Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 13, 2020.

"Hurrican" Redirects[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually need redirects, of which all mispell the word "Hurricane", that include "Hurrican"? "Hurrican" was deleted in 2015, so those redirects seem to be implausible. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vicinio.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 20#Vicinio.com

Bootstrapping (corporate finance)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 20#Bootstrapping (corporate finance)

NFT Ventures[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, NFT Ventures, is from a name that is nowhere mentioned in the target article. It is also almost unused, having been used 10 times in calendar 2019 (less than once a month). NFT appears in Ray Noorda in passing as Noorda Family Trust, but not in the phrase NFT Ventures. There is now a draft Draft:NFT Ventures for an unrelated enterprise. Regardless of whether that draft is accepted, this redirect seems to be a mistake. If the draft is accepted, NFT can be made into a disambiguation page, but NFT Ventures has nothing to do with Ray Noorda. This redirect should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not a mistake at all but deliberately created to redirect the legal name (NFT Ventures Inc.) to a related article discussing it (there could be more about it, though). There is no requirement for redirects to be exactly mentioned in the target article per WP:REDIR/WP:RPURPOSE.
NFT Ventures is historically important as the starting point for the Canopy Group, which in turn spawned a large number of high-tech companies, probably most important among them Caldera, a highly influential operating system developer who brought forward one of the first business-oriented Linux distributions (OpenLinux) and significantly advanced DR-DOS/OpenDOS (originally of Digital Research and Novell fame) and the web browser DR-WebSpyder. Also, Caldera, backed up by Canopy Group and Noorda, successfully fought an antitrust case against Microsoft (Caldera vs. Microsoft). On the con side, one branch of the company (Caldera International) later bought the Santa Cruz Operation, renamed themselves into SCO Group and initiated (and fortunately lost) a number of very questionable court cases against various open source stakeholders, thereby causing a significant stir-up in the industry.
All this wouldn't have happened without Noorda and NFT, so for historical completeness it is important that we cover NFT.
If (but only if) there will be another article using the same name, we need to change NFT Ventures into a disambiguation page, but nothing should be deleted.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless an explanation is given in the article. @Matthiaspaul:'s explanation is all very well at RfD, but this is another case where a redirect to an article that doesn't mention the term is actually confusing (to, for example, the nominator), particularly if that term is potentially ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, can you elaborate, please? I'm willing to add more to the article if that satisfies you (although this is not a requirement for redirects to exists), but in contrast to what could be read from your comment the article does already discuss the Noorda Family Trust (NFT) and gives an overview of some of the resulting history. It does not use the exact term "NFT Ventures", but this is only a minor variation of "NFT" and "Noorda Family Trust", and per WP:RPURPOSE #1 "Alternative names", #3 "Closely related words" and #8 "Alternate forms of a name", it is neither necessary nor desirable to mention all exact terms in an article which redirect there. So, everything is fine, and for as long as we don't need to disambiguate the term with another unrelated NFT Venture (the declined draft, which is unlikely to be accepted as it has no substance), everything is set up as it should and as is standard practise for redirects. Deletion is unnecessary and would be highly counter-productive.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "NFT Ventures" is now explicitly mentioned in the article as well. I hope this settles the case. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:FOX[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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fox News. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to where WP:FOXNEWS points to, because the link to the RfC is already included in the table, so having this link point to the RfC omits crucial information that is only provided in that table and WP:RSPS. By retargeting it to the link I am suggesting, we can solve this problem. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having high page views, all of the views may be looking for WP:FOXNEWS. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Garage days revisited[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 20#Garage days revisited

