Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 5

January 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2017.

÷ Tour

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 until such a time as the speculated tour's announcement. Deryck C. 18:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total WP:CRYSTAL. As far as I can tell, no such tour has been announced yet; most likely, the tour would be for the redirect's target's subject's ÷ (album), but that album hasn't even been released yet (but apparently will be released tomorrow [6 January 2017].) Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL classic item #2: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2018)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. " Re-create after announcement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I only created this because it appeared in the Ed Sheeran template and I figured it had been announced, that I was missing something. Perhaps I Should have done my research. Ss112 23:48, 5 January 2017 (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.

L calculus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#L calculus

Unsourced Titanic passengers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Unsourced ''Titanic'' passengers

3909 04

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#3909 04

WorldEdit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#WorldEdit

SkyWars

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 consensus is that the redirect isn't helpful given the current state of the target article. The RfD banner and talk page notice have served as sufficient notification about the deletion discussion so AfD/ProD aren't strictly necessary. If there are any new concerns or solutions, we can do a WP:REFUND or reopen the case. Deryck C. 17:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SkyWars → Minecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Per third-party search engine results, the subject seems to be about custom servers for Minecraft games not created by Mojang or Microsoft, so this would probably fail WP:NOTWIKIA Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert and send to AfD (or Prod). The content was not speediable and so should be subject to article deletion processes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears to be some sort of mini-game from the Minecraft server-based games: [1] [2] like with "Castle Siege" but such games are not really discussed on the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before being redirected, it had a note stating "[I know this is a stub article, don't delete it. I haven't finished it.]". It's been over a year since then, or else I'd strongly suggest userfying or draftifying this and restoring the content. I'm not sure at this point. Thryduulf, what do you think about that idea? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TheCodingHoodie:, the original author. They haven't edited since September so may not still be around, but they should have the chance to express an opinion if they are. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  I looked on Google, and the topic has made it into Google Books.  I think SkyWars or "Skyblock Warriors" might be valid as a section related to Minecraft, but without anything there now, and without a champion for the topic to build the encylopedia, the redirect is worse than nothing.  The stub that is being saved has no sources, so nothing is lost by deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTBURO. Let's not subject ourselves to pointless bureaucracy when it's obvious that it would not survive a deletion discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (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.

PocketMine

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. 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PocketMine → Minecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. The subject of the redirect seems to be an "unofficial" third-party software update (like a patch) for Minecraft: Pocket Edition, but since it wasn't developed, released or authorized by Mojang itself, the subject of the redirect probably fails WP:NOTWIKIA anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert and send to AfD (or Prod). The content was not speediable and so should be subject to article deletion processes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's unofficial server software so you can create your own Minecraft servers. It isn't mentioned in the article's server section, which only mentions Minecraft Realms. I don't see any major video game magazine articles about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm one of the authors of the software, and it is a separate piece of related software developed by a third-party. I can also see that I'm the one who added the redirect ages ago in the first place. I agree that a redirect to Minecraft is inappropriate because it is misleading. I'm voting for redirect deletion. Michael Yoo (sekjun9878) (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (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.

8/6

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 create new disambiguation page without current target. Deryck C. 17:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. Per precedent of dates at RfD, and WP:XY, this is unsuitable for retargeting as well, since it could equally refer to June 8 and August 6. BDD (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The search results from Google focus heavily on the 0-8-6 steam locomotive wheel arrangement but "8/6" is not a major recognised alternative notation scheme for that (or any other, afaik) design. Other things found are Matthew 8:6 but I don't know of this being a widely used notation for bible verses generally or this one in particular. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Pppery 21:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We've got disambiguation pages for a lot of ambiguous dates. Check out Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers for some examples. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's right. I have seen some of those. That probably makes sense here, then, but I don't think the memo belongs on such a disambiguation page. I'm not even seeing warrant for a See also entry. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted a disambiguation. As disambiguating seems to be the standard for this situation, I see no reason to deviate from that. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (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.

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores

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. 18:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores → Foreign minister  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, no affinity for Spanish, there are several countries that this is applicable to, no use retargeting to any specific one. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is from a foreign language with no primary affinity to the subject. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rubbish Computer. If this were a title used in only one or two countries then I would consider a retarget or disambiguation, but the first page of Google tells me that it's used by Guatemala and just about every Spanish-speaking nation in South America so it's just a generic title and WP:RFOREIGN applies. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and vague. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2017 (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.

