Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 8, 2018.

Sarah Healy[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target. There is a Phil Healy, and he has a sister, but apparently his sister's name is Joan. Onel5969 TT me 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

just a correction "Sarah Healy" is mentioned at target. In women's 1500m. Also here's a source Bogger (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. Doesn't quite meet WP:NTRACK yet for long-distance runners, need to see if she wins at #4 first "Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships." or #7 "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body" . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirecting to European Athletics U18 Championships is a ridiculous suggestion unless that's the only event they have ever and will ever compete in. A reader is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be okay as well, as it's WP:TOOSOON to give her a dedicated article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 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.

Zoom floof[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. Cute and floofy though they may be, consensus seems to indicate that Wikipedia is WP:NOTREDDIT ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Can't find anything in the target that would indicate this was a valid redirect (although it is a lengthy article and I might have missed it, the fact that it isn't linked to a particular section is an issue). Searches on the internet revealed nothing. Onel5969 TT me 20:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this today, I'll add the other https://www.reddit.com/r/aww/comments/8x0d09/speedy_floofs/ Deku-shrub (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now added the other redirects to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. My first thought that these would be related to a meme I saw a few months back that renamed animals based on "cutesy" descriptions of their appearance, however there are no sources to back this up so I must be remembering (not that this would likely make them good search terms even if my memory wasn't faulty). Google suggests though that "floof" is used as an informal term to describe fluffy animals, mainly domestic dogs. Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely search terms for Cheetah. This is joke material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as above WP:NOTNEO. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all These redirects are pretty hilarious, but the Wikipedia mainspace is not a place for jokes. 344197661X (talk) 21:57, 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.

Village Law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 24#Village Law

Coordinated market economy[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) 13:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like an appropriate redirect; I believe this should exist as a substantive article. A quick Google Ngrams search demonstrates that the term "coordinated market economy" was certainly in use prior to the book's 2001 publication, whereas this redirect implies that the term/concept was an innovation on part of Hall and Soskice. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 10:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I agree with the nominator that this could plausibly be an article in its own right and that it's not ideal to seem to attribute the idea to Hall and Soskice. But the current target does provide a fairly substantial discussion of the concept and I can't see the sense in not directing the reader to that discussion. (I'm sure you're aware of this, Newbiepedian, but there's no requirement that the redirect be deleted before it is turned into an article in its own right.) This doesn't seem like a case where WP:RDEL's tenth point applies: the term could plausibly be an article in its own right, but the requirement that "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" isn't met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 8 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.

Al Youm El Sabea[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 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this term in target article: no evidence that it is a useful redirect. It may be a translation of something on the page, but this isn't made clear. PamD 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. @PamD: Yes it is a transliteration of اليوم السابع‎ in the lead sentence: اليوم al youm = day, السابع el (or al) sabea = seventh. (And so the other redirects to this page Al Youm Al Sabea and AlYoum AlSabaa make sense too). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. A reasonable variant spelling of the formal romanisation (which would be something like al-yawm al-sābiʿ). An {{Infobox Arabic term}} can be added at the target to hold the romanisation, if someone verifies I actually got all my diacritics and whatnot right. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:00, 10 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.

Yanela Brooks[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 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nonsensical redirect from a person to an event The Banner talk 21:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The person is mentioned several times in the target, and no other articles mention anyone else by the same name. There's no obvious harm or confusion caused by keeping this, so no reason to delete it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. There are two other articles that mention her, but each only once and only in the context of her being a contestant on the first season of La Voz - i.e. the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 9 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.

CanonAEDE[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 without objection. I'll note that the use AngusWOOF pointed out was a link in the see also, which I am removing. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Googles finds nothing for this title in one word. I suspect the intention was to redirect "Canon AEDE" in two words. This does get some Google hits in Spanish but even the Spanish Wikipedia article es:AEDE does not contain the word "Canon". Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:45, 8 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.

Town Law[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 Local ordinance and add a hatnote directing to town privileges. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated as part of a trainwreck batch nomination (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 2#Redirects to Consolidated Laws of New York), there is no primary topic for this term. I propose to retarget to Town privileges, which functions as a combination general article and set index that will help people using it find what they are looking for (far better than search results would). If this is retargetted as I propose, I will add the current target to the see also section and a redirects here hatnote to Local ordinance, and create the lower case Town law pointing to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the previous discussion: @Steel1943, Bd2412, and BDD: Thryduulf (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Doesn't this seem like something that, without context, people would think of in terms of local ordinances first? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • When they write the term, people seem to mean various different things called "Town Law" (German Town Law, the New York law, etc) mentioned at Town privileges, which is why I suggested targetting it there. I think Local ordinance is something some people could mean, but not most, which is why I think it will work best as a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Local ordinance, which seems like the best place for an overall discussion of such a topic. Choosing either the New York or medieval European topic feels like playing favorites. I assume they're still geo-biased, but on the first page of Google results for "town law" -wikipedia, I'm mostly seeing New York, with one result from Wisconsin and one spurious result for South Africa ("Cape Town law"). --BDD (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Town privileges or Local ordinance?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect → Local ordinance per BDD . It is more likely to lead readers to articles that cover the topics for which they are looking. --Bejnar (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that most people are looking for local ordinance when they search for this term, based on google results, and while that is also true of Town privileges I see the latter as offering better navigation to relevant articles - particularly if the hatnote is added. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not see any consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Local ordinance My instinct is that Local ordinance is a better target along the same lines as BDD: it's a more broadly-encompassing topic, and probably more useful for folks (honestly, though, they probably want their own town's laws). A hatnote to Town privileges would be warranted, though, I'd think. I'll note, though, that City laws (not City law) goes to Town privileges, but that seems like something much more likely to point Local ordinance. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 18 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.