Daniel Sachs[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 Proventus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that Daniel Sachs is a character in the comic, but the current article Demonology 101 does not contain the name anywhere. This case is not mentioned at WP:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes either way. I suppose it is conceivable that somebody will come looking for the comic strip via the name, but it seems unlikely to me, and confusing to somebody who is looking for a different Daniel Sachs (which is what caused me to look at it: see the history). ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, is Daniel a major character in the comic? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, AngusWOOF: I've never seen it. As I say, he is not currently mentioned in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Target article at the time this was first redirected says yes, FWIW. —Cryptic 18:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, this could be brought back if mentioned in a major characters list. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Proventus where there's a Daniel Sachs as a CEO. If Demonology 101 does have Sachs as a major character, and it is mentioned in the article, then it can be a disambiguation or a hatnote. But the CEO seems to be more notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Daniel Sachs" was formerly an article on the character, but was blanked and redirected in 2007. Would it make sense to move the page to "Daniel Sachs (Demonology 101)" and add a major character list? The disambiguation would be consistent with similar redirects John Simon (Demonology 101), Lethe (Demonology 101) and Eli (Demonology 101). Currently Cleveland Heights High School and User:Pdfpdf/List of Rhodes Scholars/USA-N incorrectly link to the Daniel Sachs redirect. TSventon (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Cleveland Heights High School, doesn't pertain to either Daniel Sachs (Demonology or Proventus). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rodolfo B. Albano, Jr.[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  procedurally closed—I agree with User:Howard the Duck's analysis and am not sure why I originally thought this redirect appropriate. Anyway, I as redirect creator requested speedy deletion per criterion G7 so community doesn't need to waste time discussing obviously erroneous redirects. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is the subject's son (I think). The subject isn't discussed much in the article, if at all. Better leave this red. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Near future in video gaming[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very awkward title, and suggests a discussion of a subtopic of Near future in fiction (which however does not discuss video games). This is a misleading title appearing in the search results when anyone types "near future", and should just be put out of its misery; it is very unlikely anyone would want to reach the currently targeted list through such a query. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny, since you created Near future in fiction recently, would you consider using that article to eventually cover video games? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny In theory, the topic does belong there, but in practice, I haven't seen any sources for this. And while many games, of course, deal with this, I want to avoid recreating the pre-AfD state of the article which had unreferenced, ORish lists of what some people thought should belong there. I have no objection to recreating the redirect if such a section is added (and it is based onr reliable sources). I will also added that a google search for "Near future in video gaming" -wiki confirms that this phrase is used only on Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Tragedie of Ivlivs Cæs'ar[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible apostrophe. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the apostrophe come from the smudge here? – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looks like a plausible OCR error, which readers could conceivably copy and paste. With no other reasonable targets, I see no need to delete. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given that this redirect mates matches perfectly (assuming the dot is an apostrophe) the example given by Uanfala, making it a plausible and unambiguous search term. A7V2 (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you zoom in on the dot you'll see it's not part of the text. It looks like an OCR error. – Uanfala (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? It is "part of the text" in the sense that it is on the page, and may well be a misprint in whatever edition that photo is of, making it plausible that someone would search for one reason or another ([3] this redirect does see a small amount of use). If there's no reason to delete, then it should be kept. A7V2 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dot appears blurrier than the surrounding text (including the full stop at the end). The most likely explanation is that it's out of focus, and therefore outside the plane of the page. That's why I assume it's an OCR error a scanning artefact. Of course, it's not impossible that it's a blot of ink on the page, but then the fact that it's diffused into the paper in a different way to the ink of the text suggests it is not a result of the printing. – Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does now ;). Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

iPhone (9th generation)[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 iOS and iPadOS devices#iPhone. Formally no consensus between delete and retarget, defaulting to retarget per WP:NCRET signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other nomination, potentially ambiguous with iPhone SE (1st generation), but nominating separately as they were released at different times, unlike the others. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: We don't need a dab or hatnotes everywhere for each WP:X or Y case out there, and though slightly different I stand by the !vote below. Article content should be able to describe what generation something is. -2pou (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of iOS and iPadOS devices#iPhone per Feminist in the #iPhone (Xth generation) discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see this generation being different than the others. -- Tavix (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why, per the comments in the discussion below, retargetting to the page with the information someone using this plausible search term is looking for is most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per my rationale in the Xth generation discussion below. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the list per Wug and other. MB 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

iPhone (Xth generation)[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 iOS and iPadOS devices#iPhone. Formally no consensus between delete and retarget, defaulting to retarget per WP:NCRET signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous with iPhone X, iPhone XS and iPhone 11 Pro (and possibly iPhone SE (2nd generation)). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not that useful anymore for products, unless you're talking about Pokemon or Japanese idol groups. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: We don't need a dab or hatnotes everywhere for each WP:X or Y case out there. Article content should be able to describe what generation something is. -2pou (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of iOS and iPadOS devices#iPhone, which concisely lists out the iPhone devices in each generation. feminist (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of iOS and iPadOS devices#iPhone per Fenminist. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, these redirects would imply a single phone, but that's not true since there have been multiple iPhones per generation over the last few generations. Since these are not plausible search terms, these can safely be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think these are not plausible search terms? Why do you think that these imply only a single phone and not someone looking for information about the generation? Even if someone is using it to look for a single phone, they will find what they are looking for at the target far quicker and easier than via search results (which may or may not contain what they are looking for and may be several clicks away). Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPhone 9 Delete since it can cause confusion. – 333-blue at 11:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @333-blue: what confusion would retargetting cause and/or not solve? Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: from what I know, literally no one is using the term "nth generation of iPhone". Even more so, does iPhone (9th generation) equal to iPhone 9? No, because iPhone 9 is iPhone SE. – 333-blue at 11:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the people using this redirect obviously do use it, and your latter point is why I explicitly asked about retargetting not keeping as is. Would you like to answer that question? Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per feminist and Thryduulf. To the extent that these are ambiguous, the list of iPhones will get readers where they want to go faster than search results. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the list per Wug and other. MB 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dilys Price (disambiguation)[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 per WP:CSD#G14 Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2020_October_13&oldid=984728841"