Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 21

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. Another thought: it could refer to both the winter of 1978-79 or 1979-80. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1979 British winter → Winter of Discontent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term for this topic. PamD 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Worded this way, it makes me think of the actual weather going on in the U.K. back then, which apparently was unusually bad by historical standards. I don't think that the redirect is really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:40, 27 February 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.

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. Unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Warren Graham → Life Is Strange  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a key character in the video game as he is not even mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 14 February 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.

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) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ronaldo's → Ronaldo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects not needed for possessives for names if they are not a notable business. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. None of the topics listed on the disambiguation page are businesses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ivanvector. Seems a no brainer.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 22 February 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.

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) 16:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Falcon 9 Flight 6 upper stage → CASSIOPE  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Falcon 9 Flight 7 upper stage → SES-8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Falcon 9 Flight 8 upper stage → Thaicom 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Falcon 9 Flight 11 upper stage → AsiaSat 8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Falcon 9 Flight 12 upper stage → AsiaSat 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redundant with Falcon 9 flight 6, Falcon 9 flight 7, Falcon 9 flight 8, Falcon 9 flight 11 and Falcon 9 flight 12. Upper stages of rockets are not notable by themselves, and the simple "flight n" redirects are enough for search purposes. Some of these redirects were apparently created to populate a dubious category Category:Former derelict satellites that orbited Earth. I have nominated the category for deletion as well. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Upper stages aren't really derelict satellites. flight 6 already redirects there, and flight 6 article has only one line about the upper stage being left. Hardly anything to WP:COATRACK AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete ALL; rather, individually delete as appropriate -- it would seem to me that any artificial satellite orbiting Earth—often but not always called a "payload"—is worthy of a Wikipedia redirect. If the second stage deorbits in the first day or two after launch (a common design approach), then it need not ever have a redirect. But if a second stage remains in orbit for months or years, as a large number of rockets launched by government militaries and other gvmt agencies have, especially in the decades of the 1970s-1990s, then it is perfectly appropriate to have the redirect. These second stages, launched by a private company, IF left in orbit long-term, ARE notable precisely because they are space debris, and a long-term negative externality not addressed by the company that launched the debris up to space.

If the second stage eventually falls out of orbit and renters Earth's atmosphere, then it is arguable whether the redirect ought to stay, but that should be handled on a case by case basis; not as a group deletion of redirects. N2e (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I understand the point you're making, from an astronautics enthusiast's point of view (as we both are), but I do not see any WP:RS asserting individual notability of any of these objects. — JFG ^talk 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is sourced information about a long-term derelict object in space, as there was in the case of each of these redirects at the time the redirect was created, and if that information exists and is sourced in prose in an article, then it is okay that a redirect to that information exist. An entire new article on any of these would require comportment with WP:GNG. A simple WP:REDIRECT to the paragraph or section where it is discussed, does not need a notability guideline examination. If we are to be the encyclopedia of human knowledge, than a redirect that helps readers see which boosters have been left derelict in orbit by their launch-humans is perfectly appropriate.

I continue to think that, at best, the individual redirects might be reconsidered, if say, an object has deorbited. I don't believe nixing the entire category is good for our readers. N2e (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category is already gone… — JFG ^talk 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of 'em. Stages aren't satellites, and as noted, these are redundant at best. I like Elon as much as the next spacenerd, but I just don't think users are going to be searching for specific stages of specific flight numbers of a specific rocket. Moreover, if they do, who would be happy with some comms satellite? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:49, 3 March 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.

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Video Joker → VJ (media personality)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not present in target article: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 14:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term seems to have been added, but I suggest Retarget to Cinema of Uganda or Who Killed Captain Alex, the latter is a film that popularized the "Video Joker" idea [1] [2] This is akin to audience participation in Rocky Horror Picture Show or Mystery Science Theater 3000 but done by an emcee or host. It's not really related to VJ as in music video jockey. It can also spin off to its own article, but I think Cinema of Uganda can cover it as that seems to be a stub article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have redirected page to Cinema of Uganda, thanks for the suggestion for redirecting. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw, now that the redirect points to an article which mentions the term (and I've bolded the target of the redirect there for clarity). Thanks, @AngusWOOF: for adding the term there. PamD 21:59, 22 February 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.

