Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 5, 2018.

Emojicon[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not a term that is mentioned in the target article. Interqwark talk contribs 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I added a line for an event called Emojicon held in San Francisco in 2016. [1] [2] There seems to be another event in 2018 in New York City, but that hasn't generated news articles like the 2016 one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn’t know it was a convention. I thought it was just a typo. Interqwark talk contribs 04:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought was that this is an WP:XY typo, or conflation of Emoji and Emoticon. If we take it that way, search results look as good as anything. The convention is something to consider, though. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF: the term is mentioned in the article in reference to the convention. (If kept, this should probably be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} as the CNBC and Time sources seem to suggest notability.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:V11y[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. *shrug* --BDD (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See no relation between V11y and Verifiability B dash (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2018 (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.

BCash[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. Arguments for Keep are stronger, in particular A&H's note that the deleted "Bcash is a red herring" and the sourced usage at the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a duplicate of Bcash. Which is moreover being changed to an article to a software with that name, relevant to the topic, because it's an implementation of Bitcoin Cash client, and not the currency Bitcoin Cash itself Malkavian (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google shows that the primary topic for "BCash" with that capitalisation is Bitcoin Cash. Bcash is currently at AfD (and looking likely to be deleted), if it is kept then a "redirects here" hatnote can be added at the Bitcoin Cash article pointing to it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google ignores case sensitivity of terms and shows the same results for either form. You can easily find people using "Bcash" or "BCash" in relation to Bitcoin Cash. Also, a conclusion was already reached in Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash to not use the altname of "Bcash". The relevant discussion is already being done in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bcash. M4ktub (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia, some of which are case sensitive, which is why we have {{R from other capitalisation}} and {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} redirects - whichever of these tags is correct can be applied to this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that capitalization is important. I was arguing that Google is not a good source for capitalization conventions as you get the same 2M results (< 1M if you also include the word "bitcoin" to exclude the Brazilian service) for any capitalization of "bcash" and 50M for any capitalization of "Bitcoin Cash" (including as a phrase). This capitalization is currently obscure and not of general interest. It feeds the same naming controversy that has generated locks in pages. In short, Wikipedia should document and not help to define the standard. M4ktub (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not looking at the numbers, I'm looking at how the pages found use and capitalise the terms. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a proposed shortening of Bitcoin Cash [3] You can add {{R from incorrect name}} if the proposal's consensus was that it was rejected, but for now there are no other articles or topics that are claiming "BCash". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Give this some time before we think about redirecting to Bitcoin Cash. The AfD deleted "Bcash", which was about another topic. Pinging closing admin Sandstein, whom, I assume could have closed that discussion as redirect if desired. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is mentioned in the target article and doesn't seem to refer to any other topic covered in the encyclopaedia. The article previously at Bcash is a red herring or an irrelevance here: there are good reasons avoid redirects which cause confusion between two or more topics discussed in Wikipedia articles, but taking non-notable phenomena with similar names into account is unreasonably restrictive and not supported by any policy or guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2018 (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.

Samuel P. Bateman[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) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to suspected hoax article, which is only place it occurs. Needs to be redlink to avoid false confirmation... Imaginatorium (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for this person is slim:

Imaginatorium (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment also worth noting the complete lack of relevant GHits for Сэмюэл or Сэмюэль Бэйтман, which is very surprising for an alleged "American-Soviet linguist". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as totally failing WP:V. Thanks to BlackcurrantTea for digging further into that International Journal of Russian Studies paper. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the information off Omniglot, and Samuel P. Bateman was originally redirected to Sovietization, I believe, for the reason that they were also mentioned in their article on Hungarian Cyrillization during the Soviet period. I'm afraid I can't do much about that now tho, as I'm currently blocked. -User:Учхљёная(talk,relevant directory,edits). 02:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC). Preceding comment copied from Учхљёная's talk page [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete Support The bibliography in the International Journal of Russian Studies article is WP:CIRCULAR, citing Wikipedia (ru, en, bg, uk, sr) as a source over 50 times. Omniglot is WP:SELFPUBLISH. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC) re-signing for correction BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned in target, so existence of this redirect must be rather confusing to those who come here from Google. — kashmīrī TALK 12:32, 11 July 2018 (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/2018_July_5&oldid=1138582367"