This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 13, 2016.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wascomplicated.Thryduulf's proposal received the most support overall, so I'm going to enact that, even though there were varying degrees of support for it. That being said, I'll allow speedy unbundled renomination for any "type" where there was genuine disagreement. --Tavix(talk)20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These events have already ended and thus -present redirects do not make sense. There are probably many more such redirects that are not listed.Pppery (talk)21:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or retarget as below:
- Support Thyrduulf's proposals above, especially the Afghan ones, which get high numers of daily hits because it's been at that name until last October, and would presumeably break several links coming from other sites. Would support#Series history target because of the additional context for One Life to Live.----Patar knight -chat/contributions17:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepWar in Afghanistan (2001-present)War in Afghanistan (2001-present); with hundreds of article links and hundreds of hits per month, this is still heavily used.
- As for the others,
- This redirect actually have the targets you are wanting to retarget it to, but I got confused about the different types of dash when nominating it.Pppery(talk)18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping track of all the different dashes around here is enough to make you dizzy! I took the liberty of updating the targets above. —Gorthian (talk)03:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This redirect actually has the targets you are wanting to retarget it to, but I got confused about the different types of dash when nominating these articles. In addition, what if the person looking atList of California ballot propositions 2000-presentList of California ballot propositions 2000-present was looking for a ballot proposition in the2010s?Pppery(talk)18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pppery, see my reply to Thryduulf below. —Gorthian (talk)02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- —Gorthian (talk)18:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thryduulf, I was thinking of those article links; they're all in the "See also" sections of articles that are about specific propositions in the 2000s. I don't feel strongly one way or another; retargeting to either one will do. I don't think deleting it would be right. —Gorthian (talk)02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree they shouldn't be deleted, but retargetting to the other one is just as bad as leaving them where they are (particularly when -present covers 3 or more lists, as they eventually will). To find the link in the see also section people have to search to the end of the wrong (long) list first, and not everybody will do that, so I disagree that this is at all helpful in this situation.Thryduulf (talk)08:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I follow your details here, but I get the gist, and I've decided to change "keep" to "retarget" the lists you specified for rail accidents, propositions, and space flight redirects. (Oddly, I missed the space flight one earlier.) I hope my choices are legible for the closing admin, with all the strikeouts! —Gorthian (talk)21:29, 16 July 2016 (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.
New Jersey Turnpike smog accident
[edit]Worldwide Center of Mathematics
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasWiktionary redirect.Deryck C.12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know several people have expressed reservation about deleting{{R from unicode}}s, but what can we do with this? The current target has nothing that would be written this way. Non-deletion options:
- Some stuff atNeko might be written this way, but I hesitate to redirect a character used in multiple languages to a single language target.
- Sometimes single Unicode characters get retargeted to the Unicode block which contains them (in this case,List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 2 of 4)
- Or we could make a terrible disambiguation page with obscureWP:DABMENTIONs likeSinglish vocabulary#N, mainly to have somewhere tohang a{{wiktionary}} link towikt:猫.
- Or we could just{{wiktionary redirect}} it
Opinions?210.6.254.106 (talk)14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. I was looking at "毛澤東" in Mao's infobox and thinking this was the middle character there, but I see that it's not now. --BDD (talk)16:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's no link for other common Chinese characters like不, and it isn't a radical like二. Uses should refer to wiktionary as with the articleZ-variant which has the example for 不 as well as 猫.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inappropriate wiktionary redirect, no point withWP:CJKV either. -Champion (talk) (contribs)(FormerlyTheChampionMan1234)02:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - arguments for deletion are poor. Is this a common query?Carl Fredrik 💌📧13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Wiktionary, which looks to have a veritable mine of information. This gets ~1–2 hits a day, so deleting wouldn't help anyone. At first I thought the nom'ssecond option would be best, until I checked that page; for someone who cannot read Chinese, finding a single character is a chore. When I finally found it, and clicked on the link, poof! I was at theWiktionary page. —Gorthian (talk)17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to wiktionary —JFGtalk23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Gorthian. ----Patar knight -chat/contributions00:14, 13 July 2016 (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 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep.JohnCD (talk)21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why "Hahu" redirects to the Ge'ez script, or specifically a section of it. There seems to be absolutely no connection between the two, other than the fact that "hahu" can be written using two Ge'ez characters, but the same is probably true of many other abugidas and syllabaries.Newbiepedian (talk ·contribs ·X! ·logs)16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. HaHu appears to be one way of referring to this script, after the name of the first two letters - the entire first page of results on a google search for "Hahu" return only entries relevant to the script (and Wikipedia is not one of them). It would be better if this were mentioned in the article though.Thryduulf (talk)17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The above explanation is entirely correct. As the user who made the redirect, this was exactly why I made the page. The term "HaHu" is used similarly to the English "ABCs". --Varavour (talk)17:08, 13 July 2016 (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.
Mar Augustine Kandathil Memorial Lisie Hospital
[edit]Coconut (Paraguayan)
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus, default to keep in the absence of a blaring argument why this might be harmful.Deryck C.11:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? This seems to be an implausible search term. We haveParaguayan coconut, which isn't a very common common name in the first place (351 reported Google hits, many of which are about oil from regular coconuts grown in Paraguay). I wouldn't necessarily object to keeping if somebody can suggest an appropriate redirect categorization template for this (I don't think{{R from common name}} is appropriate).Plantdrew (talk)02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not the most implausible search term I've ever seen, but it's getting at most 5 hits/90 days as far as I can tell which is way below the levels that suggest human interest.Thryduulf (talk)14:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The human interest stands at exactly 3 hits/90 days[1]. Yeah, that's below some intuitive threshold I guess.Uanfala (talk)20:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having learned more about the new page view stats tool, and per the other comments here I'm changing my vote. I'm not convinced of it's plausibility, but it is getting human interest that suggests it is useful.Thryduulf (talk)12:16, 21 July 2016 (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.
