.

OAG[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 Wrong forum/page moved. Though this request is actually a move request (move page over redirect), I would have accepted this move request as uncontroversial if it was posted on WP:RMTR. Thus, I am performing this move as proposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If OAG has a primary topic such as OAG (Air Travel Intelligence) then we should retarget OAG. Otherwise, OAG (disambiguation) is a Malplaced disambiguation page and should move to OAG. Which is better? (This is not a deletion proposal.) Certes (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to OAG. No clear primary topic and as such the page is now a malplaced dab. Side note:Also, I'm not sure if any of the individuals listed on the page have ever been recognizably known by their initials (as were former US presidents JFK and LBJ) and should be removed. Loopy30 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to OAG. When there's no main article (and there isn't), the disambiguation title should be without the (disambiguation). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:04, 24 October 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.

史蒂芬·里德[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 3#史蒂芬·里德

普拉瓦特・纳格瓦佳拉[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 21:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:da8:201:3516:c9f:2db5:5ed0:3d29 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no affinity with the Chinese language. feminist 16:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be an athlete not specifically tied to work in areas where he would use a Chinese name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He isn't Chinese and no strong affinity with Chinese language to warrant this redirect. Ammarpad (talk) 11:30, 28 October 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.

拉加普特纳步枪联队[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) 17:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:da8:201:3516:c9f:2db5:5ed0:3d29 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, other than the Boxer Rebellion, this group wasn't extensively involved in operations that involve going under a Chinese name. It also was not specified by name in the Boxer Rebellion article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 24 October 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.

高德納[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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:da8:201:3516:c9f:2db5:5ed0:3d29 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep. Bogus argument by the nominator. This is Donald E. Knuth's adopted Chinese name (as is discussed at length in the article and in many other places). It is a perfectly valid redirect per our criteria for redirects outlined at WP:RPURPOSE in general, but also in particular in this case, as Knuth can be seen as one of the innovators of computer typesetting only making it possible to create software properly handling non-Latin scripts.
I consider such purposeless nominations a waste of the time and energy of contributing editors. Very annoying.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:07, 24 October 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.

Catalan passport[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 21:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains no information on the subject. Scolaire (talk) 10:51, 24 October 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.

Annie clark[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 Anne Clark. Pointless waste of time that could have been done boldly. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Clark points to a different target. feminist 08:47, 24 October 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.

Orders, decorations, and medals[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 List of prizes, medals and awards. A single mainspace target has been found, alleviating XY and XNR concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on order (honour), and an article on medals. Originally, this article was created after a user moved Decorations and medals of the Netherlands to this title and back.

This redirect title covers three topics and is unnecessary. It now redirects to the order (honour) article but there are two other topics that do not follow under that article. Re5x (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:44, 24 October 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.

PlaneMate[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 Mobile lounge because I do not find consensus to delete at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, plane mate points to Mobile lounge, but I see no evidence that it is spelled this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have an easily citable reference, but I remember that the "elevated boarding buses" at Dulles were called "Plane Mates" (at least in early promotional material). A Google Image search for "plane mate" shows almost only these buses. I will say keep, but I don't know what the precedure on Wikipedia is, i.e., where a citation for this can even be inserted.–Jérôme (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Plane Mate Plane mate exists, and Plane-Mate could be created. I don't see any use of the camelcase version except as a coding example for something completely different.. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:44, 24 October 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.

Conifur[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) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this is supposed to refer to Conifur Northwest, which is already mentioned in the target, or a different con entirely, but if it refers to a different con, it's not mentioned in the target. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirs are cheap, and it is linked from the appropriate wikiproject, so it's not a complete orphan. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 24 October 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.

Tylor Perry[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) 21:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created with a claim to it being a common misspelling, but I am not finding evidence if it being a widely used misspelling in the least. Also, third party search engines connect the redirect with subjects not related to the target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tyler doesn't get typoed into Tylor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - until such time that it otherwise prevents the common name of a notable subject from being published. Both names, Tylor and Tyler, are "English-derived occupational names derived from Tiler", and therefor: etymologically plausible search terms for such a name. While it is not necessarily "common", (misspoken in my edit summary), it is neither obsolete, (based on actual use). A cost analysis of the redirect favors its use; even for such small gains in accessibility.--John Cline (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Third-party sources do not reference this typo. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Cline. This isn't a typo—it's a phonetic misspelling, and I believe it to be a plausible one at that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Cline. Assuming there are no notable "Tylor Perry"s, then this is fine as a phonetic misspelling. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked editors from WikiProject Redirect to consider this relisted discussion;[1] for all the good they may bring. Please keep the discussion open for the duration of this phase to allow those entreated the fullest opportunity to reply. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to all for indulging my request. Enough time has been allowed to accommodate nearly all constraints affecting allocations of one's available time. No harm or foul will be called when this phase is hereafter closed. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm with John Cline. Easy to misspell the name of Tyler Perry, who is an A-list celebrity. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:47, 26 October 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.

Soulero[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 because this is the only option that hasn't been objected to. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target; the artist this is referring to has been pointed out as an obscure DJ with no other hint of notability per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: Seems AngusWOOF decided to be bold and create the dab in advance. Does anyone wish to weigh in on this option? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 October 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.

Michael D'Orazio[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) 21:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect and search term, the nature of which appears to be that it's a character the target played in one of his seventy-six screen roles (and in a box office bomb to boot). Created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating redirects due to him creating many *hundreds* of them to bump up his new page creation count. Ravenswing 12:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Redline (2007 film), where D'Orazio is one of the main characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:XY. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Redline (2007 film) per AngusWOOF. A redirect in the opposite direction (from an actor to one film they starred in or one character they played) would be XY, but the Michael D'Orazio character has only appeared in one film as far as I can tell so there is no ambiguity. There are no other notable people with the name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, is being captain of the Edinburgh Capitals and being part of the gold medal winning team Ice hockey at the 2013 Winter Universiade good enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY? Perhaps he can redirect to Edinburgh Capitals? But for now that's two dabs: one for the film character and one for the hockey captain. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC) updated 21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really tried to understand WP:NHOCKEY as it's always seemed to be a moving target to me. I prefer to use GNG for ice hockey players: if you can find non-routine significant coverage in reliable sources, then yes, there should be an article on him. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 3 November 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.

Red Dead 2[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) 21:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to Red Dead Redemption 2. (The current target has been considered the sequel to Red Dead Revolver.) So, retarget to Red Dead as ambiguous so readers can figure out which article they are looking for, or weak delete. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too ambiguous, search function works fine.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target is the second game in the Red Dead series. -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the lead paragraph says it is the second title in the Red Dead series, so this is a useful redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @AngusWOOF: That very well is true, but I seen the "Redemption" part of the series referred to simply as "Red Dead", probably due to not making another "Revolver" title. (Prior to Red Dead Redemption 2 being announced, I would have completely agreed with your "keep" stance.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article mentions Redemption as the second in the series following Revolver. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947( c ) (m) 05:35, 24 October 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_October_24&oldid=1088106038"