North Korean languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 15#North Korean languages

South Korean languages[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 15#South Korean languages

Korolivka, Zalishchyky Raion[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. There is a real existing Zalishchyky Raion The Banner talk 09:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK as there appears to be a Korolivka in Zalishchyky Raion (uk:Королівка (Заліщицький район)). Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Zalishchyky Raion as an {{R with possibilities}} (and remove the then-circular link on that page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally, there would be nothing wrong with this, but it comes across as condescending to readers. A reader searching "Korolivka, Zalishchyky Raion" is almost certainly familiar with Zalishchyky Raion itself, and would search under that name if he or she were seeking information on the raion. Such a redirect would confirm "Yes, there is a Korolivka in Zalishchyky Raion", so that's not nothing, but it's very unlikely to be helpful, IMO. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That logic can be applied to all "X, Y" geographic redirects to "Y". As unlikely as it may be to be helpful to readers searching for "Korolivka, Zalishchyky Raion", it is even less likely to be a hindrance, and is certainly helpful to any reader not searching for "Korolivka, Zalishchyky Raion" but instead clicking on a blue wikilink to Korolivka, Zalishchyky Raion[1] instead of a redlink to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "That logic can be applied to all 'X, Y' geographic redirects to 'Y'". I don't disagree. But I'd be fine with such a redirect if there's relevant information in the article for the higher jurisdiction, beyond just an implicit indication that it exists. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BDD, I don't see the Raion as being a useful target for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across the link on Template:Zalishchyky Raion. That makes linking to the Raion even more strange. The Banner talk 13:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, geographic templates that list divisions of a place often include such redirects with possibilities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK and BDD. A redlink would indicate that we want an article on this location, and redirecting to the Raion is not a good idea since the target does not offer any discussion on the given place. Note: I've added a variant. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 10 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.

South Korea/Language[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 Demographics of South Korea#Languages. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate subpage. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Demographics of South Korea#Languages (where Languages of South Korea redirects) and tag as {{R with old history}}. This redirect dates from 2001 and so was likely the original location of content and will almost certainly have incomming links. However Korean isn't the only language of South Korea (although it is by far the most significant) so we should retarget this to the content we have about languages in the country. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if there are incoming external links, otherwise, delete – per WP:Subpages.    — The Transhumanist   20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not possible to know for certain if there are incomming links to a redirect from anywhere other than current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. This is why we should assume that there are, especially for redirects of this age. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Thryduulf, definitely don't delete, this is ancient. I'm fine with the proposed retarget, but it's a small section that just encourages folks to head to the current target, so I'd just as soon keep pointed to it where it's been for 16 years. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:53, 15 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.

JOAY[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) 00:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in target to indicate this is a valid redirect. Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the two mentions in the article that this is the callsign of their digital TV chnnel. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:49, 15 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.

JOAI[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) 00:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on target to indicate this is a valid redirect. Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the top of the infobox and other mentions that this is the callsign. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:48, 15 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.

Tnn 29[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there are many stations listed on the target page, none are channel 29. Onel5969 TT me 03:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless the brand is notable for using that channel number in their advertising, this is fairly meaningless. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 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.

JOAF-DTV[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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the target page to indicate this is a valid redirect. Onel5969 TT me 03:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article notes that this is the callsign of the digital TV channel. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - completely missed that - was looking down in the infobox. Can someone close this as Keep? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 8 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.

User:MarioProtIV/sandbox/Late September 2016 tropical wave[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. Consensus is to keep draft->mainspace redirects, absent good reason ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More than one tropical wave in late September 2016, see this, also this name is unlikely to be used B dash (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a user subpage and so there is no reason to delete it unless the user concerned wants it deleted - it's completely harmless. Potential ambiguity and obscurity of titles are completely irrelevant to user subpage redirects in almost all cases, and I can't seen any reason why this would be an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 8 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.

Draft:Late September 2016 tropical wave[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. Consensus is to keep draft->mainspace redirects, absent good reason ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More than one tropical wave in late September 2016, see this, also this name is unlikely to be used B dash (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no reason to delete a redirect from draft space to article space for any of the reasons in the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 8 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.

Draft:Invest 97L (September 2016)[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. Consensus is to keep draft->mainspace redirects, absent good reason ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seldom use the invest number of the storm in the article, an unusable redirect B dash (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no reason to delete a redirect from draft space to article space for any of the reasons in the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 8 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_8&oldid=1036305665"