Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2018.

Development and Liberation[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) 14:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a clear reason why this term is solely associated with the Amal Movement I think the redirect is unnecessary Polyamorph (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or overwrite based on Members of the 2018–22 Lebanese Parliament it appears that "Development and Liberation" is a bloc or coalition in Lebanese politics of which the Amal Movement is the largest constituent by number of MPs, but it also comprises one MP from the Ba'ath Party and two independents. Especially as the current target dos not discuss the bloc at all, it is not a suitable target and we should have an article on the bloc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 25 June 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.

Schütz-Werke-Verzeichnisses[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. Deryck C. 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for Gerda Arendt since they do not know how to do it. The concern in the original speedy deletion nomination was: I don't believe we need a redirect from wrong German. I am not making any comment myself. ~ GB fan 14:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see also GB fan's talk, in short: Schütz-Werke-Verzeichnis is a good redirect, the other is bad German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 24 June 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.

Homer Groening[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 Matt Groening#Early life. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target makes no sense; subject seems non-notable; a plausible target would be Matt Groening#Early life, only if there was more information in the article. � (talk) 12:14, 24 June 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.

Bonus hole[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) 21:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Found conflicting definitions from unreliable places; could not find a reliable source offhand. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The most common use of "bonus hole" does seem to be the vagina, but specifically vaginas of trans men in the context of gay porn - at most this is a dictionary definition though and not one that is mentioned on Wikipedia that I can find. I'm also doubtful that even if we did have content that this would be the primary topic among other definitions (its used frequently in the context of crazy golf as well for example). Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Without context, there really seems to be no reason to keep this. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:54, 27 June 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.

File:Skærmbillede 2018-06-18 kl. 18.06.38.png[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 Deleted by RHaworth per author's request. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to name file before uploading. This redirect is not used in the article 2013 Eberswalde-Finow Zlin crash, which is why the redirect can just as well be deleted. Baerentp (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with the author above that WP:R3 applies here, recent typo. Author requested file Rename. The redirect is meaningless and unlikely to be used. Unnecessary recent Redirect was created by the file move recently by me since I only have File mover rights and not Page mover rights. I have requested WP:RFP/PM rights to avoid such situtations in future. --DBigXray 09:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying - I should have included that info --Baerentp (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the upload was recent, there is no need to retain the former name. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was only at this title for about a day and does not appear to have been used in the article when it was, so incoming links (which are less common for images than articles anyway) are exceedingly unlikely and there are no old versions which would be broken. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 24 June 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.

Angled cross[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. The rough consensus is the current target isn't suitable. Disambiguation may be possible; this is left open to editors. Deryck C. 14:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this synonymous and unambiguous? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget It is a synonym of swasitka, particularly used in German/Germanic or Sanskrit contexts, but not exclusively to the Germanic iron age so Swastika would be a better target than the present one. Is it the best target though? There are loads of uses that are simply sum-of-parts (crosses that happen to be angled) and search results are polluted by angled cross-members, angled cross-streets, angled cross-sections, angled cross-court shots, etc, etc. so they will just confuse anyone actually searching for the specific usage. So in the absence of any other specific uses I think Swastika is the best. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not opposed to a disambiguation if there are other things actually called an angled cross. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate - There's a lot of ambiguity here. To start with, several typographic symbols exist that can be labeled as an "angled cross". See ≠ (the inequality symbol) and † (the italicized obelisk) in particular. There are also a number of things over the page for Christian cross variants that apply, such as the Grapevine cross. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I found exactly one real reference to an "angled cross" in the middle of a slew of false hits, and that one I couldn't see what it was. Probably six different cross patterns spread over at least two articles could be interpreted as "angled" in some sense. I don't see having this redirect just because the notion of angled might fall into someone's head. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to refer to how the ends of the crosses are shaped, like rounded edges or angled edges. [1] [2] Could also refer to angled intersections [3] Or angled cross sections. Or angled crossing shots in association football [4] Definitely not Swastika, although the article mentions a "4-angled cross", that's not the same as angled cross. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC) updated 16:05, 29 June 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.

BBC Technology[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 BBC Design & Engineering#BBC Technology Ltd sell off (2004). Is mentioned, less surprising ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising redirect. Barely mentioned in article (has one mention of the BBC). BBC Technology is also probably better known as the tech side of BBC News, but that's just a personal guess. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment G11 does not apply here as WP:ATD are possible and it might not even be incorrect - [5] indicates further research is required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to BBC Design & Engineering#BBC Technology Ltd sell off (2004). "BBC Technology" was the name of a company wholly owned by the BBC that was sold in 2004 to a Siemens subsidiary, who in turn were purchased by Atos Information Technology Incorporated in 2011. This information, including these links, is in my suggested target. It appears that the "BBC Technology" brand has never been used by Atos so redirecting it there would not be appropriate. "BBC technology" is sometimes used to describe the technology news team at BBC News, but I can't immediately find a mention of them anywhere - if we have one a "redirects here" hatnote at the Design & Engineering article section will be sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 24 June 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.

Presidential Medal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#Presidential Medal

No party preference[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 3#No party preference

Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 1#Twitter redirects recently created by R64Q

Vito Drago[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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#R3 by Anthony Appleyard. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page plus Google apparently does not know any notable person or character with this name. Pichpich (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete taking a closer look the person who created the redirect first created an article for the person playing Ivan Drsgo’s son in Creed II but initially used Vito instead of the actual name Victor and this was quickly corrected by the same user. Unless I am missing something Vito is a one off mistake by a single editor. I think WP:R3 would apply here since I doubt anyone else would get Vito and Victor confused.--76.65.41.59 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above that WP:R3 applies here, recent typo.--DBigXray 10:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it as such and it has been deleted.--76.65.41.59 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 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_June_24&oldid=1138582394"