Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20

November 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2013.

Andorran Navy

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 Andorra#Military. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra is a landlocked mountaneous country with no navigable rivers that doesn't have any navy. This redirect was created to reduce the number of redlinks in a navbox created by {{Europe topic}}. Now we can, however, disable selective countries in the base template, so this misleading redirect is no longer needed. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that it was actually {{European topic}} (note the "an" suffix) that triggered the creation of the redirect. But I have requested that the same functionality of link selection be added to this template too. Anyway, the redirect currently serves no purpose but filling a redlink in a navbox while the target article does not even mention the "navy" topic. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Andorra#Military, where Military of Andorra redirects. This redirect will help anyone under the impression that Andorra has a navy. It doesn't appear to be in a navbox anymore, and I don't think it should. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wouldn't be the only such redirect from a nonexistent navy, by the way. Navy of Afghanistan and Navy of Bhutan are two examples. It might be a good idea to mention at Andorra#Military that the state indeed does not have a navy, reflecting the statements present in the Afghanistan and Bhutan articles. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO such a "naval disclaimer" is superfluous when you've read the article about Andorra where the lede already mentions that the state is landlocked. But I've still added such a sentence to Andorra#Military. Maybe we should then retarget the redirect. De728631 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Landlocked countries can have navies, however, though in that case they're generally limited to lakes and rivers. Bolivia is one such country. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2013 (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.

Horse and Wagon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 27#Horse and Wagon

2013 China Open \xE2\x80\x93 Women's Singles

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 both as WP:CSD R3 by Ben MacDui. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently created, improbable redirect. Probably an anomaly in WP:TOPRED, listing \x code instead of the actual Unicode characters. If the actual Unicode characters could be determined, that redirect might be possible, if objectively probable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (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.

Opera (web browser)m

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. WJBscribe (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently created, improbable redirect. Creator claims it's "probable" because it appears in WP:TOPRED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Each of these got over 1000 views last week. The nominator told me that he conceders redirects where "the reader would see his mistake immediately and correct it" implausible, but my understanding it that we rotenly have (and keep) such redirects. Such redirects are harmless, and why would we force the reader correct his mistake instead of just showing him the article anyway? Bedsides, that assumes that a reader can correct his mistake. First of all people search Wikipedia in many different ways (some software shows WP articles). More impotently someone on a phone keyboard or other difficult-to-use/error-prone input device (or for that matter someone with arthritis) might have trouble correcting the mistake. Typing, let alone typing accurately, with some devices and/or medical conditions can range from being quite tedious (if you're lucky) to being almost impossible or very painful (if you're very unlucky).
Besides, these are unlikely to be typos. Most likely there's a technical problem on the users end, and that technical problem may well prevent a reader from correcting the mistake anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know they are real people. Could be a broken bot or a broken app, in which case supplying the redirects would make it less likely the bot or app would be fixed. "Redirects are cheap", but "m" and "n" redirects for all articles would be expensive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Regardless of the amount of page views these incorrectly spelled titles received, it is difficult for me to believe that several users would misspell these all the same way (with an "m" or an "n" at the end), and I especially cannot believe that several users would type and "m" or "n" directly after a parenthesis bracket, such as "(film)n". I agree with nominator Arthur Rubin: I cannot see these typos being all human error; my bets are that these page views were caused by some sort of misprogrammed bot doing page scans. Honestly, I originally wanted to mark all of these for CSD R2 speedy deletion, but as Emmette Hernandez Coleman stated, they are getting a lot of hits per WP:TOPRED, which essentially makes all of the redirects ineligible for CSD R2 deletion. (However, Christian Chun is eligible for CSD G8 due to being a redirect to a nonexistent target.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as recent and unlikely. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, implausible typos for humans. (The ones ending with double M or double N are more plausible however, e.g. Neon Genesis Evangelionn). Siuenti (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2013 (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.

USBp

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 per WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion G7. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that that is a likely target, even if it were commonly used, as it is claimed that WP:TOPRED claims. The group above suggests USB is as likely a target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (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.

No Vacancy (1999 film)

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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the person who created the redirect thought the film was non-notable and linked to the DAB page so that incoming links would learn the film exists but has no Wikipedia article. That strikes me as an illegitimate use of redirects and DAB pages. (There was at least one incoming link, from Patricia Velásquez, until I removed it just a moment ago.) Cnilep (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, the film does not appear to be notable. I could find only one review of it (quite a negative one) and no other news coverage in LexisNexis. Cnilep (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't redirect to a completely irrelevant page no matter how unnotable the topic is. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym and also as a non-notable film.--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2013 (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/2013_November_20&oldid=1138579155"