All Four Engines Have Failed

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 British Airways Flight 9 (the top of the same article) (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect leads to an anchor in another article, that was added to make this redirect work in the first place. Said anchor is next to a book title in the biography section of the article and has no added value whatsoever. Richard 09:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like any redirect, the value is that it leads the reader more quickly to what information we have on a topic for which they are likely to search. The book may even qualify for an article of its own, Google books gives 253 hits of which only the first few are booksellers or catalogues, the rest constitute significant coverage in sources. But until someone writes an article on the book or perhaps a section in the article on the incident (I now see that the author is unlikely to qualify for an article herself, being notable only for this one book), the redir is better than nothing, and does no harm whatsoever.

The book almost has a cult following, see this booksellers page, and appears to be appreciating in value quite quickly, see Amazon. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever do get an article on the book, I hope we can source the factoid that a first edition, most if not all of which were freebies given away by British Airways, now sells for several hundred dollars US. Remarkable? (Unfortunately my copy, one of the freebies, is unsigned and well worn.) Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to British Airways Flight 9 (i.e. the head of the article). The second paragraph includes the words "resulting in the failure of all four engines." and the exact phrase is mentioned in the "Accident" section. The book is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the "Aftermath" section, but that is as much about the author as the book. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Thryduulf with {{R from book}} and {{R from quote}} tagging. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the creator and so far main defender of the redir, I see absolutely no problem with the proposed retargeting, and removal of the then redundant anchor from the article. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with AngusWOOF's specifics following on Thryduulf.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:11, 7 January 2017 (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.

"japanese arrow bamboo"

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". -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "japanese arrow bamboo" → Pseudosasa japonica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

With the quotation marks and japanese missing its starting-capital, this seems a rather unlikely search term to me. Outside the use of wikilinks--of which there are none, nor are any likely to be created--its use is or will be fully covered by the valid, existing, redirect Japanese arrow bamboo. (That one is currently not showing when searching for the exact string "japanese arrow bamboo" due to the existence of this redirect, but would show if/when it is deleted. Tested this by using the searchbar to search "grape berry moth", which nicely picked up on the existing redirect Grape berry moth in the absence of a version with quotation marks. Google similarly manages quite well. Checked a few other cases the same way, results are consistent: if searching for a string with no-starting-capital and surrounding-set-of-quotes, neither the on-wiki search nor google have any trouble finding the Starting-capital no-quotes redirect when otherwise identical) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I recently argued for the retention of a redirect with quotation marks, but in that case the enclosed phrase was a notbable quotation - meaning it is not a relevant precedent for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quote version. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's rare that people would search using quotation marks, and when they do it's usually a reference to a specific type of title given to something (such as the "From Hell" letter). This doesn't seem useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf's reasoning. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2017 (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.

Airline flights

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airline flights → Airline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY Could equally target Flight, vague as to what a reader may be looking for, WP:R#D 2 confusing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:22, 5 January 2017 (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.

The Airline

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Airline → Airline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reason for this to redirect to the primary topic, there is a specific service [3] with this exact name, but I'm not sure if we have an article on that, and there maybe other topics which share the name, in that case it would be best to target Airline (disambiguation). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The question of what specific organization can be known as "The Airline" is a can of worms, and I'd rather that we just get rid of this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My google search results indicate the primary topic to be the coach services from Oxford to Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham airports but Oxford Bus Company#Brands records this as just "Airline" and anyway I suspect my search results have been geo-influenced. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2017 (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.

Capitalistic democracy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Capitalistic democracy

We reject the president elect

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, anyway, we don't need a redirect from every slogan associated with the protests. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is not at target. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears in a handful of newspapers such as Spokesman.com [4], Napa Valley Register [5], Baltimore Sun [6], and McClatchy DC [7] which only mention it as a one of the protest chants without any analysis into the phrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The slogan itself is vague enough that it can refer to a lot of different situations. Plenty of nations have Presidents, and numerous ones have been associated with heated protests. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is vague, as CoffeeWithMarkets explains. Mihirpmehta (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2017 (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/2017_January_5&oldid=1088107250"