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. Erring on the side of caution, see also wikispecies:Satyrium acadica ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strymon muskoka → Strymon acadica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please delete. This name was published as an aberration of Strymon acadica (see the record upon which the name of this redirect was essentially based and the paper in which the name was published (p. 450)). A name of an aberration is not an available name (see ICZN art. 45.5 and 45.6.2). Strymon muskoka can thus never be an "alternative scientific name" because it is not a name in the sense of the ICZN. The combination Strymon muskoka was never used as a name in the rank of species; the only redirect that would have made sense is Strymon acadica ab. muskoka. Strymon muskoka is an erroneous interpretation of a database: a combination of muskoka in Strymon but not available and not in the rank of species. Wikipedia should not contribute in the propagation of this error, and this erroneous redirect, suggesting this is an available name, should be deleted.  Wikiklaas  14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this is a nomen erratum? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

What I am saying is: this name was listed in a database (LepIndex) as a combination in Strymon, but not as a combination at specific rank. However, someone who copied the data to another database or someone who used the data to create a redirect in Wikipedia, took it for a name at specific rank. That's an error that should be removed from the encyclopedie. This combination at specific rank does not exist. It is not even a nomen, whatever epithet you may want to add to it.  Wikiklaas  23:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misinterpretation of LepIndex entry led to a string that exists nowhere in the literature. There was a similar problem with some of the redirects discussed here at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_3#Breeds_of_horse?. Strymon acadica acadica ab. muskoka exists in the literature. Strymon muskoka does not. Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 23 February 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.

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. Erring on the side of caution, see also wikispecies:Satyrium acadica ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strymon swetti → Strymon acadica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please delete. This name was published as an aberration of Strymon acadica (see the record upon which the name of this redirect was essentially based and the paper in which the name was published (p. 450)). A name of an aberration is not an available name (see ICZN art. 45.5 and 45.6.2). Strymon swetti can thus never be an "alternative scientific name" because it is not a name in the sense of the ICZN. The combination Strymon swetti was never used as a name in the rank of species; the only redirect that would have made sense is Strymon acadica ab. swetti. Strymon swetti is an erroneous interpretation of a database: a combination of swetti in Strymon but not available and not in the rank of species. Wikipedia should not contribute in the propagation of this error, and this erroneous redirect, suggesting this is an available name, should be deleted.  Wikiklaas  14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misinterpretation of LepIndex entry led to a string that exists nowhere in the literature. There was a similar problem with some of the redirects discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_3#Breeds_of_horse?. Strymon acadica souhegan ab. swetti exists in the literature. Strymon swetti does not. Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 23 February 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.

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) 16:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DecentralizedAutonomousOrganizations → Decentralized autonomous organization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no obvious risk of confusion here and no harm done to the encylopaedia by keeping this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This redirect was created a couple of months ago, so it's not a {{R from CamelCase}} that needs to be kept for historical reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We should discourage these creations, but existing ones are pretty harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete. This doesn't appear to be attested as a twitter hashtag or as a prominent domain name (a google search reveals a small number of results consisting almost entirely of either wikipedia mirrors or gibberish). It's not a plausible typo either. Generally, the tiniest potential benefit of a redirect is enough of a reason to keep, but in the absence of any benefit at all, the default option is "delete" (see WP:COSTLY). – Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This is what the search is for. R3 eligible at the time, IMO. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree that it is an implausible search term and thus should be deleted Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:16, 4 March 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.

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 as withdrawn AustralianRupert (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Machine gun nest → Defensive fighting position  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither the phrase nor the word "nest" appears anywhere in the target article, so a reader looking for a definition of the phrase is left none the wiser. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems like an example of WP:SOFIXIT given that the term is incredibly common in literature about war. A search of Google shows many, many books that use this term to describe defensive fortifications with a machine gun._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and carpet bomb the target article. SpinningSpark 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep Incredibly common term. Should either be standalone or in defensive position.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The consensus is clear, so I've added a mention of the term to the terminology section of the article, sourced to the OED, and I'm happy to withdraw this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:15, 22 February 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.